Ranking of political blogs

Michael Rivero at WRH just posted a link to this information: http://www.hitwise.com/political-data-center/website-rankings.php

Top 10 Political Websites

This list features the websites for key political party websites based on US Internet usage for the week ending September 8, 2007. This ranking list has been customized to feature only select websites.


Rank Website Market Share
1. www.huffingtonpost.com 5.24%
2. www.freerepublic.com 4.95%
3. www.dailykos.com 2.97%
4. www.political.moveon.org 2.46%
5. politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com 2.26%
6. www.democraticunderground.com 2.07%
7. www.antiwar.com 2.03%
8. www.townhall.com 2.02%
9. www.buzzflash.com 1.95%
10. www.whatreallyhappened.com 1.92%

Note - the Hitwise data featured is based on US market share of visits, which is the percentage of online traffic to the Lifestyle - Politics category, from the Hitwise sample of 10 million US Internet users. Hitwise measures more than 1 million unique websites on a daily basis, including sub-domains of larger websites. Hitwise categorizes websites into industries on the basis of subject matter and content, as well as market orientation and competitive context.

Source - Hitwise - week ending September 8, 2007 - based on market share of visits.

I think that this shows clearly sites to work on. Of the sites, whatreallyhappened.com is clearly a leader in 9/11 Truth, albeit from a perspective somewhat different than my own.

www.buzzflash.com I would consider a left-gatekeeper site, but you can post comments supporting 9/11 Truth reasoning.

www.antiwar.com I would consider a libertarian-gatekeeper site. I am not sure if you can register and post comments.

www.dailykos.com seems to me to be a major left-gatekeeper site, but even there you can sometimes post 9/11 Truth reasoning. It may vanish apparently.

You can look at the rest yourselves.

I have not looked at the ranking site to see where the main 9/11 Truth sites lie. I don't know if you can query the site. I will try to look later.

I think that if we can get reasoned comments on 9/11 Truth published, and not deleted, then we may move the ball a little bit in the right direction. However, we must keep our passions in check, and always appear as rational, calm, reasoned. Otherwise, we are more likely to move the ball the wrong way. I am not so sure that my last comments post on Dissident Voice was not a little too confrontational. It is essential to think like marketers if you wish to understand how to make your case. I know, it sounds slimy and Machiavellian in some respects, but unsophisticated approaches, flames, weak arguments, overly complex and technical arguments and peripheral points all serve to work against 9/11 Truth.

Michael Zimmer

If a site refuses to carry

If a site refuses to carry decent 9/11 info, don't visit it at all, or visit it much less often.

JFK on secrecy and the press

at least one honest site

at least one honest site broke into the top 10.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I guess I was not clear enough

Based on one of the comments, I think that I was not clear enough in stating my aim. We need to reach the top ranking blogs, political or otherwise. If we can get articles accepted, wonderful. If not, we can sometimes sneak in comments. We can write in critiquing articles or comments. In any case, it is better to target blogs with better readership, for obvious reasons.

Clearly many blogs reject outright any post suggestive of government complicity. Clearly, not all 9/11 Truth folks believe in MIHOP anyway, although I do. We can be more subtle than that. You don't need to use a broadsword if a dagger will do (OK, maybe not the best metaphor, but the coffee hasn't kicked in yet).


On second thought, I do

On second thought, I do agree with you. It is a worthy thing to do to enter those pages of darkness and shed some light. By the way, RAW Story is another site that has a lot of good news and sometimes grazes up against 9/11 Truth but for the most part ignores the subject.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Check out the comments

Check out the comments following this article: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/09/homeland-insecurity-myt...

The comments made my day.

JFK on secrecy and the press

A lot of comments, and a few shills or morons

I just skimmed through the comments. For the most part, they were scathing. There were a few, Alfred Packer for one, who shilled. He surely is not that stupid is he? In any case, Mother Jones is almost certainly co-opted, as we used to say in the 60s.

Note the placement of Mother Jones on the chart of left gatekeepers at http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm.