Are Candidates Wise In Hiring Bloggers For Their Campaign Staffs?
What happens when a Presidential campaign hires a blogger to reach out to other bloggers, particularly those writers who are sympathetic to the candidate?
In the past 48 hours we got one answer: a firestorm, with a vetting of the bloggers’ past comments by some folks not sympathetic to the candidate.
Is it “gotcha” — or can candidates now only be safe hiring a blogger who works on the C-SPAN blog?
The issue: Democrat John Edwards hiring of Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte Matter, and of Shakespear’s Sister’s Melissa McEwan. Both who are highly-respected among progressive bloggers and (yes) some others who don’t totally share their views (not everyone likes them because part of the blogworld is always angry or at war about something).
Some Other Comments On This Issue:
The All Spin Zone
The Queen Of All Evil (who offers a video by Michelle Malkin on this controversy)
Dean Esmay
Crooks and Liars posts the CNN video report on this flap.
OUR VIEW:
(1) This shows how far attack politics is going — and how it is going to go. Now any Republican who hires a blogger for anything had better research all of that writer’s comments on the Internet and posts. Ditto for anyone who hires a progressive or even independent blogger. This doesn’t just mean net outreach, but also clearly means an extra layer of investigation will have to be done to hire a blogger to work as press secretary or advisor.
(2) It’s the nature of blogging (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) for many blog writers to take positions that might be controversial in content, presentation, or language (each site makes a judgment on the latter and we avoid non-newspaper language here.) While some blog writers and commenters choose words carefully, more often than not blogging resembles a cyberspace form of talk radio with little censoring. And blogwriters can be far more blunt than newspaper columnists or editorial writers.
So if this is the new standard to be applied to campaigns on the left, it’s clear there is going to be a demand for the same standards to be applied to campaigns on the right.
The irony is that, from this writers’ standpoint, the fuss over a blogger and his/her past writings obscures one fact. If you write a weblog and get a press release or email from another blogger working for a campaign and promoting it, it does not influence what’s written — or even read. We routinely get emails from candidates and read some, don’t have time for others but we know what they are: campaign press releases presenting one side in the best possible light.
If so-and-so from X blog on the left or right sends us a press release or a request to link info favorable to a candidate, it won’t make a bigger difference than if Harvey Schmidlap who isn’t a blogger will send one for his candidate.
And this outreach (of Democrats and Republicans) using bloggers so far seems to have largely meant that the outreach person reaches out to his or her perceived side. Ditto on all these conference calls government and candidate bigwigs make to bloggers (this site has people of varying viewpoints so we are never included on any of these candidate call lists).
A bigger issue is whether working for a political campaign forever taints a blogger . However, many blogs are now so openly advocates and extended op-ed pages more than original news sources, that this is probably irrelevant. When people read most blogs, they know they’re not reading meticulously-balanced facts or new reporting.
But make no mistake about it: most people who blog have written a comment or two that may have been unbalanced, not temperate and, if they alllow such language on their weblog, not suitable for a 7-year old.
So we’re in a new era where bloggers are now going to be vetted in an effort to strike out at campaigns and candidates (and perhaps some will see it as a way to strike out at the specific bloggers to trim their larger influence).
Be forewarned: it’s likely to happen now to all bloggers who want to join campaign staffs of any party.
The bar has been moved with a little less freedom and opportunity now for bloggers — unless those with ambitions beyond “hey, do you want to exchange links” start to temper their words and language realizing that, more than ever, anything you write can and will be held against you. A blogger getting hired for a high-profile campaign staff was easier on Feb. 8, 2006.
50 Responses to “Are Candidates Wise In Hiring Bloggers For Their Campaign Staffs?”
I hope Edwards ignores that idiot and bully Bill Donohue.
The world view of BD is similar to the Taliban. BD we can’t go back to 1958, Wakt Disney is dead and lunch counters are open to all. Intelligent Design is debunked, BD isn’t a very good design. To the BD crowd – “I want to live”. Please stop feeding Donohue, the sign on the cage………
I will no longer take any blogger hired by a political candidate seriously. Anymore. Period. In my eyes they’ll just be another yes man/woman.
So, then maybe candidates should decide if this is who they want as a public face for their campaign? The language issue isn’t that big of a deal IMO but the immoderation is. I reject the idea that a candidate’s use of a person who has a history of divisive rhetoric shouldn’t be relevant. I wouldn’t want a GOP candidate to hire a VDARE blogger, or even a HotAir type. If they did, they’d lose my respect and I’d certainly think it fair game for the opposing candidates to point out the type of person that was chosen for this candidates PR team.
That is one of the issues. When campaigns hire bloggers they’ll have to see if there’s something there that can be used against them.
Running a blogg for a campaign doesn’t mean the glorified Blogg administrator is a policy adviser. This is just a witchhunt, does anybody question Liebermann and the Moose?
Rudi,
What about my hypothetical VDARE analogy? That wouldn’t be relevant?
CStanley said: “The language issue isn’t that big of a deal IMO but the immoderation is.”
I would agree, having looked at that thread in which Marcotte ranted about the Duke students raping Black women (before she deleted it). The NYT highlighted this comment, as it reveals not bad language but rabid dementia (especially as it was made in Jan,07, when the Duke case has all but collapsed). The Pandagon thread was the worst I have ever seen on a blog, in which two posters who politely cited evidence in the case where accused of being rapists, racists, and perverts.
But Joe’s post raises the important point a lot of coverage has missed…this is case is being used as a club to damage bloggers as a new media.
Isn’t it interesting that the NYT should give favourable coverage to a right-wing religious figure to hammer those on the Left? I suspect, as Joe’s post emphasizes, that the MSM (left and right) is using this as a weapon to beat back the challenge of an upstart media.
The language in the NYT certainly suggested ALL bloggers are crazy nutters . . .
Joe,
I really was only vaguely aware of this blogwar brewing but now that you turned my attention to it and I read more, I have to say that your characterization of these bloggers as “highly respected among progressive bloggers” is kinda disturbing. Maybe you’re right that they are so, but if that’s what is respected, then my opinion of whether or not we’ll ever be able to have a rational discussion between conservatives and “progressives” just took a huge nosedive. From your description, I thought this was much ado about nothing on Malkin’s part, complaints about potty language, etc. Now that I’ve seen the link that Ed Morrissey had in his post, I think that it’s much more than that and I think that your post didn’t give an accurate picture. If anything, the question is, what was Edwards thinking??
In an unrelated note, I would so do Michelle Malkin.
LOL, yes, you’re off topic, CP.
With all due respect toward Free Speech, my own take on this was that the blogosphere’s credibility troubles are self-made across the board.
The MSM may indeed be threatened by them, as suggested here, but the general level of incivility on all sides doesn’t exactly scream, “we’re important and we should be taken seriously”.
VDARE is extreme, if someone has ties to LaRoche then don’t hire them. Edwards is running a campaign to the Left, whats wrong with very Liberal bloggers running his blogg? If Edwards hired someone from ANSWER it would be wrong. Are these women policy advisers or just web experts?
CP – In the carnal sense or as a web adviser. Better than Apple Coulter but not Nixon’s blonde or Wonkette.
Hear, hear, Polimom. Free speech, no problem. Resulting reputation? Your problem.
You can’t have it both ways. The more latitude that you take with exercising your right to free speech, the more that you have to accept that some people no longer want to listen to you. And any candidate with two neurons to rub together should consider whether or not his campaign PR team is one that people wish to listen to.
Its totally natural. There are a lot of people out there who agree with the candidates and know a hell of a lot about posting views on the internet. Why shouldn’t they, being the most qualified candidates for the job, be approached by a campaign to do what they’ve been doing? And why wouldn’t a blogger, up till then an amateur writing about politics, be eager as hell to actually get on a campaign and make a difference? I think they know their blog is going to lose all credibility in the process and have accepted that.
Well Rudi, if Edwards really wants to run as a far left candidate then I’d say this hire was appropriate for that goal, but I would think most moderates would be turned off and I think that most likely a candidate who runs too far to either extreme doesn’t have a chance in today’s environment.
They are highly respected among progressive bloggers. That is a fact. Maybe not with conservative bloggers, but, yes, they are respected among progressive bloggers. Like with anything else, you may find one who doesn’t care for a post they may write, but they’re popular.
CS I preffer 0-Nutcase Radical Left 1-Far Left 2-Left 3-Center Left 4-Center and on to the Right.
These two women are 1.5 and not worthy of a scandal, a little print and Internets contervesy(sp) maybe. Once again, please distinguish between a)advisers/policy writers and b)administrators/low level writers.
The MSM includes quite a number of people who opperate on a tremendous level of incivility, once you include talk radio and the talk-news shows through which many get their ‘news’.
Rudi,
A straight carnal sense…maybe right before her speeches and tv appearances, even. That’d be even better!
Rudi,
Tony Snow doesn’t make policy but what he says and the way he says it matters.
Joe, But popular enough to appeal to a broad constituency? And as a moderate, even if shrillness appeals to the masses, do you excuse it?
I fear I am agreeing with Rudi yet again on this one:
“These two women are 1.5 and not worthy of a scandal, a little print and Internets contervesy(sp) maybe.”
Marcotte’s blog was crazed on the Duke business…SS I don’t much mind…but the blogosphere has gone TOTALLY DEMENTED on this story.
I don’t get it. At “Memeorandum” yesterday it dominated most of the main page.
That is crazy! There is a war on, after all…a thousand more important and, yes, sexier stories…yet folks are going nuts about these two low-level hires?
Marlow,
I’d say that the blogosphere’s reaction to this story is mainly due to the tendency for a lot of bloggers to be incredibly narcissistic and self-aggrandizing.
CP – Almost OK on MM, but don’t go over to the dark side with Pam at AtlasShrugs. As Colbert said the other day, if you were invisible you could help Michele with her apperrance.
CStanley said: “Marlow,I’d say that the blogosphere’s reaction to this story is mainly due to the tendency for a lot of bloggers to be incredibly narcissistic and self-aggrandizing.”
Hahahahahaha…those damn bloggers!
At least no one can ever accuse us commenters of being “incredibly narcissistic and self-aggrandizing” now, can they?
(…and all you could hear was the sound of grasshoppers chirping in the distance…
CP – I dream of Debbie Wasserman Schultz in leather slapping down BD and Randall Terry while breathing life back into TS.
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth, Rudi
lol
I agree that the reason bloggers care about this so much is because many of us can easily see ourselves in the story. Everyone who writes a blog writes stuff that is not appropriate in some way. I’ve written before on my own blog (a purely personal one for friends and family but open to the public) about how I procrastinate. Would that get picked up by someone if I were to run for office so that they might “raise legitimate concerns about the candidate’s work habits”? How about when I toss off some idea on this blog in a comment that’s just off the top of my head. Is that now an official position paper that the Teacher Unions would worry about – “if he wrote this in 2006, then he certainly doesn’t understand education and we cannot support him.” Lots of these political bloggers have multiple entries every day for months or years on end. Some of that is going to be idiotic and would never have been said if the blogger had gotten enough sleep or didn’t have their 4 year old screaming or they hadn’t stubbed their toe on the way to the computer.
In short, I think this is just a reminder to many bloggers out there that there words can come back to haunt them. This is especially true since many people make their livings by trying to destroy others – for noble purposes of course….
BTW, there was a similar report on the other side of the political spectrum. ThinkProgress had a report about Jerome Corsi being hired as a political strategist for TheVanguard.org. Media Matters went through old blog entries and posted lovely comments from Corsi like this: “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press.”
I am happy to say that even at my worst moments so far I haven’t accused the Pope of approving pedophilia or what Pandagon came up with, but still it’s frightening that all of one’s best and worst moments are available for the world to review at all times – and judge.
Final point is just that we are seeing here the normal bias of seeing the worst in those you disagree with and the best in those you like. So the conservative Corsi was hired because his bosses thought highly of his other work and so ignored his gross comments. While I read neither of the progressive bloggers under consideration here, I have seen enough excerpts and links from Shakespeare’s Sister to know that she also does really good work often. So the progressives, I guess like myself, are seeing that Sister with the other stuff as an anomaly, while conservatives are seeing the worst stuff as the True Person finally coming out.
I’m sure that’s true, but it always seems to me that the moderates excuse stuff from progressives that they’d never excuse from conservatives.
Marlowe,
Some commenters are narcissistic and self-aggrandizing. Others, like you and I, just have a lot of important stuff to say
C,
And some of us *me!* like to cut up a little bit and break the tension sometimes (which is actually kind of fun).
CS – The Joe McCarthy crowd now check into your web activity for job consideration. Next a DNA sample to see if you swing Left or swing Right.
Maybe a Mr. Kate O’Beirn loyalt test for a translator job.
I personally plan on voting for a candidate with a rating of 0-1, so Edwards may be too conservative for me anyway. Has MM announced, or is he busy with the sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11-?
BTW, I vastly prefer narcissistic commentators and bloviating self-important ones to those who really know anything.
This is a post from Crooks and Liars just so we can see how this is supposed to work, bloggers bad (so says media giants), political operatives with big cash ultra okee fine…..
“Yet, worse even, is that the press would try to turn “bad language” into a controversy (or now it’s anti-Catholic ideas I hear…um, Bob Jones anyone?) and ignore a McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson. As head of the NRSC’s independent expenditure unit in 2006, Nelson is the one who approved the “call me” race-baiting ad that played on fears of miscegenation, which led those liberals at Wal-Mart to fire his firm they found it so offensive.
Nelson was an unindicted co-conspirator of Tom DeLay’s in his money laundering scheme in Texas (the TRMPAC scandal), and was forced to testify in the matter. He was also in the middle of Republican efforts to jam phones in New Hampshire in 2002, to hamper the Democratic GOTV effort in a tight senate race. He was James Tobin’s boss at the RNC, a man who was eventually convicted of this crime. Nothing fishy there.”
Ok lets see here….race baiting gets him fired from uber righty Wal Mart, he’s an old buddy of Delay’s of TRMPAC fame, and then buddies with the guy that goes down for phone jamming during an election in New Hampshire. Yep those two bloggers are evil and have to go right now! But dare not speak ill of GOP operatives mass media! LMAO
Edwards Backs Down…
John Edwards had to pick between two bad choices today in order to contain the damage from the controversial prior writings of two bloggers hired by his campaign as liaisons to Internet activists. The former VP nominee, stuck between offending……
[...] Contrary to the opinions of some well-intentioned bloggers, this never had anything to do with free speech. It had to do with the judgment of the Edwards campaign in hiring two incendiary bloggers known in part for their hostility to Christians. It’s really no different than the eruption of attacks from the Left after Spocko went after KSFO and its incendiary talk-show hosts. He and other bloggers organized campaigns to scare advertisers away from the station and its shows after their own “hate speech” offended him. [...]
Shocked, Just Shocked To Discover……
Joe Gandleman is worried that what bloggers say may matter enough to be held against them……
Greetings! I drove 450 miles today so just got online. A few comments on comments:
1)I continue to be amazed that the assertion that these two bloggers are popular with progressive is being disputed. I did not say they are popular with conservatives. And the issue is not whether someone who is conservative likes them or not, the issue is whether it is accurate to say they are popular with many progressive readers and bloggers. That would be like me disputing that Protein Wisdom is a popular blog on the right if I disagreed with them on something. Sorry. They are popular.
2)I would like to remind everyone that it does not add to the debate when personal characterizations are made about people who write weblogs — whether on the right, center, left. The more we get into the 21st century, the more our discussion seems to be centering onto going after someone personally.
3)THAT being said, I see a link from a blog here that I need to mention. FYI, I don’t berate other bloggers because they have different views, but to each his or her own. However, a comment about me needing to police our comments would have been nicer and taken more seriously if it was emailed. I don’t even hinge on doing blogwars with other bloggers and frankly don’t read people who try to suck me into them. Time is very limited and there are many superb writers on the internet, many of them on blogs that don’t get links or the attention they deserve. The blog that ran that item is one I have linked to and like and will continue to read. But after driving from San Diego to Tucson and seeing that comment with no EMAIL SUGGESTION in my mind made me think it’s just a swipe at this site because of disagreeing with our views (the typical way politics runs these days) rather than a suggestion.
We’re just really starting on the more detailed monitoring of comments.
Rather than remove any of the above, I would advise all those reading them to note: it is more intelligent to stick to the issues and not make comments about people’s looks etc. It doesn’t matter if a blogger is right left or centrist. (Of course it’s easy for me to say since I look like Brad Pitt.). That being said, if someone has a complaint it will be taken seriously if we get an email, not if we read a link and find that a sarcastic comment with no email pointing something out to us. In fact, we have done MANY internal emails on the need to police comments. But I think the write of that post wasn’t interested in the quality of our comments. Someone interested in serious discussion and quality control would have emailed me.
Are Candidates Wise In Hiring Bloggers?…
Joe Gandelman looks at the Marcotte and McEwan brouhaha and concludes: “Be forewarned: it’s likely to happen now to all bloggers who want to join campaign staffs of any party. The bar has been moved with a little less freedom……
Joe, I think that I’m the only one who took issue with this so I assume this comment is in response to mine. I think you’re misunderstanding. I am not disputing that they are popular with progressives, and I’m not saying that you are correct to note that. But when I read your initial post where you ONLY said that, without acknowledging that part of the reason for their popularity is their attack rhetoric (or at least acknowledging that they use those kinds of arguments and it is accepted by progressives). In other words, fine to acknowledge that they’re respected by progressives, but should they be respected by moderates?? What happened to the dire need to change the dialogue in American and tone down the hate speech?
In other words, I felt that you were somewhat dismissive of their over-the-top comments. Everybody does it now and then, no big deal, par for the course in blogtopia.
And frankly I don’t get the idea that a hire by a candidate shouldn’t take history into account, or that there shouldn’t be any guilt by association. Most people here were critical of the Harold Ford ads…so if a future GOP candidate uses the same ad agency, there’s no issue with that? No accusations that he/she might approve of the use of subtle racist messages (not that I agree with that- but for those who felt that way about those ads, I doubt they would be willing to ignore the history). I guess you could say that what these bloggers wrote on their blogs didn’t represent the kind of writing that they will now do for Edwards as his representative, but I think that ignores the fact that he obviously hired them for the way they communicate and the way their readers respond to him; he is trying to court that audience. I wouldn’t say there’s anything wrong with that, but doing so also causes backlash with people who are offended by the bloggers and candidates should accept that as part of the deal and decide if it still weighs in their favor.
And, I would think that moderates would prefer candidates who aren’t trying to play the two sides of the political spectrum off of each other. If you don’t feel that this applies to this situation, I’m trying to figure out why not?
I don’t have time to get into a nitpicking debate. I simply STATED about how popular they were. I was not doing a critique of their comments. I would not agree with everything they wrote and they would not agree with everything I wrote and have written (but no one totally agrees with me). I won’t be at my computer most of today, but I’m really not going to leave a zillion comments saying again that I made a simple statement and my post was not to endorse or blast what they wrote in comments or in their sites but to look at the bigger picture.
[...] Joe Gandleman: [...]
Joe, I wrote the comment because when I read your post (without having known much about the whole situation) I got one impression and when I followed up to learn more background I got a completely different impression. That led me to feel that you were somewhat dismissive of a key part of the issue. If you disagree with that, fine, but I wanted to point it out because other readers may agree with me and because I do think it gets back to the need for moderates to help keep debate centered on issues rather than attacks. Again, you disagree and don’t have time to argue that point, fine, but there may be readers who get my point. In other words, don’t assume that I’m trying to pick at you personally or goad you into an argument; I’m simply raising a point for others to consider, OK?
Joe Gandelman said:
February 8, 2007 at 10:40 am
They are highly respected among progressive bloggers. That is a fact. Maybe not with conservative bloggers, but, yes, they are respected among progressive bloggers. Like with anything else, you may find one who doesn’t care for a post they may write, but they’re popular.
Yes Joe . That is both a fact and an indictment. So I see no problem with going after Bloggers for what they say. Answering free speech with MORE free speech does not constitute an attack on the first amendment. These people own their remarks, period!
There is nothing special about the blogasphere which calls for different rules . This seems like a modern version of screaming sanctuary in a church. Unfortunately for some bloggers that went out in the 17th century.
So blogs are commenting here now eh?
Besides it making a sloppy mess of the comments section with nonsensical short blurp rants, it’s making it harder to keep up with the actual friggen debate they apparently don’t care to engage in going on here.
Punt em unless they as individuals care to debate, otherwise they are here to target bloggers. More fake outrage from the far right, sans the nuts to debate it.
Pyst — those are trackbacks, not comments. Other bloggers are blogging about Joe’s story. Yes, that is a fuller form of commenting, but it’s not a short blurp rant in and of itself (although I agree that it can look that way).
If you hire someone that trash talks Catholics the perception is that you endorse that persons views, especially if you know about it and do nothing.
This is just reality. If any of you bloggers want to be campaign bloggers I suggest you go to political correctness 101 and 102 and every other class they offer because if you say Poop one time…….your toast.
The let em link the story on THIER website, not trash up the comment section….and is not only looks that way, it reads that way as well.
Pyst,
There used to be a separate link below posts for trackbacks; with WordPress it no longer seems to be there. It appears to me that when people DO link to a TMV post from their website, it appears here as a comment. Before it was listed as a trackback; now when you see those “comments” that are just links to other blogs, I think those ARE the trackbacks. In other words, that’s not a blogger clicking on “comment” and posting his link, it’s a blogger posting a trackback on his site which then shows up here as a comment. I just ignore them unless there’s something in their tagline that sounds interesting enough to follow the link.
Hydrocodone apap….
Hydrocodone….