Tacky Joe
Can any of you Joe “catastrophe” Romm loyalists explain the purpose of the Tom Friedman seal of approval at the top of Climate Progress? I mean, all of you regular Rommians already know how “indispensable” the blog is, right? Or is the Friedman liplock meant for new tourists? Is that supposed to cinch the deal for them?
Is this a common practice in blogland, to prominently billboard a positive review right under the header? It feels like something you’d see in movie ads, or on the back of book covers.
And no, I’m not jealous. Honestly. I’m way too new at this. I’m happy when I see a few new RSS subscribers each week. (I seem to have lost so many of you right after I dissed Ed Abbey. Come back. It’s not my fault Abbey was a racist misanthrope.)
Anyway, Joe, no worries, I’ll keep coming back for the infotainment. Nobody does primal screeds like you.
Keith –
It’s the blogosphere’s sick relationship with the mainstream media. It bashes the MSM, but craves its approval. I love you! I hate you! I love you! Please love me back!
A serious discussion about how Climate Progress fits into the evolving blogosphere and the larger political environment could be informative, but this post is obviously not the starting point for such a thing.
John,
If I ever come down with the same affliction, I hope people call me on it.
Steve,
I agree. A good starting point might have been here. But Michael seems to have lost his stomach for it.
I did receive a fairly stern talking to from Joe.
My raising the issue of how Climate Progress operates was somewhat peripheral to the insight I wanted to explore and I figured I’d made quite enough enemies for one month, thanks.
Anyway, the insight in question was nicely boiled down by Dave Ross, quoted to me by John Fleck:
People SAY they want objective information but what they really want is vindication for their point of view.
At least, that seems to be where the traffic goes so far. And maybe you want to consider that in your discussions.
Michael,
Re: People SAY they want objective information but what they really want is vindication for their point of view.
Since you’ve become enamored with Rosen, Shirky et al ( both who I admire and read as well), you should take up the issue framed by Kristof in the column I referenced in my Blog Flocks post. That seems to be what he’s getting at there. After I read his column I immediately thought of Climate Progress.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, I think Joe Romm’s value is that he rallies and inspires his troops the way Daily Kos did during the last two elections. Nothing wrong with that. I just blanch at the single-minded certainty of his rehetoric and the overheated tone. Not to mention, as even many of his admirers have recently noted, the dude is in serious need of an editor.
Lastly, my purpose with this blog is the opposite of Romm’s. I’m interested in all sides of an argument, complexities, nuances. That’s real life. So my aim–even if it means my traffic will never amount to much–is to attract a diverse audience, which is probably blog suicide, since this racket is all about niches.
<a href=”http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/a-way-toassassinate-truth/”>Gravityloss</a> tells you how the game is played. Romm is not assassinating truth, but he is playing on the same field as the Myron Ebels who do, and he knows their rules. We are pushing back against false equivalences, aka Ceasar’s wife for us, down in the dirt for them, and the journalists get to balance.
You on the other hand play by the Gore rules, you know <a href=”http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/iokiyad-really-little-bunnies-its-ok-if.html> IOKIYAAD </a>
Michael, you missed a big chance. Opposition is what draws eyeballs.
Keith, you have a serious forest/trees problem when it comes to CP. I think you need to consider the breadth and quality of the information Joe posts (partly due to the near-unique set of qualifications he brings to the task), and the lack of anything similar elsewhere on the web.
Noting Eli’s point, you also need to consider CP in the context of the political and policy role of CAP. Joe isn’t just another blogger, and you can bet John Podesta sees CP as part of a bigger-picture effort. Inform yourself.
Yes, it’s tacky, and yes, Steve Bloom’s analysis is correct:
Joe is getting better at messaging every day. You think he has a lot of traffic? He has nothing. He will ned 10 or 100x as much to have the level of influence he seeks. And is that a bad thing? No. Whatever you feel about the particulars, his breadth and depth of knowledge is exactly the sort of thing we need more of.
I asked him about this once, in person — his messaging. “Look,” he said (I’m paraphrasing) “I’m trying to reach the influencers.” I think he cited Bill Gates and Warren Buffet – he’d just written posts about how their money for the 3rd world doesn’t mean so much if it fails to address climate change. And of course he’s right — thinking you’re going to solve the problems of the developing world while ignoring the biggest one of all is madness.
Whacking your targets with blunt rhetorical instruments (over and over again) is not a formula for influencing the influencers. But it does make you petty-sounding and redundant.
Until Romm realizes this, the only people he’s going to be influencing are the ones that already agree with him.
And that’s too bad, because it’s true that he offers much in the way of translating inside-the-beltway mores. But every time he launches a half-cocked screed against the media or academics or fellow environmentalists, he totally undermines his credibility. The unmistakable message he sends with these screeds is that no one gets global warming the way he does. And if you don’t get it the way he gets it, well, then you’re the enemy, a denier equivalent, or whatever that silly term is that he coined.
Plenty of advocates I know at least acknowledge other points of view on an issue–especially if they come from the same side. Not Romm. He gives no quarter, allows for no dissent. It’s his way or no way.
Now if you are someone who thinks this propagandist communications vehicle is a useful antidote to the Myron Ebells, well, sure, I can see that. Let the two extremes fight a war of attrition until the moderate, reasonable voices untimately win the day.
The only problem there is that tackling climate change isn’t as simple as birds dying of pesticides, people breathing dirty air, or rivers bursting into flames. It’s a complex problem (made harder by the economic meltdown) that is going to require the kind of political compromise that will keep Romm in business as a blogger for a long time.
All of that still leaves you wondering why Friedman would have called CP indispensable. Until you understand that, I’m afraid you’re going to remain confused about the rest.
Also, note that someone relying just on your description without actually viewing CP would be misled into thinking that the kind of post you complain about comprises a much larger percentage of the total than is actually the case.