« Rep. Shadegg: An Invitation To 'Disaster' | Main | The Irrelevance Of Confirmation Hearings »

The Courtship Of The Blogosphere

Fifteen years ago, just a few months into my first full-time job as a reporter, I covered a speech by Iran-Contra figure Robert McFarlane. It was a defining moment in my career.

I say that not because of the speech, which was both predictable and unspectacular, or because of the story I wrote, which was ordinary and uninspiring. I say it because of what happened afterward: One of my journalistic brethren approached the disgraced national security adviser to former President Ronald Reagan and requested an autograph.

I was floored. How could a supposedly objective journalist solicit the autograph of a controversial news subject, especially before finishing his story? How objective could his story possibly be if he were so enthralled as to publicly request a favor from his source?

I felt the same way last week when reading the accounts of conservative bloggers handpicked by the Republican Party to cover the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito from Washington. The communications experts in the party took to new heights the courtship of the blogosphere that they began last fall -- and they found a most receptive audience.

The bloggers not only welcomed the lavish treatment and exclusive access bestowed upon them by the Republican National Committee and the Senate Republican Conference; they basked in it without reservation. They dropped names (White House adviser Karl Rove was the favorite), heaped praise on their news subjects and celebrated their chance to imbibe in the trappings of power.

By this point, you're probably thinking, "So what? They're bloggers, not journalists. Nobody expects them to be objective." I thought the same thing -- especially of the writers who attended the forums for sites like Blogs for Bush and GOP Bloggers.

I also remembered my first visit to Washington in 1988. I received a one-day press pass to the White House on the day that then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher bade farewell to Reagan. When I got home, I didn't write an exposé on the Iran-Contra scandal. I wrote a firsthand account of how cool it was to be at the White House.

Still, I recoiled at much of the content written by the GOP-approved bloggers last week. Why? Because the content they wrote from Washington, while being feted by the Republican Party, did not pack the same punch as their normal fare. Too often, they sounded more like unofficial stenographers for the GOP than the passionate, independent watchdogs that they normally are.

The bloggers occasionally provided powerful commentary on the actual confirmation hearings. They also dedicated plenty of space to experts ignored by the mainstream media, which is among the praiseworthy functions of blogs.

But the bloggers let pass a rare opportunity to grill senators and top officials about topics that matter to the bloggers. They let their sources set the agenda. Scott Johnson of Power Line did pursue one personal mission -- identifying who is responsible for delaying an unrelated judicial nomination -- but he appears to have been the exception to the rule.

The sessions revived, and arguably legitimized, criticism that at least some right-leaning bloggers are tools of the GOP. The events also raised questions about where, if at all, lines should be drawn between political parties, party-focused blogs and sometimes-journalistic blogs.

Minnesota-based blogger Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters paid his own expenses while in Washington, but he still caught flack from some readers. "[Y]ou are mainstream media, believe it or not," one of them wrote after seeing Morrissey's account of the mostly off-the-record meeting with Rove. "Many people read your opinions of things. And now you and your other blogger friends are meeting with Rove? That doesn't make me take you any more seriously; if anything, it does the complete opposite."

That kind of reaction does not surprise Steve Outing, a senior editor at the Poynter Institute and a proponent of citizen journalism. "Many bloggers want to be perceived as independent political watchdogs (though of course, many have a strong and visible point of view)," he said in an e-mail interview. "But if they come to be perceived as taking handouts from politicians, they lose credibility."

Outing also criticized the exclusive nature of last week's events. All of the blogs that participated are at least friendly toward the Republican Party, and some exist solely to push the party's ideology.

"My perception would be that I'm just going to be reading GOP propaganda and not learn anything," Outing said. "And I'd say the same thing if Democrats did the same thing.... Reach out to bloggers across the spectrum in terms of giving them access to events like today's, and maybe then we'll see something worthwhile come from it."

Henry Farrell, a political science professor at George Washington University and a blogger at Crooked Timber, said such party-sponsored events for bloggers make it "easier to manipulate the [political] process at least to some extent." He added that regulation of the sort opposed by many bloggers could be the end result.

"It's hard to fit bloggers well into the existing categories of election law -- they are neither pure journalists, nor pure activists, nor (usually) pure campaign operatives -- and election law is going to have to be changed to accommodate them," Farrell said.

Pat Cleary of the Manufacturers' Blog attended some of the GOP forums and said in an e-mail interview that "the beauty of blogging" is its unfiltered nature. "You get what people are saying without benefit of my bias or filter. ... My job isn't to pin them, debate them, argue with them. I'm glad to be invited, happy to write what they have to say."

I agree to an extent. But blogging also is beautiful because the people who are doing it are outsiders. They are neither part of the media establishment -- the MSM they hate so much -- nor the political establishment. Their ability to see the world differently than people inside the Beltway is precisely what moved them to outrage against former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., three years ago, when the establishment initially yawned.

The blogosphere lost some of that edge last week. I hope the loss is only fleeting.

Posted by | 09:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/439

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Courtship Of The Blogosphere:

» Are Bloggers "Kept Sources" at GOP Events? from Tapscott Behind the Wheel
There is another consideration here and that is the simple fact that partisanship doesn't always preclude journalism that advances the public interest. The press of the Founders' era was instrinsically partisan and often horrendously so, yet the Firs... [Read More]

Tracked on January 16, 2006 01:17 PM

» To Much "Organization" Discredits The Political Blogosphere from Thought Market
The organization can be the formal courting of bloggers by a political party, or an informal network that simply reacts to incumbent manifestations. It makes no difference - it is still obvious and enduring. The right moves ever further right,... [Read More]

Tracked on January 16, 2006 07:09 PM

» Hitting Below The Beltway Blogroll from Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere
Beltway Blogroll's Daniel Glover had few good things to say about the results of bloggers being invited to Washington DC last week to meet with Senators and cover the Alito hearings. Glover acts disappointed about the performance "of conservative blogg... [Read More]

Tracked on January 16, 2006 08:17 PM

» Bloggers gaining influence and conflicts at the same time from Pundit Review
Three of our former guests on Pundit Review Radio are having an interesting conversation about the recent Blog Summit in which the GOP invited select conservative bloggers down to Washington to cover the Alito hearings. Danny Glover from National Jou... [Read More]

Tracked on January 16, 2006 08:57 PM

» H&i fires 20 Jan 06 from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
WTF, Over? I knew it was bad - as an instructor at the Field Artillery School I was teaching remedial english to college graduates... but I didn't know it was *this* bad. Obviously, I blame Bush, because religous conservatives and... [Read More]

Tracked on January 20, 2006 09:19 AM

» Questions about the Courting of the Blogosphere by Politcal Parties from Sneakeasy's Joint
With accounts of conservative bloggers handpicked by the Republican Party to cover the confirmation hearings, and now the project over at Truth Laid Bear, some folks are asking questions that need to be asked regarding the courting of the Blogosphere, [Read More]

Tracked on January 20, 2006 11:38 AM

» The Importance Of Reporters, the Irrelevance of Journalism School from Dean's World

There is much talk in some quarters of how journalism as a profession is a dying one. Hugh Hewitt, for example, has a very good piece i...

Tracked on January 23, 2006 01:23 AM

» Too Much "Organization" Discredits The Political Blogosphere from Thought Market
The organization can be the formal courting of bloggers by a political party, or an informal network that simply reacts to incumbent manifestations. It makes no difference - it is still obvious and enduring. The right moves ever further right,... [Read More]

Tracked on April 27, 2006 08:40 PM

Comments

This is another sign that blogging is been dragged into the mainstream, and thus losing the vitality that makes/made it special.
The mainstream absorbs, subverts and changes. Before you know it bloggers will gravitate into large groups, go to New York and squabble over how crap the masthead logo is or is not. They might even take off their pyjamas...
It might stay healthy for a while, but the signs of more and more bloggers becoming ersatz journos rather than citizen reporters is saddening.

Matthew | 01.16.06 11:58 AM

Hmm, I don't really have a problem with this. I think news reporters tend to look at themselves as having a naturally adversarial, watchdog-type relationship with newsmakers (particularly ones they don't care for, but that's for another post).

But I don't think bloggers fit that mold. They're a new phenomenon and I don't think it would serve the blogosphere well to be anchored to the same rules that govern traditional journalism.

After all, traditional journalism isn't going away. And we news/opinion consumers have become accustomed to the reality that much of what we consume is done with an agenda in mind. There's nothing nefarious about that, so long as the axe-grinder confesses they're grinding axes.

There are lines that have been crossed. The Armstrong Williams situation comes to mind. That was clearly inappropriate -- mostly because he was paid taxpayer dollars to advance an agenda on his talk show.

But, as an avid reader of political blogs, I can't say I have much problem with the editors of these blogs being courted by newsmakers. I expect objectivity and independence from reporters...I just don't consider bloggers to be reporters -- anymore, anyway, than I consider such a thing from somebody like Limbaugh.

Imsnooping | 01.16.06 01:01 PM

While I agree with your observations about biased blogging I could not help but notice that you only go after conservative blogs. If you really want to provide an objective report on the wooing of the blogosphere you should at least mention the fact that left leaning blogs got the same insider treatment from the Democrats

larryprice | 01.16.06 01:07 PM

Matthew is right that *some* of the blogosphere is being dragged into the mainstream. It was inevitable. But the beauty of the blogosphere is that many more blogs *won't* be co-opted, and they all have the same level of access as any brand-name, top tier blog. Provided you hear about it and can find it.

But what your story exposes is the crying need for sources of unfiltered events -- a sort of C-SPAN for the wider news sphere. That's where blog opportunity exists, where people just go to events and then say, "This is what happened." Television news only gives us short soundbites, and newspapers chop up speeches with asides, observations, and editorial opinion. Places where speeches and events are presented without comment are the coming wave, as more tools and more bloggers come together.

mike hollihan | 01.16.06 02:04 PM

The "fare" from these bloggers doesn't usually "pack [any kind of a] punch". All those listed are some degree of partisan hacks. While I haven't been following BlogsForBush or Gawpblawggers recently, I'm only aware of slight disagreement with the GOP. The same goes for those on the Dem side. For instance, could anyone point to any even slightly uncomfortable questions that either the R or D bloggers asked at the 2004 conventions?

TLB | 01.16.06 02:27 PM

Everyone who writes anything either in the MSM or the blogosphere does so from a point of view and to some extent becomes an activist. Whether your goal is to "give voice to the voiceless" or get a Republican elected to office, you are an activist. The difference with blogs is that if I don't already know a given blogger's bias I can evaluate it from their blog. In this particular case I know that these bloggers were hand picked and given the royal treatment, so I know that they are going to be giving me the GOP line. That in itself is news on various levels.

Mark | 01.16.06 02:41 PM

I have to say I disagree pretty strongly here. Not with the assertion that the GOP-friendly bloggers were a friendly and receptive audience, but with the notion that there's anything in the least bit disturbing about that.

Indeed, the concern expressed here seems rooted in phoney-baloney journalism school nonsense about objectivity and independence and the adversarial model of journalsm--in short, it's rooted in everything people have come to hate about journalists.

What makes bloggers special is not their independence, not their fairness or objectivity. It's their transparency. At least, that's what makes them special to me, and that's what makes them special to a lot of other people. You know exactly where they're coming from and they tell you. They don't hide under phony, fake j-school rhetoric about objectivity, or delusions that you're doing a good job as a reporter if you're adversarial.

I have no objection whatsoever to reporters who say, "I'm an unabashed Bush fan. I recently went to the White House, and here's what I saw and heard." Nor do I have any problem with the reverse: "I can't stand what Bush is doing to this country. I recently went to the White House and here's what I saw..."

Bloggers lose nothing of importance when they allow themselves to be courted by politicians so long as they're honest about it. Their readers will let them know if they become dishonest, and most people can spot a shill a mile away anyway.

Dean Esmay | 01.16.06 03:52 PM

In fact, let me expand on something. I said this:

I have no objection whatsoever to reporters who say, "I'm an unabashed Bush fan. I recently went to the White House, and here's what I saw and heard." Nor do I have any problem with the reverse: "I can't stand what Bush is doing to this country. I recently went to the White House and here's what I saw..."

Let me add something just for extra special emphasis, to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

I detest and loathe reporters who refuse to make exactly these kinds of revelations about their point of view. I would never have lost respect for a reporter who wrote about how cool it was to be at the White House or getting an autograph from a public figure. Not one jot, not one tittle. I would immediately lose respect for one who refused to admit to thinking how cool it was and how neat it was to get an autograph (or have a lunch with someone important, or whatever).

I hate with a steaming passion those deplorable lies they teach in journalism school about objectivity, about good reporting being adversarial, about "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted." and about the phony-baloney trained "objectivity" that does not exist. I hate hate, hate, HATE them. They're LIES.

I want every reporter to tell me up front who he voted for in the last election. If he's doing political reporting, it should be on his byline: "Dan Glover, Kerry supporter." "Brit Hume, Bush supporter."

And if he's one of those who doesn't vote because he's under the illusion that that makes him more independent, I want him revealing who he would have voted for... and if he's absolutely adamant that he would be undecided, I want him to know that I'd consider him a wishy-washy twit who had little of value to tell me.

In short, let the bloggers be courted and feted by politicians, corporate leaders, whoever. This harms them not in the least--so long as they are open about it. We don't learn "talking points" from such things, we learn how the politicians and their supporters think, what they say to each other, what they believe about themselves and each other. And as a result we learn far more than we do in 99% of all political reporting.

Let's have more of this kind of thing, please, not less.

Dean Esmay | 01.16.06 04:03 PM

I guess you weren't invited. Please change the name of your blog to "Sour Grapes". I bet you would do the same thing for a Dem Administration event...oh wait.

Lefty McDoofus | 01.17.06 09:22 AM

What would be the best way to stimulate bloggers to start discussing Congressional Term Limits, which, it seems to me
at this time in our political evolution, is crying out for attention?

Nelson Lee Walker | 01.20.06 02:59 PM

Term limits are politically impossible without a Constitutional amendment. Believe me, I watched the attempts all throughout the 1990s and they almost all went down in flames. If you don't impose it nationwide--which will require an amendment--all that happens is that the states without term limits wind up with all the members of congress with the most seniority, and seniority=power.

Dean Esmay | 01.23.06 12:41 AM

Post a Comment