The Rhetoric of Blogging (Part V): Daily Kos

I can't discuss engage in a serious discussion of blogging without taking a look at Daily Kos. I think dKos (Dkos?)has become the Big Brother of blogs, for many reasons.

First of all, it's extremely popular. As the site says, discussing its stats under "Warm Fuzzys":

The TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem
Daily Kos is the highest-trafficked weblog. Really, this is the most important metric.

Blogstreet
Most Important 100 Blogs
Consistently ranks in the top 5 of all weblogs in link popularity (that is, links on other sites pointing to Daily Kos).

Technorati
Top 100 Weblogs
Ranks number two of all weblogs in link popularity (different formula than Blogstreet uses). Top political blog of any ideological stripe

So lots of bloggers think highly of dKos, lots of blog rolls think it's important. Why? What the source of its power?

Again we go back to rhetoric. Rhetoric is about persuasion. What do so many bloggers/readers (are you a blogger if you only read?) think dKos has such authority, such believability?

First of all, consider its apparent purpose. Its tag line reads, "State of the Nation." So presumably this blog will provide commentary on current events in the U.S. And indeed it does. There is some pretty heavily political stuff on the site, which goes far beyond the "skimming the top of the waves" type of pieces you'd tend to find in the MSM. In a very recent post, for example, there is a link to the Courant's recent poll on a Leiberman-Weicker race, with indepth commentary.

It's not really State of the Nation so much as State of the Liberal Nation. If a quick review of the articles doesn't tip you off, you can read the info on the bio of its founder, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, aka "Kos." In explaining the site's policies, he says,

"We desperately need to catch the Right in the Blogger Wars, and I am proud of each and every person who has the guts and initiative to start his or her own weblog. The progressive movement of the future will be built, in large part, on this digital foundation."

If I'm reading this correctly, this site thus is promulgated in part as a means of fomenting liberal discourse and political action.

The clear authorial voice is Kos. He posts his picture on the site, gives you a bit of his background, and uses the first person in describing the blog's mission and policies. There is no doubt that Kos is The Man at dKos. This lends itself to a blog with a strong ethos or authoritative appeal. Kos limits links, requires registration of commentors and allow them in only after a waiting period (wish our gun control laws were as effective), and tells his readers what to do if they want to get linked:

So how does a site get listed? Be noticed. Make a stir. Don't regurgitate the contents of a news story, but provide perspective or additional insight. Be clever, funny, original. Get away from the default templates. Get away from Blogspot. Create your own identity. Your own domain. Have attitude. Be self-confident.

Kos is also the author of many of the articles on the blog. He writes about politics and current events, but also doesn't hestitate to promote his upcoming book. More than once.

So the primary rhetorical message of this site is that it's Kos's world. He knows how to create liberal press, he knows how to foster progressive dialogue, and he is an authority on the state of the nation. It's his sandbox and if you want to play it, he's the boss.

Understand that I am not commenting on whether or not he is qualified to be an authority on any of these issues. I'm not, and my opinion really isn't relevant to this analysis. The opinion of dKos is the one that matters here, and the blog is set up to reflect Kos as the benevolent despot.

I also see an underlying emotional appeal to this site, however, Much of it reads like you're coming into a conversation in the middle. There's also the comment feature, which is regulated by Kos, as well as the rating of comments by other readers. Kos directs us how to use the rating system:

Many users believe that the rating system is intented to be an opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with a post, or with the poster themself. This is not accurate; ratings are intended to help elevate those posters that consistently make clear, good arguments and points, regardless of content, and to prevent trolls from invading the message board. Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.

It's human nature to want to belong, to be a part of something. It's also human nature to a certain extent to want to be exclusionary, to be a part of something good and special. You may be the biggest geek in the pond, but you can still be cool on dKos if you're a part of the club. You can also have the fun of smashing other would-be members by giving them negative ratings. You can walk the walk and talk the talk on the blog if you just follow the rules -- and the conversation.

Hence its popularity: a strong, confident leader who doesn't seem to equivocate much on the proper way to do things, a blog with a righteous mission, plus a club atmosphere that lets you join and at the same time, try to keep others out. What could be more appealing to us disenfranchised, rutterless liberals?

Okay, I just have to make one comment: I find the whole thing a little creepy. Mr. Kos is probably a great guy, but I don't know him. I appreciate the need to moderate comments to keep things from degenerating to the "that's just stupid, stupid" level that we see on most blogs. However, I feel censored and a bit manipulated when I read this blog. The articles are often edgy, but they are heavily skewed to the left. Isn't there occasionally room for debate? I also don't like the pressure to be funny and original, and who cares if I'm on blogspot? Plus I can't help wondering: what is Kos leaving OFF this blog?