Silently Forward
October 29, 2007
I hope most of us on the left are pleased to see what appears to be an awakening of Montanan right-wing blogging. I found it strange how the left seemed to dominate the conversation over the tubes, but these last couple of months seem to have told a different tale. I hope many of us are cheering on this development. For my part, I find that the discussion around here has gotten much more invigorating. The great echo-chamber that was the Montana blogosphere was beginning to take its toll on me.
But now, I’m confused. First was the Indy’s piece on Matt and Forward Montana, which painted a pretty picture. This served as the impetus for a bit of a tizzy on the right side of the blogosphere… which is escalating into a full-blown frenzy. The writing has been good, the emotions hot, and though the overstatements seem to run rampant, it’s hard not to come out of reading all of their posts without a nasty feeling at the pit of your stomach.
First, there was this. Then this. Now this and this. On the left?…
*crickets*
Why? I’m certainly not saying that silence indicates guilt of any wrongdoing. Of course, my tendency is to side with Matt. But, having no knowledge of the specifics of Forward Montana, it’s nigh impossible for me to defend him. So why won’t he defend himself?
My first thought was that it must be a David Sirota-esque “your puny blogs are nothing when compared with my might and popularity!!” But having read Matt’s stuff for a while now, I’ve never gotten that feel from him. I stopped reading Sirota immediately after seeing how he deals with detractors. Matt is rarely condescending, and he has responded to critics in the past with thoughtfullness.
So what can the silence mean? My bet is that it’s more along the lines of a “responding to your critics gives their criticisms that much more credence” mentality. Basically, the idea here is that these criticisms have so little ground in reality and are so emotion-based that it’s worth little to respond to them. If this is the case, it makes a little bit more sense.
Then again, maybe Matt just hasn’t had any time to respond to them. If that is the case, I hope something’s coming.
My advice? The silence can appear damning to your detractors, and can confuse the hell out of your supporters. Tell these guys how it really is, Matt! Their posts are making the rounds, and everyone is reading them. You can’t ignore it forever.
October 29, 2007 at 9:06 am
Steve,
Agreed that the new diversity in the blogosphere is good. I would venture a guess that Matt could feel their is some conflict of interest between blogging Matt and FM Matt? I don’t see it, but maybe.
October 29, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well, the rightie posts are pretty outrageous. There are a ton of factual mistakes, and a gross misunderstanding of what Forward Montana actually does. Carol’s posts especially are at about the same level as 9/11 conspiracy theories — they’re really not at all worth responding to, IMHO.
Still, what’s this uneasy feeling in the “pit of your stomach”? That Matt’s actively rounding up a bunch of sheeplike young people and bringing them to the polls to vote for Democrats? Seriously, what allegations in any of those posts do you really think are true? And why do they even bother you?
October 29, 2007 at 10:39 am
There is a real conundrum here. Does Matt rebuke them or does he keep silent? If he does the former, it could be played that all the claims have credibility and he is just spinning. Ignoring them would most certainly has led to some ’see, we were right’ high fiving.
October 29, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Oh no Shane, we feel your pain…..hit me down low!
October 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I don’t want to see Matt rebuke them. I want to see him rebut them. He already said on Montana Headlines that there were many factual errors in the original piece. It’s hard to believe he wouldn’t at least point those out. The silence looks very bad to me.
October 29, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Steve, I put it to you that one of the reasons that there has been little response until today is that Carol put her post up late on Thursday. There has been more activity on the Montana blogotubes today then there was in the entirety of the time since then … and that includes the weekend gotcha-gasm on the part of the right.
I would also submit that the response is muted because it’s unclear exactly what the “gotcha” is. Is it the out-of state-donations? Is it the function of Forward Montana? What exactly is the narrative here? Having known Matt and the history of Forward Montana since well before the infusion of the matching donation from somebody that might be presumed to be 6 degrees away from George Soros, I’m very confused about what exactly I’m supposed to be outraged about. Maybe Ed can clear that up for me, if he isn’t to troubled by the bad silence responding to accusations that make little sense.
Taking tongue out of cheek, I remind the readers here of what they all should now very well by now. The Rightwing noise machine has a method, tried and tested. Make up outrage over something that sounds like it should be outrageous, and demand a response, no matter how goofy the demand actually looks. Check out Budge claiming that Singer owes him answers after Budge argued that the most dangerous thing for a Democracy is that people vote. Budge doesn’t care what Matt responds. He’s already covered his ass by claiming that he will have more questions, and then more, no doubts, and concerns and (begin the nit-picking of the nuts off the gnats). Budge will never be satisfied, ever, regardless of how Matt responds. Neither will the purveyor of anonymous anecdote and innuendo, Carol, or anyone else who *demand* an answer from Matt. They don’t care for answers. Being satisfied isn’t their intention. They want their pound of flesh. I say, fine, let them retrieve it without cutting any skin, or spilling any blood.
As for you, Ed, you’re a journalist. You have a grasp on the online domain that most others do not. If you think that answers from Matt are important to resolve something … I guess important … why don’t you ask him?
October 29, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Jay-
I agree that the posts were probably a result of gross misunderstandings on what Forward MT is. But here’s the thing – most of the rest of us don’t really know what it is either. That’s what I’m saying as far as the need for a response.
I didn’t mean that there was anything in those posts that I thought may be factually accurate. Sorry I wasn’t very specific on that part. Maybe it’s because I can’t explain it very well, but I’ll try.
What I was referring to was more of a psychological phenomenon. Sometimes, if you read enough bad things about something or someone, they’re cast in a different light for you… You don’t even need to believe anything you read, but your perceptions can change in a hurry. Candidates use this kind of thing all the time. You know what I mean? I hope so, cause I’ll pull a muscle in my brain trying to explain it again.
October 29, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I would also point out that many of the “left” have posted comments on the blogs that have carried the story rather than make a new post of thier own. I would hardly call them “silent” about the issue.
I would also agree that there is a lot of hyperboli going on over this story….
Moorcat
October 29, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Wulfgar-
Excellent points. I admit that my perception of blog-o-time sometimes gets a little skewed. It hasn’t really been that long since this miniature shit-storm started. But it’s not like I thought that Matt would never respond, I just thought the right-wing snowball was getting a little bigger than it needed to given the time they had to build their story up with no contrary voices.
And I think Carol’s pushing of that anonymous comment is the biggest piece of crap out of this whole thing. Why would anyone take an anonymous commenter seriously? That’s the kind of shit that SHOULD be ignored by Matt.
As for the half-truths and lies that Matt says are in Carol’s post – he should address them directly… As soon as possible.
And Moorcat – there really wasn’t much of a response from the left in those comment threads from what I saw. It wasn’t silence, but it wasn’t much noise either. That’s all I was sayin’.
October 29, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I love how she adds lots of wikipedia links to make it look like she is backing up facts.
A big old heavy load of bull that requires knee-high boots to wade through.
I do love Wulfgar’s reference to 6 degrees – and it sums it up well. Because someone knows someone, they’re now tied together in perpetuity? For everything they do? Lord!
And even IF it were Soros’ $? I, for one, wouldn’t give a hoot – I mean, if anyone wants to spend $ in this state to get young people out to vote, to get young people interested in politics, what in the hell is so evil about that?
That her piece is so factually wrong is why it doesn’t, IMO, deserve a response.
She’s getting her 15 minutes of fame, sadly on lies and oh-so-poorly connected conspiracies, and she’ll stretch it out for as much mileage as she can get out of it, and soon it will be back to crickets chirping over there in Missoula’s premier Conserva-blog land.
And me? I, like many, were hoping for some new, worthy, opposition voices. It looks like we’re still out of luck. For now, at least.
October 29, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“What I was referring to was more of a psychological phenomenon. Sometimes, if you read enough bad things about something or someone, they’re cast in a different light for you… You don’t even need to believe anything you read, but your perceptions can change in a hurry. Candidates use this kind of thing all the time.”
It goes by the name “Swiftboating”. It’s a right wing phenomenon.
October 29, 2007 at 9:01 pm
As for you, Ed, you’re a journalist. You have a grasp on the online domain that most others do not. If you think that answers from Matt are important to resolve something … I guess important … why don’t you ask him?
Damn, you’re good Wulfgar…
I have urged Matt to post a summary of what Forward Montana is, what kind of organization, how many members, where it gets its funding, the mission statement, etc. Most of it is available on its website.
Here’s what I know:
I do believe it’s a 501c4 org, which can do political work as long as it’s in line with its mission statement. The voter registration drives and municipal election activities have been notably apolitical. I don’t believe Soros has any money in FwdMT. I know there are loads of Forward Montana members doing all sorts of volunteer work and donation $$$, so it ain’t no “front” organization. Missoulians are involved, interested, and excited by what the group has to offer.
That’s what I know, a paying member of the organization. I’ve been to progressive happy hour, I bought a “Vote, f*cker” tee shirt, I hosted a “beer, brat, and ballot” party. I’ve had a lot of fun.
October 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I didn’t ask Matt because I was lazy. He has given good answers today at Left in the West.