Slashdot Mirror
The Web as Political Weapon
cultrhetor writes "John Harris of the Washington Post has noticed that the three largest recent political controversies have stemmed from work done by digital inhabitants. In the article, New Media a Weapon in the New World of Politics, he notes the connections between the recent scandals involving Mark Foley, George Allen, and Bill Clinton were representative of the new, web-driven age of American politics." From the article: "Each originally percolated in the world of new media — Web sites and news outlets that did not exist a generation ago — before charging into the traditional world of newspapers and television networks. In each case, the accusations quickly pivoted into a debate about the motivations and alleged biases of the accusers. Cumulatively, the stories highlight a new brand of politics in which nearly any revelation in the news becomes a weapon or shield in the daily partisan wars, and the aim of candidates and their operatives is not so much to win an argument as to brand opponents as fundamentally unfit."
This is the problem with most folks in Washington DC. I read this article this morning and thought "well, yeah....". For those of us that have been using the Internet since (or in close proximity to) it's DARPA days, the fact that the Internet is being used for political purposes is not surprising or new for that matter.
What is new I believe is that we now have a critical mass or a critical number of participants present on the Internet. I hate to say it, because I loathe the term, but what John Harris (author of the Washington Post article) has discovered is "Internet 2.0", or the evolution and delivery of many of the promises that the Internet originally offered. And, like any tool, those that have been around for a while knew that the Internet can and will be used as both tools for good and as a weapon for selfish, self-aggrandizing acts, subversion and propaganda.
It was only a matter of time...
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Sorry, I fail to see how Clinton's reaction to that Fox question constitutes a scandal. There was a REAL Clinton scandal once, but trying to shoehorn this in as anything more than a brief display of anger is pretty ridiculous.
Limbaugh runs a radio show. A RADIO show. People might want to look up "Tokyo Rose" from 60 years ago.
The "change" isn't to a "new media".
The real change is that the existing media (newspapers, TV and radio) have abandoned most of the investigative reporting.
Now they just sit back and report on the "story" that website X is getting a lot of hits from a posting about a video clip about some politician you've never heard of.
The "old media" is "reporting" on what the current buzz is. That's all.
The web has turned into the biggest gossip spreading rumor mill in history... Oprah would be proud.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Yep, it's that balance thing again. You see, if someone points out that all the recent scandals pertain to Republicans, someone's bound to come out complaining about 'bashing' and how the Dems seem to get a free ride from the 'Liberal' media.
No need to consider the real reasons why all the scandals these days are Republican scandals. I mean, no one really wants to admit that when one party takes advantage of the other's incompetence and timidity and runs roughshod over it in the elections, that party tends to pretty much do as it likes in office. And it gets away with bloody murder unless the opposition and the media finally grow a pair and start asking questions, which they don't. Years pass and the incumbents have started taking their privileged place at the trough for granted, which make them lazy and careless. This carelessness leads to some really stupid scandals, which finally tip the balance and let the other party take its place at the trough and complete the cycle.
Nobody wants to talk about that, because if the citizens of a nation were to come to believe this, they'd probably have to revolt. And nobody wants that, the citizens included.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Well, you're an anonymous coward, so I can't call you a gullible idiot to your face, but you are.
He did refute the facts. He blew up at the interviewer after the interviewer pestered him for a few minutes. It was almost as if the interviewer *wanted* him to fly off the handle. Hell, the interviewer would hardly let him get a word in edgewise.
And for your information: according to Richard Clarke (Clinton's "Terrorist Czar") and other members of the Clinton cabinet, Clinton had set up a substantial, feasible anti-terrorist plan specifically targeted to al Queda. That was one of the first things that the new President Bush dismantled, not long before he sent $42,000,000 to the Taliban. Clinton did *not* allow the nation to be attacked. If anyone did, it would be Bush, having ignored a fairly specific document titled something along the lines of, "Al Queda determined to attack on US soil," which circulated a few weeks before the attacks.
As far as Foley sending messages that were in poor taste, those messages could be used to prosecute him for sexual misconduct if he weren't in a position of power; the fact they were directed to 15 year-old boys kind of indicates he likes 'em young.
Draw your own conclusions.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
To the contrary. Bill Clinton did miss several opportunities and was "weak" on terrorism in the same way that Bush 1, Regan, and, need it even be said, Carter were.
Terrorism wasn't real for the US until the Towers came down, plain and simple.
I don't like Clinton (and hate to give his supporters any rational defense) but the fact of the matter is that had he killed Osama, we can expect that we would have had the usual reaction of the fanatical faction of the Muslims. So although it may have prevented the Towers, that or any similar action by the terrorists would have been laid squarely at his feet ad nauseum. Furthermore, such a strike might have lost him the "lets give peace a chance" crowd who don't want to believe there is any threat even after the Towers.
Ultimately, there was no political will on either side of the aisle to remove the terrorist threat. (I am not sure there really is now, but I digress...) At risk of sounding like a New Ager, the collective consciousness of the Islamic threat (calm down I only mean those who would do the West harm, not every Muslim) just wasn't there. It would have been political suicide for him to have removed the Osama threat, so he didn't.
God, I feel sullied.
Clinton wasn't weak on terror. Clinton's government actually prevented at least one 9/11 attack from happening on American soil, the attack on LAX on New Year's Eve, 1999.
Clinton didn't leave Bush a nation "unprepared" for an inevitable attack. Bush's first actions on taking over were to dismantle Clinton's anti-terror operation. That's well documented.
Why are you lying?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.