1. Tuesday, October 19, 2004

    answers to questions 

    from emails and comments.

    1. why do you hate the instapundit?

    i like glenn, i have said that many times on this blog. i have met him, i have emailed him, i read his blog several times a day.

    i have also criticized him several times just this month, and last month, and even way back in may.

    so all those people in the comments who are today saying that they’ve read me for a long time and are now never going to read me again, you lie. what i wrote yesterday was nothing new.

    and you’ll be back.

    2. what right do you have to tell other bloggers what to do?

    i dont think im *telling* anyone what to do, any more than glenn or any critic of john kerry *tells* the dems what to do. but as a fellow blogger it’s not only my right to criticize anything, but particularily things on the blogosphere and bloggers themselves. infact i might ask you, who better to question the way someone blogs than another blogger?

    and who better than someone who has read the blog in question for years?

    and who better to know what the most prolific blogger ever has left out than one of the most prolific readers, and fans, of his blog?

    3. you are only on glenn’s ass because he’s a republican.

    you can either choose to believe me or not believe me, but i couldnt care less about instapundit’s politics.

    i like blonde girls and redheads, all i ask is that theyre really blonde or really redhead, and they really are girls. and if theyre not really those things that they tell me that theyre really not those things. in any relationship i dont think its unusual to ask for a certain amount of disclosure and truth.

    i ask the same from the blogs that i read: be real, tell the truth, play fair.

    4. you act as if there are rules to blogging. glenn can do anything he wants, its his blog!

    instapundit knows as well as anyone that there are definately some unspoken rules to blogging. as he said yesterday regarding george soros’s blog, it’s not cool to delete things, for example.

    when most of us add to blog posts, as another example, its generally a rule to not an addition with an “Update:”

    likewise, i think it’s not cool to be a blog that has 99% pro-bush commentary and links and not identify yourself as a bush-backer or … omg… a republican.

    5. anyone who reads instapundit.com for a day can clearly see that glenn is a republican, why are you trying to out him? that’s like making castro admit that he’s a commie. what gives?

    you’d think that would be the case, but even after all this bruhaha for some reason, the professor, the world greatest and most popular blogger, refuses to call himself a republican. why is he ashamed to align himself with the grand old party, when he clearly supports them and derives a majority of his hits from blogs that are unabashedly conservative is beyond me.

    maybe he feels uncomfortable publicly aligning himself with the party of rush, fox news, matt drudge, pat robertson, and george bush. but his links and posts say otherwise.

    6. why are you now upset that he says he is not partisan? will you never be satisfied? the blogfather acknoweledged your petty complaints, isnt that good enough? why must you continue to beat a dead horse?

    true, in his update he denies being partisan.

    what then would you call a blog who has 150 links to pro-bush articles and blogs for ever one minor disagreement with the adminstration over secondary topics that few are debating about?

    par·ti·san (pärt-zn)

    n.

    A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

    adj.

    Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause

    is thirty posts a day fervent? and he himself today said that he was biased, so what part of these definitions is prof. reynolds not partisan?

    and, by the way, there is nothing wrong with being partisan. i love james carvelle and bill clinton. i love pat buchannan and john mccain. theyre all partisan, and they not only admit it, but are also secure in claiming their allegence to their party. theyre not ashamed.

    im a partisan tsar fan. you will never read a negative review of my favorite band. my metafilter username is tsarfan. i have had their cd cover on the top of my blog ever since ive had this blog. why would i be ashamed to call myself a tsarist?

    but for some reason glenn doesnt want to admit to the world that hes a republican or partisan. and thats cool. he has his reasons.

    but that doesnt mean that i cant invite him to have a better blog. just like theres nothing stopping any of you from doing the same for any blogger.

    7. you’re only doing this for hits. you’re jealous of his hits. you’re only trying to cause controversy where there is none.

    as someone else said in the comments, it’s blogger-sucide to take on the instapundit. how do you tell a guy like glenn, who, if he takes it the wrong way, will never link to you again, and you will miss out on that blessed instalanche? or those steady streams of instalanches, if you play your cards right.

    but since ive gotten over a million page views a year in each of the last two years with no instalanches, and since im more than satisfied with my readership (which is far more popular and respected than most personal blogs that only dabble in politics and is mostly about LA, girls, and fiction), i might be the only blog who could question glenn without fear of being shut out from his attention/links.

    8. why are you suddenly coming out against the instapundit?

    as i said above, this isnt new. i’ve had my issues with glenn’s style for a while.

    in fact, all of this started because i asked jeff jarvis in his comments why he was harshing on jon stewart for hiding behind his “dont attack me, i’m doing a comedy show” when he has never harshed on instapundit for hiding behind his “dont attack me, im not a news service, i dont have to say bush fucked up if i dont want to.”

    if you dont want bloggers to check and balance each other, who do you want to do it? the fucktwits who write for newspapers?

    when ken layne said that we can fact check your ass, didnt he mean everyones ass?

    and i think we can all agree that our asses are better for this practice.

    i dont think its wrong to wish aloud for a better instapundit.com, in my opinion theres nowhere else that i want to get my republican point of view from. and yes, i do want to hear that point of view.

    i want to read it from intelligent people who arent just feeding me propaganda bullshit, and if possible, i would like to know how they really feel about it, and not predictable throwaway bs line like whoops guess kerry flip flopped again tee hee.

    because of that i dont read kos or lgf or any of those others regularily, because just like in diving matches, you have to throw out the highest and lowest scores.

    i dont want to throw out the instapundit because he didnt always only give 10’s to bush and didnt always only give 0’s to the dems.

    9. admit it, youre jealous of his hits.

    trust me, i am not jealous of his hits. not at all. good for him. hot shot political blogs with thirty posts a day should get a zillion hits a day, because at that rate, hate to say it, it is a news service of sorts. not to knock his fabulous life or writing skillz but i dont think people are going to his blog hourly for all those great pics of the ut campus.

    theyre there for the politics, and they should be. half of whats going on in the political world is halfway covered.

    1/4 of all you need to know you can find at one spot.

    for free.

    maybe thats all im looking for, a disclaimer that says

    1/4 of whats happening in politics: the good news of the republican party.

    if he doesnt want to put that disclaimer in there, fine. then just be better.

    as a reader and a fellow blogger i can ask for a better product. similiarily he can chose to refuse to bring one.

    10. I once made the mistake of putting my real e-mail address into a comments thread on a blog. I didn’t even post any thing incindiary (it was an arts and music blog for goodness sake), and that e-mail wound up on so many spam lists thanks to the bots that I had to discontinue using it. So, no thanks, I’ll decline.

    as many of my readers know, i am particularily suspicious of anonymous negative commentors. i understand the fear of spam but i think its a lame excuse. nothing is stopping you from having a spam account on hotmail or yahoo or even gmail (heck i will even send you an invite if you want one.)

    make your email address your real name like TonyPierce@gmail.com – if that account gets slammed with spam, who cares. what youre doing is identifying yourself with your comments.

    this whole debate about the instapunidt is about integrity, believablity, and credibility.

    the irorny of anonymous commentors who are obviously educated hiding behind the excuse of spam during a debate about credibility is laughable.

    for the record i comment all over the web using several email addresses and i get some amount of spam, but not anything unmanageable, mostly because i leave my email address like this: busblog(at)gmail.com

    it fools most of the bots you are concerned about.

    11. The ENTIRE point of blogs is being the boss and controlling content. Instapundit isn’t under any obligations to anybody, neither are you. Glenn is up front about his point of view, and he articulates what many people believe. He also shares information/commentary that I find a great deal more credible than any of the large newspapers.

    credibility is what this is all about. personally i have a hard time finding someone credibile who Only covers the negative side of one party and Only covers the positive side of the other. glenn wasnt always that way. if you think that his coverage is more credible than “any of the large newspapers” thats your opinion, but its a curious one.

    and for the record, it wasnt until yesterday that glenn was up front about his point of view, and it was only after months of me posting about it on this blog, in emails to him, and in the comments section of a third blog. it is simply not true that he has been up front about his point of view, in fact he still refuses to be upfront about several aspects of his point of view.

    12. I find it odd that you’d attack instapundit for being a Bush buttboy yet you leave poor “screw ’em” KOS alone. Aren’t his traffic numbers similarly high and isn’t he even more of a partisan than Glenn Reynolds? I think he is.

    you guys on the right have sure taken ownership of that buttboy word, havent you?

    i leave poor kos alone because i dont read him regularily. i have nothing personal against kos, but in a way i find his site unnecessary to me. i dont need the daily kos to tell me the faults of the president. all i have to do is listen to the things mr. bush says.

    if i want intelligent bush bashing i need to look no further than metafilter, who not only bash wonderfully but provide links, self-criticism and opposing views (though not nearly enough, im sure even they will admit).

    i agree with you that kos and glenn have equal amount of hits. but i would disagree with your assertion that one is *more* partisan than the other. in my opinion one is more comfortable with his partisanship than the other.

    13. Ye gods, such hatred… Quite honestly, one of the reasons I am turned off by the left in general is that I see a lot of this hatred throughout it these days. My friends, especially (I’m from Chicago). Hatred hasn’t really helped anything, ever, just made people angry at each other.

    You can disagree with technique and not hate. For the last time, I don’t hate Glenn Reynolds. He has done a lot for the blogosphere. When he is interviewed on tv on national shows he represents blogging in a professional respectable way.

    My fear is if anyone went to his site after one of his appearances they might get the wrong impression that all bloggers are so blatantly one-sided while pretending to be partisan – and thus the credibilty of blogging/bloggers vanish.

    But personally as a reader I would like for him to either be more fair in his posts or more clear in his bias. One can ask for these things without hating.

    As the kids say, i have nothing but love for the blogfather, which is why i am willing to take the criticism that i have taken to get my point across to my favorite blogger.

    next to raymi

    and flagrant. :)

    14. The constant sniping at Instapundit is pretty boring by this point. I think we all know how you feel and I don’t think you have anything new to say about him that you haven’t already said 20 times before. Unlike some of the other haters in these comments, I’m going to keep reading you no matter what because I’m fascinated by your passion and unique writing style. But the constant attacks on Glenn don’t seem to serve any purpose besides your own catharsis. I don’t think he or his readers give a shit what you think, and I’m pretty sure most of your readers are past the point of giving a shit about your opinions of IP.

    but alas it did serve a purpose. before yesterday glenn hasn’t come right out and professed his bias. nor has he claimed to be non-partisan.

    im sorry if you are bored with my criticisms but i think ive mixed it up with a variety of topics over the months that ive been critical of the instapundit.

    i think the comments here, over at the buzzmachine, and the actions of glenn prove that they do care about what i am saying. they might not all be in total agreement, but even jeff jarvis himself today said that he believes that bloggers should be honest to their readers:

    I think that blogs should admit their bias; they should set the example for transparency. Even though it was quite evident that Glenn was voting for Bush, it’s good he said so today.

    so i gave him a link to the honest bloggers quiz, perhaps he will take it.