Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Breaking news, bloggers!
Last night, the House of Representatives barely defeated an attempt to exempt all Internet communication from campaign finance regulations, “dealing at least a temporary defeat to a bill that would allow unfettered political advertising — and unlimited spending — in the vast frontier of cyberspace,” according to the Boston Globe. The vote of 225 to 182 was not enough to send the “Online Freedom of Speech Act” to the Senate.
What does this mean? Well, since a majority of Democrats voted against the bill, some conservative blogs are taking that as a sign that Democrats hate both free speech and the Internet — despite the fact that Democratic Senator Harry Reid was a sponsor of the Senate version of the bill. As Brandon Jaynes writes, “It’s no surprise that Democrats want to curb bloggers’ Freedom of Speech. Although there are many liberal blogs out there, the supermajority are conservative. Besides, the Internet is part of the ‘new media,’ and one of the major reasons the Democrats are hemorrhaging power. Curbing a person’s Freedom of Speech is one variable in the political equation the Democrats can hope to eliminate.”
Captain Ed, as usual, takes a more measured approach, noting, “Of the 225 supporting votes, only 46 came from Democrats. Of the 182 opposing the measure, only 40 came from Republicans.
“I don’t want to unnecessarily turn this free speech issue into a partisan battle, as this fight has united the blogosphere across the political spectrum, and I want to see that dynamic continue … However, when one sees the roll call vote, the partisan split on free speech appears rather obvious.”
The Knight Shift spreads the blame around equally, lamenting how blogs now fall under the “wretched, EVIL” McCain-Feingold bill. President Bush got burned on that one, TKS says, “telling us ‘Oh but it’ll SURELY get overturned by the Supreme Court, trust me!’ Instead, the justices upheld McCain-Feingold. And now it’s hanging over the one venue of ideas that until now has remained free and clear of government regulation: the blogosphere … Well, to hell with the courts. To hell with McCain-Feingold. To hell with Congress. To hell with Bush. I’m almost tempted to say ‘to hell with anyone who actually voted for these clowns,’ too.”
In other news, New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks has a new column today (yes, it’s behind the TimesSelect wall, but we bet — and we’re not advocating anything here — that you can find it if you get a little creative with your Technorati searches). Basically, Brooks mocks Senator Harry Reid for his determination to find out why pre-war WMD intelligence was so flawed, while trotting out quotes from Clinton administration officials talking up the threat Saddam posed in the 1990s. This would have been a great column three years ago — but as he does so often, Brooks seems to just have phoned this one in. (Among other things, he fails to acknowledge that weapons inspectors in Iraq just before the war were coming up empty handed, as well.)
Siva Viadhyanathan, frustrated by Brooks’ “nearly unreadable” column, isn’t having it, and gives it back with a heavy dose of sarcasm: “Fair point, since if we were misled, why did we find all those WMDs? And if the intelligence had been cherry-picked, why was it absolutely spot-on in suggesting that the U.S. troops would be welcomed in the streets? The Trouble With Harry (which, come to think of it, would have been a much better title than the one Brooks provides, The Harry da Reid Code) is that things have gone so well in Iraq that it’s very hard to fault anything that Cheney’s office might have done in the run-up to the war.”
Eternal Hope, riffing on the tired device Brooks uses throughout his piece (“Harry Reid sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m”), writes, “David Brooks sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m. trying to take us all back to the 1990’s, so we can bash Clinton again … If Brooks wants to sit alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m. trying to figure out the latest way to put Clinton on trial, so be it. The rest of us deal in reality and facts.”
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
