The Blog

The Blogs Beat the Bigs Again

How often does this happen?

11:18 PM, Feb 9, 2005 • By HUGH HEWITT
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

"CHRIS MATTHEWS looked at you like you were Grover Norquist," a very senior Democratic operative commented on my appearance at Matthews' weekend show. During the segment where Matthews asks his panel to tell them something he doesn't know, I predicted a breakout this week into mainstream media of the controversy surrounding Eason Jordan's statements about the U.S. military "targeting" journalists in Iraq made at Davos on January 27. My friend meant to convey that Matthews thought I shared with Grover a "not to be trusted," hostile disposition towards big media. In fact, all I had was a habit of reading the blogs.

Matthews hadn't heard of the Eason Jordan story, which meant he hadn't been reading the blogs the previous three days, as they had been debating the Jordan charges since Tuesday, February 1. Jim Geraghty was the first of the big bloggers to point to Rony Abovitz's account of the Jordan remarks, posted from Davos on January 28. I broadcast the same day on the subject, and there have probably been a thousand blog posts on the matter in the week and a half since. The folks paying attention are spread out across the political spectrum, from Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, and Mickey Kaus on the left to all the usual suspects on the right, where Michelle Malkin and LaShawn Barber merit special recognition for pushing the story forward.

But on Friday, when we taped the Matthews show, Chris didn't know anything about it, and apparently neither did Howard Fineman, nor Katrina Vanden Heuvel, nor Sam Donaldson. But the story was still somewhat young.

On Monday, I was part of a panel put together by Campaigns & Elections Magazine on blogging's impact on campaigns. The panel before us had been moderated by CNN's Judy Woodruff. One of my co-panelists, Jon Lauck of South Dakota Politics, asked Woodruff in the hallway outside of the meeting room what she thought of the story. "When I talked with Woodruff, she did seem simply stunned that Jordan could have said something like he did." Her reaction is similar to most of the reactions of those present at Davos, but again, the striking thing is she hadn't heard of the story. Of course, Woodruff works for CNN.

I hadn't considered the possibility that big names in journalism simply wouldn't be reading the blogs. For one thing, the blogs are interesting--whether left, right, or center. More to the point, they are news engines, carrying advance word of brewing stories. By Wednesday, February 9, Eason Jordan's slander on the military was the subject of a Fox News Roundtable on Special Report with Brit Hume, and had birthed its own blog, Easongate. Anyone admitting to not being up on the story by the following Monday was admitting to a lassitude about the news that calls into question both their work habits and news judgment.

Because of a big stonewall from the Davos bureaucrats, the videotape of the Jordan remarks has not been released. To a certain extent it doesn't matter, as Jordan has already been branded a nut because of remarks he made to a different gathering of media types in the fall of 2004. As quoted in The Guardian on November 19, he remarked: "Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by U.S. forces."

What does matter is whether mainstream media "journalists" continue to wall themselves off from the new media information flows. Increasingly, the blogs are ahead of the old news cycle, and not just because they aren't slaves to ideological bias. They are simply more nimble, and more quick to the market with interesting facts.