Scalps
by Chris Bowers, Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:20:50 AM EST
The answer, I think, is that the role of the blogosphere is being dramatically overhyped. Here's why. Within any institution, there are a number of possible coalitions that could be organized against its leader(s) depending on what issues are relevant. The problem their opponents face is that, even if the leaders are unpopular, there is no easy way to coordinate on an angle of attack when the system is in equilibrium. But when a leader trips up and a blog-fueled media frenzy ensues, it shocks the system out of equilibrium and provides what Thomas Schelling, one of the giants of game theory, called a "focal point" that opponents can coordinate around to construct a new majority coalition. So when a leader goes down, the underlying cause is the coalition of forces pushing them out, which in most cases is only partly driven by whatever provoked the blogs in the first place.
The evidence suggests that this has been the case for almost all of the prominent "blog scalps," which capitalized on pre-existing discontent or vulnerability to push someone out of an institution where they were forced to answer to a constituency. Think of Howell Raines at the New York Times or Jordan at CNN. A similar process is going on right now at Harvard (though blogs have played a relatively minor role there) -- deeply rooted faculty opposition to Larry Summers' leadership has coalesced in an attack on his comments about female underrepresentation in math and science. If he goes down, will his comments have been the cause? Only in a very shallow sense. Or consider the flip side of this phenomenon. Many other public figures who've been targeted by blogs (Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Brit Hume, etc.) have ridden out the storm because they either don't answer to a constituency or have institutionally secure positions.
I completely agree with this, and would go even further. Not only are the role of bloggers in taking scalps over-hyped, if all blogs were doing was collecting a series of scalps or notches on our clubs, then really we would be doing jack squat. Taking out a few individuals does basically nothing to alter the institutions that produce the national political discourse. While pundits are understandably obsessed with this aspect of the blogosphere, since it seemingly poses a direct threat to other pundits and thus generates headlines, the real influence of the blogosphere lies in its role as a counter-institutional formation to the Republican Noise Machine and the Political Opinion Complex. The lefty political blogosphere serves not as a mechanism to discredit right wing pundits one by one (although that might be the purpose of the right-wing blogosphere). Instead, it functions as an alternative, independent and community-oriented outlet for the dissemination and distribution of political discourse. Further, it relocates the purpose of political opinion discourse not in mass-consumption and profit, but in agitation and coordination of direct political agitation. This isn't as sexy to write about, but it is the real reason for the rising importance of blogs. You can read more of my theories on this subject here and here.Tags: Blogosphere (all tags)










9 Comments