This is really weird.  If you read the recommended diary entry on the NO elections, the one thing you take away is that Louisiana politics is really, realy complicated.  And its a mid-sized state, and New Orleans was declining in population even before the hurricane.

There is aboslutely no reason for the DNC to get involved in this; the stakes are too small and there is too much potential of something backfiring.  Likewise, what does Drudge have to gain by running this story?  He's not like Limbaugh, he has to maintain some credibility as a journalist.  What's next, a Drudge article on how Dean convinced Sharpe James to stand aside for Cory Booker in Newark?  Because that is pretty much as sexy as this strange New Orleans politics article is.

Drudge is race baiting as per usual. But that's not anything new. Drudge is a propaganda outlet for the RNC. Why expect anything different?

drudge is also relying on gossip probably circulated at the conservative blogs.  if you read the elections blog at www.nola.com, you will notice that the republicans who invaded and dominated that thread circulated again and again the rumor that dean and the dnc supported mitch.  i believe they made this assumption, as dean and the dnc did hold a convention in nola after the open primary.  but dean was not campaigning.  in fact, he was dressed head to toe in hazard protection gear gutting homes when he was not at the convention.  and mitch landrieu and nagin were both at the convention.  

drudge's sources must be the conservative blogs, for i was surprised so many "new orleanians" on the nola elections blog thought dean contributed to landrieu.  

the louisiana secretary of state keeps a record of all campaign contributions, and they were at one time available at www.nola.com.  the dnc never appears.  period.

both campaigns were local, and they were sometimes statewide.  no national parties but the republican party were involved in this race.  and they through their support behind nagin, or at least they did on the blogs and on the ground in new orleans.  but those endorsements came from individuals, not the national party.

Jerome,

I think that you are correct when you suggest that different levels and standards of scrutiny are applied to conservative media as opposed to progressives and progressive media, or to any type of democratic or even independent media.

I think that this is critical, and that large information gaps that undermine the robustness of the democratic process in America will continue, unless and until this is corrected. We saw it in 2004 with respect to John Kerry, as noted below, and we are seeing it even now, with respect to the NSA suveillance issue, for exampe.  

In this piece -- where I hope you get the opportunity to consider and expand upon those sections you agree with (I don't know where it differs from your book, since, as I suggested the other night, I haven't read it yet for the reasons expressed )-- I suggest that:
 

A Democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information. By the very definition of mainstream. (I think this is what is missed, with some thinking that the Internet explosion somehow substitutes for this, as opposd to slowly becoming a secondary part of it. Mainstream = where a majority of Americans predominantly get their foundation of news.) This is also where the focus needs to be.

No question that reporting by national news media has been horrible on this and many other subjects. Quoting opposing sides is much easier than doing the work of determining which side is telling the truth, but it has become the default coverage mode.

Howard Kurtz, so called national media expert on CNN, in his 2004 series for the Washington Post dissecting the "truthfulness" of both campaign's respective political ads, serves as a particularly egregious example given his authority as a renowned expert.  His analyses, in order to maintain the appearance of "non partisansip," were sometimes horrendous.

A classic example of what you suggest would also be the Drudge report.  His site is wildly popular, and often cited as an authority. But if rigorous standards were applied to his logic -- and democrats were sucessful in making THAT the story (something that they, unlike republicans, have not been successful at), there would be a different perspective, to say the least.

I made this case with respect to media bias -- specifically kowtowing to the right,  using the Iraq WMD question and the Iraq resolution vote of Senator Kerry and the coverage of this in the election of 2004 as a leading example -- to the Washington Post's Dana Milbank (who never responded, but I'm sure he understood the point -- he just needs to hear it from enough others) and Ombudsman Deborah Howell, here.

I suggest very strongly that others need to make it, as well.  As asserted in the link above:

One reason that the mainstream media has become so kowtowed, is that for over a decade, right wing conservatives -- who often confused facts with bias against their belief -- have orchestrated (and continue to orchestrate) a highly effective, organized, and very publicy and brilliantly marketed campaign against it.

This does not go away, or get appropriately balanced out, solely by writing about it on the Internet.  The case has to be effectively made, in the mainstream, to a majority of America, and, repeatedly but factually and politely (and as non subjectively as possible) to the media itself, by a wide range of voices and organizations.  

Jerome,

I think Chris Bowers is correct regarding his general point, since I just happened to notice he wrote the above piece...

Sullivan posted a link to this chunk of trash with the subject line "More Dean Brilliance" on his blog, The Daily Dish.

Couldn't figure out how to leave TalkBack so emailed him instead.

.................

Andrew:

Please I'm eating -

How can you take anything that Drudge says seriously -

He's simply another one of the viaducts that the Republican Party use to lie about the Democrats.  He creates the news and others pick it up and run with it!  Certainly he's not the Cloaca Maxima of the Republican Party, that honor belongs to Fox, but he's part of the headwaters and acts as one of its most dependable tributaries.

If you want to attack Dean please find a better source.  Drudge is really beneath you.

Be well,

..................

Please note - he does read his email, he's written me back before, so writing him isn't a waste of time.

Hell, I hope Dean was pulling strings on behalf of Landrieu. It seems to me that the LA GOP threw in with Nagin shortly after the primary.

Indeed, stories like Drudge asserts demonstrate the desperate measures the GOP is going to, to divide, divide, divide any opposition to their relentless assault on the civilized world.

They have nothing to appeal with, so they can only attack, trying to make their sordid brand of corruption sound like the status quo.

It won't work. And the national media needs to be told it won't work.

With thousands of public officials in this country, it's inevitable that a tiny percentage on both sides will be corrupted by power and money. But, if they total up the tally sheets over the past quarter century, any journalist or any citizen will see how far out-of-kilter the successful prosecutions of Republicans has been.  That's not based on rumor and spin and Drudge-drool. It's substantiated by an irrefutable historic record.

Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) gave Landrieu $250, according to her 1stQ FEC report.

The liberal/left blogosphere wasn't so effectively self-policing back when they eagerly awaited multiple indictments as a nice gift for Fitzmas.  Irrational exuberence, perhaps?

(Well, not "irrational", exactly, since rational thinking would lead us to very much want Fitzgerald's investigation to gut the Bush administration and perhaps bring it down; however, a little more skeptical thinking might have helped wrangle the expectations down to a more realistic level.)

Telling the truth online, can be fixed as well. Remember that story about the font difference for the letter that was supposed to be given as evidence in a sixty minutes / CBS news story about the president's wormy tenure in the national guard?

The first blogger to report it was here in Atlanta. He was called up by the attorney that had started the work in the monica lewinsky / impeachment case against bill clinton.

The blogs picked up that story almost simultaneously - in fact, the blogs were telephoned by 'friends' who immediately picked up the story and ran with it.  There were prefabricated emails that were sent around chain letter style.

The "pajama clad bloggers" that ultimately 'toppled' Dan Rather, were telling the truth. But the document, its sourcing to CBS - played an eerie role. It was almost as if, the document were there as a red herring in the first place. It never mattered whether the document had a typo or not, it was still a piece of true reporting - Bush skipped out of his service to the country. The focus of the piece was a factual admission by the former texas speaker of the house, who said he rigged the draft to get George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard and out of duty for vietnam.

As much as telling lies online sells advertising, in this case, telling the truth online was meant to sell more. That single incident put the conservative blogosphere far ahead of the liberal

Better still was the radio support.

I think one thing that the independents have going for them this year is Air America radio. That station rocks.

It is my observation, at this point, that the so called 'liberal' blogosphere is really just tilted towards factual reporting right now.

If the democrats embrace real reform, we can institutionalize it. Neither party is supporting the bloggers. Feingold is about all we have, in america, that approaches statesman.

Yes, he is Catholic, and, yes, they do shit in the woods.

Anyone who thinks that Drudge can plausibly be chastised for bias or incompetence has gone wayward on an epic scale.

(No journo or editor - or anyone who's telling you anything - should, failing corroboration, be trusted further than you can throw them. That's not Politics 101 - that's Life 101.)

Nagin won because of the cross over white vote and the fact they bussed in voters that were displaced. Let's remember he only won by around 5400 votes. I think if I were a New Orleans resident I wouldnt want someone coming in from Baton Rouge, who did absolutely nothing to help the city during or after Katrina, telling me he can make my city better. Nagin, as much of a pariah as he is, has the experience now to try and deal with the problems of the city. The man isnt perfect, but I think Id rather him still be there.

if for no other reason then we know the right-wing and the established news media are extremely eager to pounce on our mistakes to try and discredit us

The popular left sites share one thing in common. They try to be accurate.  Posts are full of links, so that the reader can assess context of a quotation.  Corrections show up in comments and are made by the blogger.  Among the reasons that these are the most popular sites is their desire for accuracy.

The popular right blogs (and news orgs) are not interested in accuracy.  They're interested in cant. IIt's not a coincidence that Limbaugh's listeners are called "dittoheads." They hear the story,they repeat the story, and when they find out it's not true, they repeat it nonetheless. Among the reasons these are the popular sites is their readerships disinterest in accuracy.

There's no situational ethics issue involved here. If the left of center people reading blogs wanted screaming, extreme cant, then that's what would be getting the pageviews.

A small matter... I'm no fan of Sen. Nelson, but it could be that it wasn't just because of his conservative voting record. In fact, it could have been because Moon's son happened to be the sister of Moon's daughter, who happens to be a Senate colleague of the aforementioned Nelson.It don't make Nelson a hero, but it also don't make him a jerk.