If O'Reilly, why not Goldberg?

Billy Beck asks why Bill O'Reilly is catching heat while Jonah Goldberg is not, since Goldberg actually wanted to 'do something' about the blogosphere while O'Reilly just complained. I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but whereas Goldberg proposed something that is ridiculous, it was also relatively harmless that IMO the blogosphere would simply shrug off. On the other hand, I can see O'Reilly taking the next step and calling for 'legal standards' for blogs and 'tough punishments for reputation ruin' just like he wanted state oversight for donations after 9/11.

Share this

IIRC, Jonah simply called

IIRC, Jonah simply called for the equivalent of a trade association for blogs, which would have no compulsory or coercive powers.

I think that's more than a shade different from what O'Reilly is hinting at (regulation of the internet). Voluntarism vs. coercion.

True, but he also compared

True, but he also compared it to the AMA, which is a coercive body.

Given that Jonah has only

Given that Jonah has only said this once in passing (and is not a meme he is hammering away at), I think that it is more an example of "thinking out loud" vs. seriously advocating state regulation of blogs through state mandated trade association/cartels. Hence just because he mentioned the AMA doesn't mean he thinks that legislation should pop up as well to give the new blog cartel coercive power.