Al Gore: Pawn in The War of Words

Netscape Home The Netscape BlogNetscape NewsQuake

Al Gore: Pawn in The War of Words — May 17th 2007

By Karina Longworth

Our top story on Netscape last night and this morning was this op-ed from left-wing blog SmokingPolitics, predicting a nasty political fight for Al Gore once his new book, The Assault on Reason, is released next week. Bloggers Dave Johnson and James Boyce say this event will give the Left the perfect opportunity to draw attention to "the mechanism of the smear":

In this book, Al Gore is going to go straight up against the Right Wing smear and noise machine.... We're going to respond the minute the first attack shows up. We're going to be researching the apparatus that transmits the smear. We're going to explain the mechanism of the smear. We're going to expose those behind the smear. And we're going to launch a pushback against the smear, into the press.... For the Democratic Party, the Progressive causes it supports and for the country, taking dead aim against the Right on this issue is critical to future success.

With an excerpt from The Assault live on TIME.com (and at the top of buzz-generated news aggregator Memeorandum) as of this morning, let's take a look at the first responses to Gore's tome. Because bloggers like to ~~talk about themselves~~ debate the nebulous laws governing the Web, let's focus specifically on Gore's statements about network neutrality.

In the TIME excerpt, Gore writes:

So the remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way--a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response. Fortunately, the Internet has the potential to revitalize the role played by the people in our constitutional framework. But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets--through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted.

At BuzzMachine, Jeff Jarvis is energized by Gore's defense of net neutrality, even as he takes issue with the former VP's contention that the media's obsession with celebrity scandal kept the masses too distracted to care about the rush to war:

That's a logical leap not unlike the one that got us there: O.J. [Simpson] has done many bad things. But I hardly think we can blame him for getting us into Iraq, too. Ah, but no, he's really saying it's television's fault as it is exploited by a "new generation of media Machiavellis." It's a circuitous route, but I agree with where he lands: the value of an open internet. How we assure that, though, is still a matter of debate.

Econopundit finds Gore's suggestion that Internet service providers "have an economic incentive... to leverage control of Internet content" less, um, inspiring:

Honestly, this has the same level of economic sophistication as pre-WWII arguments about Jewish bankers causing WWI. What "economic incentive" do large telephone and cable companies have to "leverage" (whatever that means) control of internet content? Don't cable companies compete with phone companies for broadband customers? How about satellite providers? Are we to understand they're all in a secret conspiracy?

The answer to that, according to some of Gore's defenders, is a resounding "yes"--and the conspiracy extends clear to the White House. "It's not only shameful that Bush, not Gore, has been at 1600 Pennsylvania since 2001," Hullabaloo comments. "It's been downright dangerous." But at the Daily Mail, Don Surber wonders if a very different conspiracy is afoot:

Supporting the Internet is flag-waving for the early 21st century. And it is just as fake. Perhaps elsewhere in this book Gore delves into how the Internet "has further magnified the power of propagandistic electronic messaging." Or maybe the George Soros-backed powers on the Web don't want him revealing their secrets.

Surber's is probably the most brutal takedown of The Assault to pop up thus far, but the Daily Mail blogger can't get beyond petty gripes over the fact that "Gore has never conceded what should be obvious to anyone: That he lost in 2000." Still, Surber manages to execute one great, stinging barb to top them all, calling Gore "the American Prince Charles." With shots like that in the air, Boyce and Johnson have their work cut out for them.

Tags: al gore, AlGore, assault on reason, AssaultOnReason, blogs, net neutrality, NetNeutrality, politics

1 Comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Corey Spring — 7:28PM on May 17th 2007

1. I can't believe how popular that story was - over 200 votes and 80 sinks

At NewsQuake!, the Netscape staff blogs about breaking news of every stripe. Looking for context, commentary, and lively reportage? You’ve come to the right place.

RSS News Feed RSS Feed / Send us Tips

Featured Galleries