Jeff Jarvis, “rightblogger”?
Reading through this list at the Village Voice’s Runnin’ Scared, The Top 10 Rightblogger Stories of 2008, this little item came up as a surprise:
BuzzMachine’s Jeff Jarvis discovered a media conspiracy against Clinton.
Particularly surprising since Runnin’ Scared starts by saying
#5: Rightwing Hillary Love. As her star started to fade, Hillary Clinton won the applause of rightbloggers theretofore committed to her destruction.
I’ve been reading Jeff’s blog nearly every day for years and never once would have surmised from his writing that Jeff is/has been “committed to [Hillary's] destruction,” particularly when you read Jeff’s post in its entirety (for some reason Runnin’ Scared’s links to the comments section instead of the main section of the post):
What does the Times have against Hillary?
I was amazed that on today’s New York Times front page, I couldn’t find a mention of Hillary Clinton’s victory in Florida — not even a reefer (jargon for a promo box), not a by-the-way paragraph inserted into the Republican story, not a news peg added into a story about 527 groups advertising on behalf of Obama (a positive story for him, nonetheless, since they say he’s working hard to repudiate them while they say Clinton is not). It’s the same story online: other than a line in the chart of results, there’s a mention of Clinton’s win only below the fold (that is, the first screen), in smaller type, under the label “more politics.”
I went to the Times Square newstand to look at the Washington Post. Clinton’s victory is right at the top of the page aside McCain’s. I would call that proper news judgment.
Yes, it’s true that Clinton officially won no delegates because the Democratic Party is punishing Florida. But that, itself, is a story: There’s a huge turnout in Florida for votes that supposedly don’t count. Where’s the outrage about disenfranchising these voters; it’s an undemocratic, unDemocratic, unconstitutional, and — considering Florida’s importance in November — just plain politically dumb move by the party. But the Times relegated the story to the bottom of page A16.
If I were a communications student, I’d be doing an analysis of the Times’ coverage of Clinton. There is a pattern here.
(Disclosure: I’ve said before and will repeat that I’m planning to vote for Clinton on SuperTuesday.) [emphasis added]
Runnin’ Scared and grasping at straws too fast to read what they link to.