The Kaus Files- Massing Praise

"The two bloggers most commonly recognized as the medium's pioneers, Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan, are, remarkably, still at it," said Michael Massing.

Kaus started his blog in 1999. Massing goes on to say that, "both still use the style they helped popularize—short, sharp, conversational bursts of commentary and opinion built around links to articles, columns, documents, and other blogs."

While some may criticize Kaus, their arguments don't seem to be very valuable. Kaus does a very good job at staying pretty fair in his arguments- something that Massing noticed as well.
When I first began following Kaus for the assignment, I was shocked to hear from people that he was a liberal. Aside from him calling himself a neoliberal (which I had to search for), I wouldn't have thought he was a liberal because he just ripped Kerry and Obama in postings from a few years back. He also came down on conservatives on things like affairs, lies, and cover-ups. After discussions with my friends, we concluded that if he was criticizing Obama and officials, it was because he was criticizing them fairly on things they weren't doing or enough of. I think this approach towards his blogs is what makes him a very pioneering blogger.

Perhaps it is his journalistic experiences or education, but he writes his postings as near perfect additions to Slate. He properly cites things when most bloggers dont and adds a very intelligent analysis to them. If he is questioned, he clarifies himself. He always links additional resources and examples to back up what he is saying as well- another thing Massing praises him for.

This is a recent piece on the White House vs. Fox Network topic in which he offers advice on evaluating media.

1) Neutrality--Are they attempting to be "objective," trying to serve the "public interest" in some balanced way, or are they ideologically (or otherwise) driven in a way that inevitably colors their coverage--what topics they pick, what 'experts' they rely on, etc.

2) Independence--Whether they are biased or generally neutral, can somebody--a political party, a Mafia family, a government-- tell them what to do?

3) Accuracy--Are they committed to not telling untruths?

4) Fairness--Do they try to present all sides, even if it's only to take on an opponent's best argument (as opposed to his worst)?

5) Discipline--Do they tolerate dissenting voices within the organization--even when those voices are effective? Will they assign major stories that will cut against their interests and arguments?

6) Willingness to Suppress: You can have a commitment to accuracy, even a commitment to going out and finding and publicizing the truth for its own sake--but what happens when that commitment collides cataclysmically with your other, ideological purpose? The New York Times has a high commitment to accuracy, for example--and it's so big it almost has to be relatively tolerant of individual deviation. But would it endanger the Democrats' Senate majority by printing a series of damaging exposes of a leading Democratic Senator shortly before an election?

As long as Kaus has been running his blogs, he manages to stay accurate and relevant.