If you write travel pieces for major newspapers, the comments are not so bad. You might get the occasional observation that you’re a frickin’ moron for reviewing Majorca when Minorca is clearly the more charming island, but you are more likely to get warm anecdotes from fellow travelers. If you write about politics, however, the comments section is going to be brutal. It’s going to be far worse than what most political bloggers have to put up with because both left and right recognize that major newspapers (unlike bloggers) are supposed to be as objective as possible and not push any particular agenda. If I wrote articles for the Washington Post, I would probably tire of reading and responding to comments fairly quickly. I might restrict myself to seeing the immediate reaction and then just ignore the rest. So, I sympathize with Dana Milbank to a degree. Feeling pressure from his editor, Milbank sat down and read all the comments he’s been receiving lately, and he didn’t like what he saw.
On Tuesday, I learned that I am a right-wing hack. I am not a journalist. I am typical of the right wing. I am why newspapers are going broke. I write garbage. I am angry with Barack Obama. I misquote Obama. I am bitter. I am a certified idiot. I am lame. I am a Republican flack.
On Thursday, I realized that I am a media pimp with my lips on Obama’s butt. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who wants nothing more than for the right to fall on its face. I am part of the ObamaMedia. I am pimping for the left. I am carrying water for Obama. Lord, am I an idiot.
His feelings should not be hurt. Milbank actually sets himself up for this by using a hybrid style that is part reporting and part editorial. 
His extensive use of irreverence and snark makes him seem like a blogger, but he isn’t writing a blog and he isn’t appearing on the Opinion page. So, he gets blasted from the left for being a shitty blogger (because he isn’t partisan enough) and from the right (because he’s generally left-leaning in his bias). A lot of left-wing bloggers who tried to maintain their neutrality during the Obama/Clinton battles had the same problem. Their neutrality was seen as nothing more than an insincere contrivance since their preferences shone clearly through their efforts at concealment. ‘Neutral’ Pro-Clinton bloggers were blasted by Obama supporters for repeating stupid-ass talking points, and by Clinton supporters for being insufficiently committed (sometimes to the point that they were accused of anti-Clinton bias). They started asking other bloggers why the comment sections had turned so nasty (towards them) and we were like ‘Huh? Whadju talking bout, Willis?” Openly partisan bloggers did not experience any uptick in combative comments because people knew where we stood. They disagreed, perhaps, but in the normal way.
So, I’m with Milbank to a point. I understand. But Milbank is confused about why so many of the people who are ripping him new orifices in his comments section are coming from the left.
For the right, this isn’t terribly surprising; their guys lost the White House in 2008 and control of both chambers of Congress in 2006, so lashing out in frustration is to be expected. The left, however, is more difficult to explain. It made sense for them to be angry when George W. Bush was in the White House. But now, even under Obama, the anger on the left is, if anything, more personal and vitriolic than on the right.
And here’s the problem. Milbank suffers from the same disease that most Washington reporters suffer from. He see’s politics as a game, kind of like basketball, and we are all fans. If your team loses, you have a right to be mad at the players, the coach, even the referee, but not if you win. Winning is the entire point. If our team, the Democrats, won, then why is the Left still pissed off?
The reason Milbank is confused is because he is using the wrong analogies. Imagine that your favorite sports team won the championship but they gave the trophy and the parade to the other team. And then imagine that their two star players kidnapped you, put you in a small box with a stinging insect, and only took you out to beat and forcibly rape you…all the while playing reels detailing the myriad ways in which they were destroying your country by doing things you found both morally wrong and counterproductive as policy.
Then imagine that someone from your favorite sports team came along and freed you from captivity. Do you think you’re going to feel happy and content and emotionally stable if your rescuer tells you that justice for your tormentors is too divisive and you should just get over it? And what if he sets you free but then continues to listen in on your phone conversations and read your email without even getting a warrant from a judge? You think that you won’t feel disappointed and violated?
It’s bad enough that you have to put up with a bunch of moral lepers going around arguing that your eight years of confinement and mistreatment we’re justified, and that your diet consisted of two kinds of fruit, orange-glazed chicken, and rice pilaf so what is there to complain about, really? It’s bad enough that they say your release is a substantial hazard to national security and that you need to be put back in your box or they’ll threaten to stop watching sports altogether. But, imagine on top of all of this, that you are forced to read Dana Milbank’s drivel?
It’s enough to make someone write a sternly-worded letter or leave a stinkbomb in the comments section.
