November 01, 2004

• I'm not adding to his hit count by clicking on the link.
• A ho hum. Being only moderately aware of who Novak is, and caring slightly less, I still feel the need to register my astonishment at this. Not merely the wilful ignoring of reality ("obscure story"?) and complete absence of logic or definition ("weapons of mass destruction"?), but the staggering levels of paranoia and monomaniac loyalty necessary for one to describe the International Atomic Energy Agency as an "essentially anti-Bush organization". La la la. Is it Wednesday yet? Who won?
• Novak is far less relevant than ever, and the reason is not because Novak is a douchebag, but because opinion in general is less relevant. Used to be, the newspaper was the primary medium for news and commentary in depth (TV dealt, as it always will, in pictures and soundbites; magazines are for a more leisurely immersion into more delineated subjects). When TV news came, everyone thought that it would kill newspapers, but it didn't because the two media are inherently different and deliver information in two different (and, by and large, noncompeting) manners. The Web, however, is like newspapers primarily text-based and, unlike newspapers, overwhelmingly egalitarian - where the newspaper editor and/or columnist was an elite, given access and privilege through his or her capacity as representative of the Fourth Estate, on the web every person's opinion holds equal weight, the only modifier being credibility. And so, as the web has grown, the circulations, credibility and influence of newspapers has suffered. Now, most newspapers have suffered declining circs and revenues that have beggared their budgets and further contributed to an eroding of their credibility, making them ripe for acqusition by large media corps that *further* erode their credibility (let the vicious circle begin!) while at the same time the quality of news and comment on the web has seen huge advances. Say what you will about Drudge, he ushered in a new era of news by breaking the Lewinsky story, where everyone else blew it. Anyway, to come back around - when Novak, on one side, is beset by literally millions of competitors in the realm of opinion and commentary, while on another suffers self-inflicted credibility injuries a 'la Plame, I would say yes, his relevance - like the relevance of every pundit and old-media opiner - is one the wane.
• opinion in general is less relevant On the contrary, my opinions are growing ever more like a mustachioed bumblebee so that EVERYONE lives on the moon.
• AUM.
• ON THE MOON GODDAMIT!
• This Novak is always relevant.
• Nicely argued Fes. However, Newspaper Opinion still has the overwhelming majority of the influence, connections, and credibility. And they're likely to maintain these advantages as a side effect of being paid money to do basic reporting. Credibility will remain strong because those that break the news are granted a halo of trust that extends to the editorial page. They're likely to maintain the connections for the same reason: such things are built up over years of reporting the news. And they're likely to keep the influence advantage because the basic news is just a few page flips away for the masses, for the chattering class of TV news and talk radio, and for the filtermensch of the blog world. Unless New Media starts doing the masses of basic reportage that form the backbone of Old Media, it will always have these critical disadvantages. Drudge is an anomaly. The profit motive isn't there for a movement. So, Novak has a staggeringly powerful ability to disseminate whatever memes he crafts or comes across. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that the Plame issue did much damage to his conservative readership, and only increased (rather then created) the loathing of his liberal readership. Relevant? Frighteningly so. (As for the op-ed, it's just the "Anybody But Bush" meme with some topical fluff thrown in to fill inches)
• Fes, catachresis: I think you're both right. Fes, I think we who get much of our news/commentary from Web sources are more likely to come down in your camp on this, but that doesn't mean the bulk of folks still don't look to the newspapers as their political oracles.
• I contacted several Democrats who have criticized Kerry privately to me in the past. They shrugged off Kerry's obsession with the explosives. Does he really expect us to believe that any Democrat would speak to him in confidence? After blowing that CIA agent's cover?
• Next question: Is Novak a revenant?