« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 30, 2006Taking Fire Through The MailTube
Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia is working hard to show the Republican Party the technological way to electoral and governing success, but he opened himself to some high-tech jabs from usually friendly quarters with his latest innovation.
This week, Kingston added a feature called MailTube to his congressional Web site. The service lets his constituents record video questions for the congressman, upload them to the Internet using services like YouTube and Google Video, and then wait for Kingston's video reply.
The very first question -- from Jason Pye, the newly elected chairman of the Libertarian Party of Georgia -- put Kingston on the conservative spot: "Congressman Kingston, why haven't you joined other Georgia Republican congressmen and the Club for Growth in cutting government spending?"
Pye was just grateful that Kingston took the time to answer, and another poster on his blog added, " hope Kingston becomes Speaker of the House one of these days." But by invoking the Club for Growth name, Pye perhaps unwittingly invited a third party into the conversation: the group's blogger, Andy Roth. A fourth party, Dave Holman of AmSpecBlog, added his critical voice, too.
"Kingston’s answer is typical of the big-spending attitudes that pervade the Republican Party in Washington these days," Roth wrote. "He essentially argued that in order to pass appropriations bills, you need to convince members of both parties to vote 'yes.' How do you do that? You buy them off with pork projects."
Holman described Kingston's answer as "a bumbling journey through the sausage making of the Appropriations Committee" and added, "Sometimes our representatives are wise to shun sunlight's disinfecting rays."
Unlike most lawmakers in Congress, even those who have blogs or occasionally post blog entries elsewhere, Kingston truly appreciates the interactive medium. He knows that the smart thing for a politician to do when caught in the blog's-eye is to engage his critics. And so he did, through "spokesblogger" David All.
All listed Kingston's fiscally conservative credentials on the lawmaker's blog and insisted that the House Appropriations Committee is making progress both in cutting "pork" from the federal budget and in terminating federal programs -- 95 in the last round. He urged conservative bloggers to work with Kingston.
"The bad news is that those programs are not officially 'dead,'" All wrote. "The spending bills are now on their way (or will be on their way) to the Senate for their consideration. And you know what that means. I’m hopeful that our allies in this fight are continuing to closely monitor and watch these 95 wasteful programs to ensure that they never see the light of a taxpayer dollar again."
UPDATE: Kingston's blogger critics offered more analysis of his record and technological innovation after seeing All's response. The debate continues at AmSpecBlog (here, here and here) and the Club for Growth. Robert Bluey has more at Human Events Online.
Posted by Danny at 10:05 PM | Comments (1)
 |
It seems like only a short time ago that blog conference calls, "blog rows" and other attempts at connecting official Washington with the blogosphere were new. That's because it was only a short time ago.
The first Republican Party conference call with bloggers was held last October as a bid to win support for failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Shortly after that came the first "blog row" on Capitol Hill." In January, Republicans courted a few bloggers to cover the confirmation hearings of now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in person. And February marked the first live-blogged congressional hearing.
Democrats have engaged in similar outreach, though not quite as openly -- at least not until the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas last month.
These days, however, attempts to court bloggers and/or welcome them into the media fold are not nearly as newsworthy, simply because they are not "new." They are so Web 1.0.
The evidence: Republican lawmakers held both a bloggers' conference call and a blog row on Capitol Hill this week, and few people noticed. The Health and Human Services Department also held a call with bloggers about welfare regulations. Mindshare hosted an event on blogging, too, and while ShopFloor took note of it and posted multiple entries on the blog row, it was the exception to the rule.
My point is that blogging inside the Beltway has quickly gone mainstream. Now we'll just have to wait and see what that means for the medium.
Just something to think about before sharing this week's blog bits:
-- The Air Force Office of Scientific Research is conducting a study on blogs.
-- Mark Nickolas of Bluegrass Report continued to accuse Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher of censorship for preventing state employees from reading blogs, including Bluegrass Report. Nickolas, who once worked for a political opponent of Fletcher's, repeated the charges on his blog and in his weekly newspaper column. The Cincinnati Post defended the governor's attempt to block blogs and other Web content on state computers but said his approach is flawed.
-- A Minnesota blogger noted that Republican Senate candidate Mark Kennedy scrubbed references to President Bush from his Web site. The state's Republican Party responded.
-- The Examiner published commentary from three more of its "blog board" members this week. Ironically, all three of them -- Robert Cox, Bruce Kesler and Dan Riehl -- used a mainstream media outlet to criticize the media. Blogger Jim Geraghty of National Review Online also announced that he has joined the board.
-- At Townhall.com, blogger Tim Chapman used part of his column to credit bloggers with prompting some quick action in Congress. He said bloggers were a key force behind a resolution chastising the media for disclosing secret surveillance programs. John Aravosis of Americablog and other liberal bloggers argued that it's time for the media to "stop treating this attack on [the media] like it's some normal story where both sides deserve a fair hearing. It's not."
-- Confirm Them invited judicial "nominations" for a potential opening in a federal circuit court.
-- Ed Morrisey of Captain's Quarters continued his role as citizen journalist by reporting more details from captured documents in Iraq that are still being translated by people independent of the government.
-- Daily Kos created a page to recognize and reward lawmakers who show a commitment to the blogosphere. The first three beneficiaries: Democratic Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Brad Miller of North Carolina and Louise Slaughter of New York. Daily Kos and other blogs in the netroots community also introduced new favorite candidates for this fall.
-- Blog adviser: the job of the future?
-- What do the netroots and the John Birch Society have in common? If you're in the mood for a long read, Josh Trevino has the answer.
-- Jerome Armstrong of MyDD also has a long essay about his work on the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat Howard Dean. There are no astrological references. And in case you're wondering after all the controversy surrounding Armstrong last week, it looks like he'll be keeping his current political consulting job.
-- The quest for online integrity, which encompasses not posting personal information online, suffered another blow this week. RedState has the details. (UPDATE: Make that two blows, according to The American Spectator, RedState and Michelle Malkin.)
-- The Chamber of Commerce tested the waters of the blogosphere with a post at Congress Blog.
-- Late last week, Concurring Opinions offered a tongue-in-cheek template for stories that disclose information about secret surveillance programs.
-- Our basement, like many others in the Washington area, flooded this week. Insurance doesn't cover the damage. I'm not a happy camper. But the pun-filled look at the "extreme weather" that Howard Mortman penned made me laugh. Check it out.
Posted by Danny at 12:17 PM | Comments (0)
|
Imagine landing a dream advisory job with a candidate who could become the first female president of the United States. Now imagine sharing your excitement with your friends, only to have them wonder aloud whether you've sold out to "the man" -- er, the woman.
That's exactly what happened to former Salon blogger Peter Daou this week. He announced that he is the new blog adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the wife of former President Clinton and herself a likely Democratic contender for the White House in 2008.
Daou's goal is "to facilitate and expand her relationship with the netroots" -- no small task considering her unpopularity among many Democrats active in the Internet grassroots. The enormity of his task became glaringly apparent soon after he announced the job change.
The commenters at Daou Report were the first to question his decision. "So you've joined the dark side too, Peter," one of them wrote. "Sigh. I [hope] you got a good price in exchange for selling your soul to Queen B." Another said he is "troubled by the idea of [Daou Report] being edited by a partisan working on the team of a declared senatorial candidate and an undeclared presidential candidate."
Perhaps far worse, though, were the people who professed to be Daou's friends (at least in the netroots sense) yet chose to publicly warn or chastise him about working with Clinton. Two such entries appeared at The Huffington Post.
Under the header "Friends Don't Let Friends Work For Hillary," R.J. Eskow warned that Clinton's outreach to bloggers won't work because her philosophy and theirs do not mesh.
"I would be insulted at the idea that the substantive differences that I (and many others) have with Hillary can be resolved through some sort of outreach program," Eskow said. "This member of the 'online community' is not going to be persuaded by some 'Internet game plan' that her stand on Iraq, and defense issues in general, is anything but a) unprincipled, and b) poor political strategy."
Cenk Uygur put his commentary at The Huffington Post in this context: "Peter Daou is one of the most astute and aggressive bloggers in the country. Senator Hillary Clinton is the poster child for equivocation and triangulation."
Uygur then listed three possible outcomes to a Daou-Clinton relationship that he compared with former President Richard Nixon visiting China in 1972: Clinton will heed Daou's advice and "adjust her views and actions;" Daou eventually will leave the job because of frustration; or Daou "will become an apologist" for the "hideous and morally repugnant" views of Clinton.
With friends like that ...
UPDATE: Daou has a friend on the right in Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits, and Hynes both praised Daou and congratulated him on his new job earlier this week -- with one caveat. "We wish Peter Daou all the best ... well, almost all the best. We would be thrilled if he came in, say, second place in November of 2008."
Posted by Danny at 07:59 AM | Comments (2)
|
'Network Neutrality' Dealt A Senate Defeat
The Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday approved a major overhaul of nearly all sectors of the communications industry on a 15-7 vote, Technology Daily reports. But the defeat of a so-called network neutrality amendment may bode ill for Senate passage of the bill this year.
That amendment was defeated on an 11-11 tie vote after an extensive debate. Olympia Snowe of Maine was the only Republican to vote for the amendment, and her vote produced the tie.
The overall measure addresses issues like the ability of the Bell telecommunications companies to rapidly enter the market for pay video services. Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said after the vote that he would seek support from 60 senators -- the number needed to prevent a filibuster -- by potentially deleting portions of the bill. He acknowledged earlier in the week that he does not have 60 votes for the measure "right now."
Ron Wyden, D-Ore., went to the Senate floor to announce a procedural "hold" on the legislation because it lacks strong network neutrality language.
Matt Stoller continues to dedicate much of his time to the issue, with his work now falling under the rubrick of BlogPac. Stoller posted an entry yesterday as the committee action unfolded. After the vote, he analyzed the vote and the path forward.
This morning, he offered praise for Democrats who are fighting for net neutrality and making it a campaign issue.
Daily Kos, meanwhile, posted the text of Wyden's floor speech and explained the "hold" concept. And more coverage is available at the blogs of Net Competition and Save the Internet.
Posted by Danny at 09:45 AM | Comments (0)
|
Matt Stoller of MyDD has made no secret of his dislike for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, and when the freshman Democrat from Illinois dared to chastise his party for not acknowledging "the power of faith," Stoller pounced again.
"It's totally true. You can't swing a dead cat in this country without hitting a generic secularist who's all like 'Stop praying, weirdo', before handing out a Democratic voter registration card," Stoller mocked. "Thank you, Obama, for taking on this critical yet vulnerable stereotype and reinforcing it with moral security measures."
In a later post that acknowledged the "The Pro-Obama Case" made by another blogger, Stoller explained his contempt for Obama like this: "I'm no fan of Barack Obama, and I don't think he really won his race so much as fell into the Senate through the mishaps of his opponents. And I bristle at the cult of personality around him that obscures our ability to discuss his work without bringing in a whole lot of unnecessary hot air."
Stoller also called Obama's decision "to repeat falsehoods about liberals disrespecting faith" an example of "DC-hackery."
On that particular issue, if not a broader blogger discontent over Obama, Stoller was not alone. Others who took Obama to task for his religious-oriented speech included Stoller's fellow MyDD blogger Chris Bowers, Ezra Klein and at least one diarist at Daily Kos.
John Aravosis of Americablog agreed that Democrats should court evangelicals -- but by focusing on issues like the death penalty and poverty. "What Democrats need to remember is that they should find the God in their own values, not change their values ... to embrace someone else's warped hatred masquerading as piety."
Over at TPMCafe, Nathan Newman said he doesn't understand the harsh reaction to the speech. "If you read the whole speech, the almost knee-jerk response to Obama pretty much illustrates his point of the discomfort by some progressives in any discussion of religion in the public square," Newman said.
And TPMCafe contributor Matthew Yglesias (who curiously describes himself as an athiest and practicing Jew) added this:
To a lot of people, it's quite important that we allow more official acknowledgment of religion in this country. ... I don't honestly see a major cost to giving way on this point. If it's really important to the majority of people in School District X that they hold some kind of prayer before high-school football games -- let them.... More publicly funded nativity scenes and allowing "voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet" (as Obama proposed) isn't going to put us on a slippery slope to a theocratic dystopia. Some concessions need to be made to public opinion, and it's smart to make them on basically symbolic issues.
Posted by Danny at 09:04 AM | Comments (0)
|
CapitolLink: Time For The Times To Go?
Rep. J.D. Hayworth scored some press coverage yesterday for his suggestion to revoke the congressional press credentials of The New York Times. The Arizona Republican, who is a former journalist, said the paper abused its privileges by disclosing the details of an anti-terrorism surveillance program.
Today, Hayworth took his unfiltered complaint about the Times online at Congress Blog. "Let’s not forget that The New York Times is our guest at the Capitol," he wrote. "The paper has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to have a presence here. The paper has worn out its welcome and its time for them to go."
Posted by Danny at 04:46 PM | Comments (0)
|
The left wing of the blogosphere has taken a verbal beating over the past several days, so it was a bit refreshing to click over to Balloon Juice today and see a rant against bloggers on the right -- whether warranted or not.
John Cole penned the diatribe as a long preface into an entry that actually said conservative bloggers may be right for a change. The issue: their criticism of The New York Times for publishing a story about an anti-terrorism surveillance program.
But before giving the conservative bloggers some credit on that topic, he had this to say about them in general:
[C]ertain wings of the blogosphere are angry about something every 2-3 days anyway, and the right wing is always eager to attack the N.Y. Times. ... As far as I am concerned, collectively, the right wing of the blogosphere is the ‘boy who called traitor.’ Not a week goes by when I hear that so-and-so should be ostracized because they are a treasonous rat, they are a commie symp, whatever. I am jaded, and the pile-ons are old.In addition to those feelings, I have also watched the same wing of the blogosphere defend away any and every excess committed by this administration. “Just a few bad apples” is a term that is forever soiled, and whenever I hear it from here on out, I will instantly suspect something worse than it appears is going on. This gang has also seemed rather blase about individual liberty and individual rights, and simultaneously cheered almost every intrusion by the government into my personal matters, phone records, etc., because, you know, THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL US ALL.
Cole closed by saying that he's still undecided on the merits of the spying program, but it's obvious that any hesitation on his part is not the result of a reluctance to speak his mind.
Posted by Danny at 04:11 PM | Comments (0)
|
Sen. John McCain was a porkbuster before Porkbusters were cool in the conservative blogosphere. The Arizona Republican has been irritating his colleagues by fighting earmarks in the federal budget for years.
I featured McCain's efforts in a March 2004 special report on technology-related pork for National Journal's Technology Daily. His efforts were the focus of my lead, which read like this:
When John McCain went on the Senate floor in January for one of his regular rants against "pork barrel" spending, the Arizona Republican focused his ire on the types of special-interest earmarks that have outraged budget watchers for decades. He decried the $1 million for the Mormon cricket infestation in Utah, $238,000 for the National Wild Turkey Federation and $200,000 to North Pole, Alaska, for what McCain called "elves and others."But crickets, turkeys and imaginary elves aside, much of the money that lawmakers earmark for their states and districts these days goes toward technology-related projects. The projects that McCain did not specifically mention include $3 million for the Center for Criminal Justice Technology in Maryland, $2.75 million for the Nogales CyberPort Project in McCain's home state, and $2 million for computer training of at-risk youth at the Boys and Girls Clubs of America in Atlanta.
National Journal's Technology Daily reviewed the spending bills and conference reports for fiscal 2004 and identified hundreds of such earmarks involving information technology, telecommunications and related fields. The projects range in value from as little as $16,000 for interactive displays at the National Distance Running Hall of Fame to $9.4 million for an information-sharing database in the South Carolina Judicial Department, and many of them have multimillion-dollar price tags.
All told, the value approaches the $1 billion mark -- and could exceed it if vague earmarks for "equipment," "upgrades," "research" and the like were counted.
Since then, the Porkbusters have stormed onto the scene to annoy lawmakers like Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, perhaps more than McCain ever could. Now McCain has joined forces with the blogosphere's budget hawks in a guest post at the Porkbusters site.
"The total number of earmarks in spending bills has grown from 4,126 in 1994, the last year of Democratic control, to 14,404 in 2004," McCain wrote. "That's a 240 percent increase in ten years time. In dollars, the cost borne by taxpayers for earmarks has nearly doubled. That's not a record Ronald Reagan would have been proud of. And it's not a record Reagan Republicans should be proud of today. We need to stop this ... now."
The entry has generated several comments -- apparently a practice that worried McCain, who irked bloggers not long ago with an ill-received joke.
"I have never blogged before," he wrote. "But I understand readers can leave comments on each post and that these comments can be rather, ahem, blunt. So I am happy to entertain any questions, comments or insults you might have for me at this time."
Hopefully, that joke will not be over the bloggers' heads like his last one.
Posted by Danny at 01:11 PM | Comments (1)
|
Get the scoop on how the three intersect at PRWeek. The article, dubbed "Candidate 2.0," includes a few thoughts from me.
And here's an excerpt about David Schlosser of Advanced Micro Devices, a Libertarian Senate candidate in Arizona who blogs and sees blogs as a great tool for third-party candidates.
“The best thing about blogs, which is particularly true in the early stages in a campaign, is they expand your reach beyond your geography,” Schlosser says.He counts readers in countries such as Russia, Korea, and the United Kingdom; while they are unlikely to provide funds and very unlikely to provide votes, Schlosser says that, by tracking stats, he can find people out of state directing Arizona citizens to his blog.
“The great thing about it is that anyone can read a blog, and then send it to someone in Arizona,” Schlosser says.
Posted by Danny at 12:58 PM | Comments (0)
|
AdWatch: A Neutral Stance On Net Neutrality
As I noted several weeks ago after writing a column on "network neutrality," the issue of whether to offer a statutory guarantee of equal treament for similar high-speed Internet content has posed a conundrum for free-market bloggers who also are fans of a free Internet. That conflict is at least one factor in a stalemate on the issue among the directors of RedState, one of the right's most prominent blogs.
With the Senate Commerce Committee set to debate network neutrality tomorrow or later this week, however, the issue made its way onto RedState another way today. The site is now running competing blog advertisements.
Mike Krempasky, one of RedState's directors, pointed readers to the ads and said the site will address its own internal division on network neutrality by rotating the two ads into and out of the top slot. He then encouraged readers to see what both advertisers -- It's Our Net and The Future ... Faster -- have to say about the topic.
If nothing else, that approach is unique. Other bloggers who support net neutrality but have accepted ads arguing against the concept have gone out of their way to either ridicule their buyers or at least publicly question their views.
Posted by Danny at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)
|
The netroots trump the emerging "GOProots" when it comes to online activism. But even netroots leader Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos agrees that the Republican Party is superior in its understanding and application of technology in the political realm.
He made that point in his book "Crashing The Gate" and restated it today after reading a Los Angeles Times commentary on how the GOP used technology to its advantage in a recent California special election -- a contest that had been of keen interest to liberal bloggers.
"Just about everyone in Silicon Valley is a Democrat," Moulitsas wrote, "yet the Beltway [Democratic] Mafia has allowed Republicans to take a huge lead over us in technology."
Posted by Danny at 08:43 PM | Comments (0)
|
Transparency Monday
Leading bloggers on the left have been under fire the past several days, in part because their critics think those bloggers should be more transparent about their business and political dealings. Bloggers pride themselves on transparency, after all.
Perhaps that explains today's burst of transparency -- and talk about the need for more of it.
The talk, curiously enough, came at the liberal blog EzraKlein.com. A pseudononymous blogger there suggested that Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos has not been forthright enough about his relationship with MyDD founder and political consultant Jerome Armstrong, and Armstrong's most prominent client, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
After noting that in a previous career life Armstrong gave some pretty sorry stock advice, Neil the Ethical Werewolf wondered aloud whether Armstrong's political advice is any more trustworthy. Likewise, he said Moulitsas' decision to tout the potential presidential candidacy of Warner is just as suspect.
"I'm not saying that Kos is getting paid off by the Warner campaign. ... There's a simpler explanation," Neil wrote. "Maybe Kos is just another gullible Bluepoint investor who trusts and admires Jerome, and is buying an Internet stock for a lot more than it's worth, on Jerome's recommendation. We ought to be suspicious of pro-Warner comments Kos makes in the future. You don't just have to beware the guy who's willing to mislead you for financial gain; you have to beware the guy who listens to him."
Neil acknowledged in his entry that he is a supporter of John Edwards, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2004 and a potential presidential candidate in 2008.
When Neil's post generated some kickback from readers of EzraKlein.com, the Ezra Klein jumped to his defense. "Markos is a good guy and a powerfully positive force, but he's as subjective and biased as anyone," Klein wrote. "Neil, an Edwards supporter, is arguing that that's led him to support a candidate ideologically unsuited to the netroots. That strikes me as a fair point, and one that should be seen as coming from the subjective prism of an Edwards supporter."
Klein also made a fresh pitch for more transparency as bloggers start taking sides in campaigns. And in a follow-up entry, he noted his own leanings (subject to change): 1) 2000 Democratic standard-bearer Al Gore; 2) John Edwards; 3) 2004 Democratic candidate Wesley Clark; 4) and former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
At Salon, meanwhile, blogger Peter Daou announced that he has taken a new job as a blog adviser to another potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. His mission: Help Clinton, who is unpopular among blog readers, "facilitate and expand her relationship with the netroots."
Said Chris Cillizza of The Fix: "Clinton's decision to bring on Daou -- coupled with the hiring of Jesse Berney, another liberal blogger -- shows a recognition on her behalf that blogs will play a crucial role in choosing the 2008 Democratic nominee and that she has work to do in the courtship of this increasingly important interest group." (I could not find a mention at Berney's blog, now on hiatus, about his work for Clinton.)
Chris Bowers of MyDD also made a disclosure about his new paid consulting gig with Netroots Research, Strategy and Analysis. Two blog diarists -- Hale Stewart at MyDD and David Atkins at Daily Kos -- are the other members of the firm.
"Just so everyone knows," Bowers wrote, "I will disclose every campaign I end up working on."
And a campaign blogger for John Bonifaz, a Democratic candidate for secretary of state in Massachusetts, offered one last bit of disclosure at MyDD today, as he has in previous entries there and at Blue Mass Group.
Posted by Danny at 06:47 PM | Comments (0)
|
The Beginnings Of The 'GOProots'?
When it comes to organized activism in the blogosphere, Democrats have a clear edge over Republicans.
"Elite blogs" like Daily Kos, Eschaton and MyDD coined the term "netroots." They have worked in unison to promote and raise money for underdog candidates like Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential election, Paul Hackett in an Ohio special election last summer, and Senate candidates like Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Jon Tester of Montana and James Webb of Virginia this year. They even created and continue to financially support an outfit called BlogPac that does polling and pursues pet policy causes like "network neutrality."
By contrast, while Republicans have attempted to court the blogosphere -- and while conservative bloggers have been accused by their Democratic counterparts of taking marching orders from the party powers-that-be -- the GOP approach has been much more ad hoc, to say the least. There is no "GOProots."
All of that may be about to change, however. The latest issue of Newsweek has a story about the ongoing resurrection and rehabilitation of Townhall.com, a conservative Internet site that had its start at the Heritage Foundation. And one goal of the site -- merging conservative media and activism online -- sounds a lot like the mission of Daily Kos, the blog powerhouse of the left.
Radio talk-show host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, author of the 2005 book "Blog," is behind the venture, so the blogosphere is sure to be a key component of whatever emerges in coming weeks. ""We will overwhelm them," Hewitt told Newsweek in a reference to Daily Kos.
Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters said the new Townhall probably will skew to the center-right rather than the conservative extreme because of Hewitt and the rest of the line-up at Salem Radio, which purchased Townhall.
As that new effort gets under way, the GOP interest in the blogosphere is evident in other ways, too. Friday's blog workshop for House Republican aides -- a follow-up to the session where I spoke in March -- is the latest example. The Washington Times covered the event.
The White House also apparently hosted a bloggers' conference call about the avian flu late last week. A blog called FluFactor was among the participants.
That bit of news prompted David All, the "spokesblogger" for Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., to dream of bigger things. "I hope that President George W. Bush will take advantage of the opportunity to be the first 'blogging' president," All wrote. "It would not only add some spice and flare to the legacy, but it would also drive the Democrats crazy."
Posted by Danny at 04:20 PM | Comments (0)
|
Jerome Armstrong used the MyDD forum he created to finally respond to ethics outcry against him and co-author Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos.
"Let me just state for the record that any payola allegations or some quid pro quo deal involving Markos and myself are complete fabrications," wrote Armstrong, whom Moulitsas calls his "blogfather."
Armstrong's comment was posted as an addendum to a post authored by Matt Stoller that was dismissive of the ongoing controversy. "I think these insiders and Republicans are just obsessed with us," wrote Stoller, who has faced criticism himself at The Channel Changer for his "apparent lack of concern about the (Jerome) Armstrong dust-up."
Moulitsas, sounding like the leader of an effort that he alternatively has called both a leaderless movement and an "everybody-who's-part-of-it-is-a-leader" movement, also took to the Internet yesterday afternoon and urged the netroots to stay the course.
"Just a quick reminder as the media nip at our heels: We didn't get here because of them," he wrote. "They can praise us, they can trash us, they can ignore us, and ultimately none of that will matter as long as we keep doing what we've been doing."
Matt Margolis of GOP Bloggers, meanwhile, has some thoughts on Moulitsas as a leader. Commenting on a statement by Moulitsas to Newsweek, Margolis wrote:
The way Markos talks, he clearly thinks he's the messiah of the Democratic Party. ... What Kos fails to understand is that the greater influence he does have in the Democratic Party, the more Republicans are going to win. And if he wants to ignore that fact, by all means, he should continue what he's doing. Kos not only suffers from delusions of grandeur, but he also harbors delusions that he is in the mainstream, and that Republicans and moderate Democrats are not.
UPDATE: Moulitsas' stay-the-course message, apparently written in response to a critical New York Times piece by conservative writer David Brooks (subscription only), was not well-received by one diarist at his site. And her admonition to Moulitsas that "The Cover-Up Is Worse Than The Crime" was not well-received by the Daily Kos community.
The diarist, Karen Collins, just happens to be married to journalist and former America Online editorial director Jesse Kornbluth, who counter-attacked at The Huffington Post. Some excerpts:
For better or worse, Markos is on trial. And this is tragic, for the site is one of the greatest on the Web and Markos, on his worst day, is a zillion times the man and thinker that Brooks is on his best. But in his e-mail, Markos got it exactly backward. If the "news" about Armstrong is indeed nothing, he would have done better to suggest that his friends in the progressive community write about it. ... But there's an easy way out: Markos, do what my wife asked --- give us an explanation. And then promise you'll never send another e-mail that makes you look like Vito Corleone [of "The Godfather" movies] telling the Tattaglias and Barzinis what to do.
Also at The Huffington Post, Marty Kaplan offered a different view of Brooks' column.
UPDATE II: Armstrong now has responded to the astrology angle to the story (same MyDD link as above). "I have done the new-age-type things over the years -- life's never boring that way," he wrote, adding that "it has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy."
Posted by Danny at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)
|
Mobilizing Hate And Anger On The Left
White House adviser Karl Rove had some unkind words for the liberal blogosphere several days ago. I failed to share his thoughts here earlier, but they still seem newsworthy in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding such blogs.
Rove shared his thoughts in an exclusive interview with VictoryNH.com, New Hampshire's first citizen activist network. Here are the blog-related excerpts:
Among Democrats, my sense is that the blog world has tended to strengthen the far left of the Democratic Party at the expense of liberal, but somewhat less liberal, members of their party. It has tended to sort of drive their party even further to the left rather than focusing on good ideas that would help unite people around common goals and common purposes.Instead, the Internet for the left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger -- hate and anger, first and foremost, at this president and conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far left-wing ideology that they tend to represent.
... I think the Democrat focus, or at least the Internet blog world focus, if you will, is, “How can we punish our enemies and express our anger?”
Not suprisingly, Rove also had some words of praise for bloggers who share his political views. As some of those very bloggers regularly do, he compared their work with that of talk radio.
"The growth of talk radio and the Internet means that a lot of our public discourse and our political dialogue takes place outside of the venues controlled by those big institutions," Rove said. "In fact, those big institutions can now be held to account by a Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast or a blogger pointing out difficulties in, say, CBS’s approaches on documents, for example, or in commenting on the editorials found in the pages of The Washington Post or The New York Times. I think that’s healthy."
He added: "The Internet has proven to be a more powerful tool on our side than it has been for the other side. It has proven to be a tool on our side to sort of unite conservatives and have a healthy, intra-movement dialogue. But it’s essentially been something that has helped us gain in influence and broaden our appeal."
Both Rove and President Bush have made similar positive comments before about blogs friendly to their cause, and Rove has done his part to court bloggers.
Posted by Danny at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)
|
New York has another blogger running for the state Senate.
Last month, I reported that Philip (Flip) Pidot of Suitably Flip is a Republican candidate in the 26th District. This week, Howie Klein reported at The Huffington Post that Brian Keeler is running as a Democrat in the 41st District.
So who is Keeler? Klein has the answer: "People who have been reading Daily Kos and Firedoglake for awhile probably recognize the screen name NYBri as belonging to a well-spoken, forthright, engaging progressive, bursting with positive energy, enthusiasm, great spirit and abundant intelligence."
Keeler and Pidot are among the other blogger candidates I've noted in recent weeks.
Posted by Danny at 09:27 PM | Comments (0)
|
Right Wing News asked 225 conservative bloggers to rank the "worst people in America." Fifty-one bloggers responded, and several members of Congress made the unflattering cut.
Filmmaker Michael Moore topped the list, but Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York weren't far behind in the second and third slots. Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, finished a distant 12th, showing once again how irrelevant powerbrokers become in the political world when they lose power.
Others in the list of 29:
-- Former Vice President Al Gore (tie for 5th)
-- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts (5th)
-- Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania (tie for 7th)
-- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California (7th)
-- Former President Jimmy Carter (tie for 13th)
-- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean (13th)
-- Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia (16th)
-- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (18th)
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer of California (23rd)
-- Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and John McCain of Arizona (honorable mention)
McCain was the only Republican politican to make the list, but television evangelist Pat Robertson, whose outrageous comments regularly make him a target in the blogosphere, did as well.
Interestingly, some of the Democrats who made GOP bloggers' list of "worst Americans" also have generated occasional or even frequent criticism from bloggers on the left. They include Mrs. Clinton, Pelosi and Schumer.
The only prominent blogger to make the list: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos.
Posted by Danny at 10:26 AM | Comments (0)
|
Lee Siegel, a blogger for The New Republic, posted a pretty harsh criticism of blogs a couple of days ago, in part as a reaction to the Kos/Armstrong controversy. Siegel's inspiration for the commentary came from a New York Times article about "mixed martial arts."
"You don't need to have special training or to acquire special skills," Siegel wrote. "You just rush in and fight in no-holds-barred playground style." To him, that sounds an awful lot like the blogosphere. Here's an excerpt:
It is a precise corollary of most blogospheric commentary, which requires no special training or skills, and which attempts to parlay street-fighting skills into fame and riches. But when bloggers do get the MSM to turn its head their way, the training wheels come off and they usually fall flat on their faces.It's a bizarre phenomenon, the blogosphere. It radiates democracy's dream of full participation but practices democracy's nightmare of populist crudity, character-assassination, and emotional stupefaction. It's hard fascism with a Microsoft face. It puts some people, like me, in the equally bizarre position of wanting desperately for Joe Lieberman to lose the Democratic [Senate] primary [in Connecticut] to Ned Lamont so that true liberal values might, maybe, possibly prevail, yet at the same time wanting Lamont, the hero of the blogosphere, to lose so that the fascistic forces ranged against Lieberman might be defeated.
Posted by Danny at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)
|
Friday Festival Of Blog Bits (The Kos Edition)
The big news in the blogosphere this week may not be all that newsworthy -- at least not yet -- but bloggers everywhere are talking about it. The issue is the ethics of two of the left's best-known bloggers, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos and his "blogfather," MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong.
The trouble for Armstrong and Moulitsas actually began a few weeks ago, when Salon published a piece that pegged Armstrong as "just another political consultant." The duo had ridden a wave of positive publicity for weeks after the publication of their book "Crashing The Gates," but the flip side of fame is that it often makes the media cast a more critical eye upon the newly famous. While the Salon piece didn't generate much buzz, it hinted at more scrutiny to come.
Moulitsas and the netroots movement he and Armstrong helped foster enjoyed another burst of mixed publicity earlier this month. The subject was the much-hyped YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas. Moulitsas appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press," but he also found himself and his community as the subjects of numerous critical articles and blog entries.
Armstrong, meanwhile, indirectly became enmeshed in controversy because of the work he is doing as a consultant for Mark Warner. The former Virginia governor threw a lavish party at the convention and openly tried to woo liberal bloggers who fashion themselves kingmakers in the Democratic Party these days. Not everyone in the liberal blogosphere thought that was such a great move, and substantive critiques of Warner on policy issues continue to surface online.
Late last week, The Opinionator, a subscription-based blog of The New York Times, entered the fray as it tried to connect some seemingly unrelated dots: Moulitsas' influence as a publisher; his former political consulting partnership with Armstrong; Armstrong's work as a consultant during and after his business relationship with Moulitsas; and Armstrong's pre-blogfather settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over his role in touting various stocks in Internet forums.
Then on Sunday, in a story slugged "Shill To Hack: Celebrated Lib Strategist Has Shady Market Past," the New York Post pointedly detailed the allegations about Armstrong in a forum that everyone could read. From there, the story snowballed, and now the controversy has splintered into a whole series of mini-controversies.
Here are some of the bigger, most intriguing and just plain bizarre storylines that have developed, with plenty of links for your reading pleasure (or insomnia treatment):
-- When Armstrong says "Jump!" for the candidates who hire him, Moulitsas says "How high?" RedState dubbed the unspoken (and unproven) arrangement "Hype For Hire." Jim Geragthy of National Review Online pulled together a timeline to make the case. Mickey Kaus of Slate also has been making the claim. Moulitsas proved that he could have a future in politics by offering a non-denial denial.
-- Like all other political machines in American history, the netroots noise machine that Kos celebrates is run with an iron fist. Moulitsas controls the membership of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, and other bloggers listen when he tells them to stay silent. Liberal bloggers are becoming the monster they are fighting. Not so, Moulitsas said in finally breaking his silence -- at which point other blogs like MaxSpeak, MyDD (here and here), Pandagon and Tapped started talking.
-- The New Republic is a tool of the right. Moulitsas leveled that charge when one of the traditionally liberal magazine's bloggers suggested that Kos is the puppetmaster of the netroots. TNR owner Martin Peretz countered with an attack on Moulitsas. Moderate Democrat Ed Kilgore of New Donkey also challenged Moulitsas' ridiculous argument that just because TNR dared to challenge him, they are part of a right-wing conspiracy.
-- Moulitsas is a hypocrite. That was the conclusion from both the right (Captain's Quarters) and the left (a commenter at Pandagon) after hearing about some of the behind-the-scenes activities of the netroots. Wrote Ed Morrissey: "[I]t's exactly the kind of coordination that the left often tosses out as accusations against their political opponents -- and this shows a significant level of hypocrisy in those accusations."
-- The netroots movement will fall. "[I]t's a myth based upon a lie sitting upon a foundation of fragmented political thought. The genesis for the Netroots movement stems from a fixation on, first the stockmarket, then astrology, and it only found politics, probably, when it was barred from engaging in a previous financial fascination that ultimately led to real trouble with the SEC." Jonah Goldberg offered a slightly different view at National Review Online, arguing that if Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House, the netroots will become irrelevant because they have nothing interesting to say. Instead, they're all about winning.
-- The blog war is a direct reaction to the growing power of the netroots and proof that the gates of the political establishment not only will be crashed but toppled. Yes, Moulitsas managed to turn the controversy into a not-so-subtle plug for his book in an appearance today at NDN, a think tank for "new Democrats." (The Corner has a partial transcript for the preceeding video link from PoliticsTV.)
-- "Elite bloggers" are better than the elites of the political and journalistic establishments. That's what Micah Sifry said at Personal Democracy Forum: "[T]he people who will hold him accountable are his reader-writers, who are hardnly a herd of cattle. That's the blogger creed. It may not work perfectly, but compare that level of accountability to the sort of impunity assumed by elite politicians and elite journalists, and I'll take the blogger creed any day."
-- Armstrong is a fan of astrology -- the implication being that he is not to be taken seriously. This would be one of those bizarre storylines I mentioned, with RedState, Riehl World View and Wizbang on the case. The revelation doesn't seem relevant to anything and sounds like the beginnings of a smear campaign much like the one directed at conservative blogger Ben Domenech earlier this year. Liberal bloggers dug until they found something on Domenech (plagiarism) that stuck. Now some bloggers on the right seem to be on a quest for the smoking gun that will topple Armstrong, Moultisas or both.
Unrelated to the scandal surrounding Moulitsas and his machine, David Broder of The Washington Post picked this week to pen a commentary about the shortcomings of the netroots, as opposed to some new Democratic activism with online connections.
Here's the slam: "[T]he blogs I have scanned are heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought. The candidates who have been adopted as heroes by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the convention's leader, and his fellow bloggers have mainly imploded in the heat of battle ... or come up short."
Enough About Kos
For folks who want a more balanced Friday blog diet, check out these other stories from the week:
-- The Senate Commerce Committee began its telecommunications debate yesterday, and blogs like Daily Kos, Firedoglake and MyDD that are pushing for "network neutrality" on the high-speed Internet are urging their readers to call the key lawmakers.
-- Americablog resurrected its complaint about the House's sudden and unexplained inaction on legislation designed to ensure the privacy of cellular telephone records. I addressed the subject in a February column.
-- The Theme Team of the House Republican Conference is holding another blog workshop this morning for congressional staffers in the party. It's a follow-up to the session where I spoke in March. The staff of Theme Team Chairman Jack Kingston of Georgia also organized two conference calls with bloggers this week, one on immigration legislation and the other on the Voting Rights Act.
-- What will the House look like if Democrats regain control? Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits fearfully noted two possibilities: Howard Berman of California as chairman of the ethics committee and Alcee Hastings of Florida as chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
-- Matt Stoller of MyDD, who wants Democrats to run the House again, had kind words for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., after Waxman filed a bill to address global warming.
-- Wizbang had the scoop on how the prosecutor in a high-profile rape case in North Carolina condemned bloggers (and the mainstream media) for "speculation" about evidence in the case.
-- Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft penned her first column for The Examiner. The topic: "Bloggers, Karl Rove And The Presumption Of Guilt."
-- Mark Tapscott of The Examiner, who tapped Merritt as part of his "blog board of contributors," pointed readers of his blog to an article that touts a "citizen auditor Web service" as a check against government spending. Tapscott also penned a response to my recent entries on the convergence of blogs and the MSM.
-- The brouhaha over blogs being blocked on government-owned computers in Kentucky prompted Copyfight to pose this question: "Is 'Blog-Swarming' A New Journalism?"
-- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, won some praise for a recent blog entry at Daily Kos, and John Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential candidate, earned kudos for his latest video podcast.
Posted by Danny at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)
|
The Brouhaha Over Blog 'Censorship' In Kentucky
Five days ago in Virginia, a Washington Post reporter chastised bloggers for too often making their Web sites "clearinghouses for rumors, innuendo, political attacks, misunderstandings, half-truths and gossip." Yesterday, a blogger in Kentucky proved the reporter's point with an innuendo-laden attack on the governor of his state that worked his fellow bloggers into a conspiratorial frenzy.
The blogger in question was Mark Nickolas of Bluegrass Report, who had a run-in with state government late last year over getting press credentials to cover the legislature. He accused Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher of vindictively blocking access to Bluegrass Report after it was cited in a New York Times front-page story that was critical of the governor.
Kentucky bloggers and prominent national bloggers pounced on the story once Nickolas took his accusation public Wednesday. The blogs that echoed his charges of censorship motivated by corruption included Daily Kos, MyDD, TPMMuckraker, Talking Points Memo and Think Progress. All of those blogs, like Bluegrass Report, typically support Democrats.
Unforunately, the political bloggers did what they too often do when motivated by partisanship: They reported first and asked questions later. And most never asked questions at all.
Instead, they just ran sensational and unsubstantiated headlines like this:
-- "Kentucky Governor Blocks Popular Blog;"
-- "Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher Blocks Blogs;"
-- "Fletcher Flunkies Blocking Liberal Sites;"
-- "Kentucky Government Censors Political Watchdog Site;"
-- "In Soviet Kentucky, The State Blocks You!";
-- "Welcome To The People's Republic Of Kentucky;"
-- And this from a blog called Blast Furnace Canada: "The National Socialist Republic Of Kentucky."
All of the entries linked readers back to the major blogs, only one of which appears to have bothered to contact state officials in Kentucky to ask a few basic questions: Are blogs being blocked? If so, why? And what are the criteria for blocking them?
Those aspects of the story -- like the fact that blogs now are considered to be among "the top categories of Web sites accessed with no business value to the commonwealth," as a state official told me -- only surfaced when the mainstream media starting covering it. There are now articles by AP, The Enquirer in northern Kentucky, the Lexington Herald-Leader and the Louisville Courier-Journal.
AP, The Enquirer and the Herald-Leader also reported a key fact, one ignored by the blogosphere: that Nickolas once worked as the campaign manager for now-Rep. Ben Chandler, who ran against Fletcher for governor in 2003. The Courier-Journal identified Nickolas as "a Democratic blogger." But TPMMuckraker didn't even bother reporting the connection between the offended blogger and Chandler when noting Chandler's objection to the alleged censorship.
The facts do not support Nickolas' initial allegation. As noted at The Kentucky Democrat, Bluegrass Report was not the only blog blocked -- and the list of blocked blogs reportedly includes Kentucky Republican Voice.
"This was not a 'deep throat' conspiracy to silence a vocal critic of the administration, as some liberal and extreme bloggers fantasize. It just so happened that the 'political content' number was up, along with several other categories of non-work-related Web content, late last night," Leland Conway wrote at The Conservative Edge. "State workers arrived this morning only to find that they wouldn't be able to surf the Net in search of the latest political scandal; they would simply have to do their work instead."
Now that the facts have been reported by the MSM and noted on the blogs, the conversation is beginning to shift toward the broader issue of whether Kentucky's government, and U.S. governments in general, should be blocking access to blogs on government-owned computers when media sites are not blocked. That gets to the question I addressed in my latest column about bloggers starting to earn official recognition as media.
Bloggers like Nickolas, who has earned a solid reputation in Kentucky for his work on Bluegrass Report, deserve that recognition even if they are not technically "journalists," and governments should think twice about treating citizen media differently than professional media. But Nickolas may have done himself and his fellow bloggers harm in that regard when he made an unsubstantiated accusation against a political foe without checking his facts first.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: The reference that said The Conservative Edge "apparently has not been blocked" has been removed. Jill Midkiff, the state official cited below, tried to access that site this morning after seeing my blog entry and could not gain access.
UPDATE II: Evidence to the contrary, Bluegrass Report is sticking to its self-centered storyline. "There is little doubt this was a deliberate banning of [Bluegrass Report]," Nickolas wrote today. "This administration has hated the scrutiny they've been under since this site launched last year, and then they lost it after The New York Times story that was critical of them."
Other blogs, including Personal Democracy Forum, continue to echo the conspiratorial theory that a Republican governor is punishing the blog of a Democratic nemesis.
EDITOR'S NOTE: When the allegations of politically motivated blog censorship broke yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Fletcher's press secretary for comment. A few hours later, I received an e-mail from Jill Midkiff, executive director of the public information office with the state Finance and Administration Cabinet. Here are her responses to my questions:
Beltway Blogroll: Several blogs are reporting that the state government of Kentucky is blocking access to blogs that are critical of the governor. I am interested in the stories because I monitor developments related to blogs for NationalJournal.com in Washington, D.C., but none of the stories I've seen indicate that a state official was ever contacted for comment. Could you tell me, Is access to the blog Bluegrass Report being blocked on state of Kentucky computers? Is access to other blogs being blocked?
Jill Midkiff: Access to a number of Internet sites has been blocked over the last two years through the use of a service the state subscribes to called Webwasher. Sites that have been blocked include, pornography, erotica, computer games, gambling, shopping and dating sites to name a few. Most recently, the additional categories blocked are:
-- Entertainment/motion picture: Includes Web sites in the area of cinema, television, program information, video-streaming, infotainment, entertainment/gossip news, and Web sites about celebrities and related content.
-- Auctions/classified ads: Includes Web sites with online/offline auction sites, auctions houses and online/offline advertisements from collectors and antique dealers.
-- Humor/comics: This category contains sites with jokes, sketches, fun application comics and sites with other humorous content.
-- Newsgroups/blogs: This category contains Web sites that enable the sharing of information such as on a bulletin board. Includes Web logs and guest book servers as well.
-- Malicious Web sites: This category contains Web sites with malicious source code, such as self- installing Trojans and viruses that exploit security vulnerabilities in browsers or firewalls.
BB: If so, why? Does the decision to block access (assuming that is the case) have anything to do with a recent New York Times story about the governor that cited Bluegrass Report?
JM: [The Commonwealth Office of Technology] subscribes to a national service that blocks categories, not particular sites. Therefore, we cannot tell you specific names of sites that have been blocked.
Two weeks ago, we ran a report on Internet usage, and these were found to be the top categories of Web sites accessed with no business value to the commonwealth. If an employee believes they should regain access to any site for official business, they may make that request through their supervisor. This is not a new practice. It has been in place for at least two years but must be periodically updated.
BB: Have any of the bloggers who are writing about this bothered to contact the governor's office for comment on the accusations leveled at Bluegrass Report and elsewhere?
JM: There have been a few calls from bloggers, but most of the inquiries have come from the media.
BB: And one last series of questions focused on blogs generally: What is your impression of the political blogosphere in Kentucky? What are its good and bad points? Has the governor reached out to blogs, and if so, how?
JM: I can’t speculate on the governor’s view of blogs. The action taken is about the appropriate and efficient use of state resources and state employee time.
Posted by Danny at 09:48 PM | Comments (0)
|
Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., made an appearance at Captain's Quarters to address the issue of "network neutrality" on the high-speed Internet. His entry came as the Senate Commerce Committee today began its debate of that and other communications-related issues in a move toward a telecommunications overhaul.
"Imposing unnecessary regulations on the Internet is a sure way to discourage investment, limiting the deployment of new products," Sununu said. "The marketplace has powerful incentives for private industry to continue the development of existing technologies, while at the same time providing safeguards to protect consumers."
Posted by Danny at 07:31 PM | Comments (0)
|
A Blogger's Web Advice For Sen. Cantwell
Heather Greenfield, one of our reporters at Technology Daily, has a report on a blogger who thinks he may have influenced the design of the campaign Web site for Sen. Maria Cantwell. Here is the story as published in Heather's "People Column" today:
Jeff Maurone, a program manager at Microsoft and the author of a Web log in Washington state, was not too impressed when he recently visited the campaign Internet home of Sen. Maria Cantwell. He supports the politics of the Washington Democrat but decided he could not tolerate the site without complaint.In an open letter to Cantwell published on his blog, Maurone described the site as "a few bland and dry pages, some non-challenging content, nine (count 'em) photos stretching back a few years, a page to submit information to volunteer, and -- actually, that's about it."
"Until your Web site learns to love the netroots," he added of Internet-based grassroots activists, "it will become more and more difficult to follow your campaign and be passionate about it."
Maurone said if this year's Senate election were based on Web sites, he would choose Republican challenger Mike McGavick. His site has "all the right tools needed to run a progressive campaign," including a blog, podcasts and up-to-date photos, Maurone said.
Just six days later, Maurone reported that Cantwell has a site that is "vastly improved and more in line with that of her challenger."
His next complaint: If Cantwell, a former executive at the online music company RealNetworks is so tech-savvy, why does she not have podcasts, audio that can be downloaded on devices like Apple Computer's iPod? He also said he still has not heard back from the campaign about his offer to volunteer for Cantwell.
Posted by Danny at 08:25 PM | Comments (0)
|
When the history of the online media revolution is written, 2006 should merit special mention as a turning point for the blogosphere. This is the year, for better or for worse, when bloggers earned their first official media stripes.
Bloggers have considered themselves media almost since the beginning of their brief existence. They proudly claim the "citizen media" mantle and call their work by names like "grassroots journalism," "participatory journalism" and "public journalism." But self-proclamation doesn't carry the same weight as official recognition -- something bloggers have only just begun to win.
The first significant victory came in March, when the Federal Election Commission largely exempted blogs from campaign finance rules on the grounds that they are media. They applied to blogs the same exemption that governs newspapers, broadcasters and other traditional outlets.
The commission had hinted at such a decision in a November advisory opinion that said the costs incurred by one blog publisher "in covering or carrying news stories, commentary, or editorials on its Web sites are encompassed by the press exception."
The later rules, which the agency approved unanimously, recognized "the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach."
More recently, bloggers have scored wins in the state judicial and legislative branches, including a ruling for independent journalists who had been sued in California by Apple Computer.
The defendants in that case, Apple Insider and PowerPage, had posted information about a forthcoming product. The information was provided by anonymous company sources, and Apple argued that the publication of the information violated trade secrets. They wanted the blogs to disclose their sources.
The bloggers, defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said California's "shield law" for protecting journalistic sources applied to them. The state district court sided with Apple, but the appeals court overturned that ruling.
"We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes 'legitimate journalis[m],'" the court wrote on May 26. "The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here." The court added that the Web postings were "conceptually indistinguishable from publishing a newspaper, and we see no theoretical basis for treating it differently."
Earlier that month, an advertising agency dropped a similar lawsuit against a blog named the Maine Web Report after bad publicity in the blogosphere. And in Connecticut, state legislators passed a shield law after rejecting an effort to exclude blog authors and people without journalism degrees.
All of those developments indicate the government's growing acceptance of grassroots publications as valid sources of information. "[A] solid body of law is being developed upholding the principles that citizen media deserves the same First Amendment protections as 'professional' journalists," Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos wrote after the Apple ruling.
There are still obstacles to the official recognition of the convergence between old and new media, however. The debate about shield laws is a case in point. Not all states have them, and while bills before Congress would let journalists protect their anonymous sources, not everyone is keen on the idea of giving such protection to citizens who think of themselves as journalists.
The latest Senate bill, S. 2831, has a convoluted, 82-word definition of "journalist" that seems designed to exclude bloggers, podcasters, video bloggers and other amateurs. It includes phrases like "salaried employee" and "professional medium."
At a Senate hearing on the issue last fall, furthermore, both a Justice Department official and legal expert warned against a federal shield law that would protect anyone who posts criminal or classified information on a blog.
The Los Angeles Times recently noted in an editorial that competing House language "is friendlier to bloggers and student journalists." But the paper said it is more important to get any kind of federal shield like the one bloggers used in California, even if independent media are not protected at first.
An even bigger hurdle will be getting credentials to cover government. Citizen journalists have been great assets during natural disasters and breaking news. They also have been granted temporary credentials for covering events like political conventions and even a congressional hearing. At least one enterprising blogger also covered his state's legislative session this year.
But convincing the people who control access to press galleries, press conferences and other official events to welcome citizen journalists into the fold will not be easy.
Mark Nickolas, a blogger in Kentucky was denied access to cover the state legislature until a Louisville newsweekly invited him to be a columnist. And in Texas, the Transportation Department refused credentials for an Internet newsletter called CorridorWatch to cover a forum.
At the federal level, few citizen journalists are knocking at the door to Congress, according to members of the credentialing committees for the print, periodical and broadcast galleries. But if they do come calling, bloggers, podcasters and other amateurs are likely to be turned away because of strict rules that limit media privileges to "bonafide working press."
"Anyone can put something on the Internet," said Susan Milligan of The Boston Globe and president of the Standing Committee of Correspondents, "but that doesn't make you a journalist."
Posted by Danny at 10:08 AM | Comments (1)
|
Michael Shear of The Washington Post was one of the keynote speakers at the Virginia blog summit I attended Saturday. Even before his luncheon speech, he engaged bloggers after "walking into the wrong room" and in effect becoming the fourth panelist in our discussion on blogging and journalism.
I was impressed with his willingness to be blunt about the shortcomings of the blogosphere while in a room full of bloggers. He continued with that theme in his luncheon address, offering a healthy mix of rebuke and admonition for the budding citizen journalists.
The bloggers asked some pointed questions after Shear finished his prepared remarks, but they were not at all hostile. And judging by the comments made on some of their blogs after the summit, they took his message to heart.
Shear's message is worth repeating to a broader audience, so I asked him to e-mail the text of his speech for publication here. He graciously agreed to do so. Here are some telling excerpts:
The good
[The value of blogs] is in three areas: first, in focusing attention on happenings to which the MSM pay too little attention; second, in offering analysis -- almost always filtered through a particular political philosophy -- that often goes far deeper than any mainstream media outlet has the time or resources to do; and third, in being effective political advocates for a cause or a candidate.The bad
[W]e in the mainstream press attempt to make sure what we have written is true. I'm not sure the same can be said for bloggers. ... The code of conduct at the Society of Professional Journalists offers four main categories: "seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable." Bloggers -- as we know from last year's debate at this very conference -- do not subscribe to or abide by a similar code.Your sites serve too often as clearinghouses for rumors, innuendo, political attacks, misunderstandings, half-truths and gossip. ... [Y]ou also provide a forum -- a completely open forum -- for anyone in the world to publish, in most cases instantly and usually anonymously, whatever they want to. The discussions are, from what I can tell, almost completely free of any editorial control.
Bloggers will eventually be held accountable, and it will be for the things you least expect. In the next few years, I think bloggers will find that more of what you write is challenged by the people you write about. Some of it will take the form of criticism like that aimed at Will. Some of it will take the form of lawsuits that you will have to defend in court. But it will come. And it will be scary when it does.
[B]e honest about what you are -- and what you are not. You are pundits. You are aggregators of other people's work. You are analysts. You are political activists. You are gossips. You are agitators. You are not journalists.
Click to the extended entry for the full speech.
I'm sorry to have missed your first day of the blogger conference yesterday. I had been planning to attend, but then Lowell [Feld] and his friends convinced this guy Jim Webb to run for the U.S. Senate, and damn if he didn't win. So I had to spend some quality time yesterday listening to his first news conference and writing about the stunningly high turnout in Tuesday's primary.
Turns out that 12 people voted. Wait. Sorry, wrong number. That's the number of people who have ever posted a comment on my blog.
Seriously, though. Did you know that more people watched Tuesday night's episode of "Last Comic Standing" than voted in the Democratic primary Well, that's a different story altogether.
I'm not really a speaker. So what I thought I'd do is offer a few thoughts about blogging -- most of which will probably end up with me being mocked endlessly in a series of blog posts within hours of this conference ending.
And since you're unlikely to agree with much of what I'm about to say, I'm guessing there might be a few questions that I can try to field afterward.
So let me start with a conversation I had last week with a consultant to one of the two campaigns that just ended.
This consultant said he had gotten a tip from someone to look on a blog for some interesting information about his client's opponent. He went to the site, and sure enough, there was a juicy tidbit that might have been perfect for a negative ad. The consultant said he did a bit of digging and contacted the person who had posted the information. When they talked, the consultant said: "Tell me more. How do you know it's true?" To which the person answered, in a quizzical way, "Oh, I don't know if it's true or not. I just heard it."
To me, that's the problem with blogs.
Now, I'd be a fool to be critical of blogs just for publishing falsehoods since newspapers print plenty of them. Take a look at the corrections page of any newspaper and you'll see lots of errors, some of them doozies. (One of my favorites is this one from the Dallas paper: "Norma Adams-Wade's June 15 column incorrectly called Mary Ann Thompson-Frenk a socialist. She is a socialite.")
And we all know of the stunning failures represented by my own paper's Janet Cooke or Jayson Blair at The New York Times.
But the difference, as illustrated by the story that consultant told me is that we in the mainstream press attempt to make sure what we have written is true. I'm not sure the same can be said for bloggers.
There's a saying in the MSM: Stories are often "too good to check." Those are the juicy tips that come in over the transom that make you drool. But then, when you make the calls, find the documents or examine the records, it turns out there's not much there. Sometimes there's nothing.
It's a vetting process that goes on every day, every hour in newsrooms. It's an imperfect process. It sometimes lets things get through that shouldn't, and it too often squelches things that should find their way into the paper. But at least it's a process, informed by a common set of principles that members of the MSM, more or less, agree to.
The code of conduct at the Society of Professional Journalists offers four main categories: "seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable." Bloggers -- as we know from last year's debate at this very conference -- do not subscribe to or abide by a similar code.
That is not to say that all, or even most, of what appears on blogs is bad. On the contrary, I've spent a lot of time on the Virginia blogs during the last year, and I've been impressed by many of them. Commonwealth Conservative, Raising Kaine, One Man's Trash, 750 Volts [by Kenton Ngo], Waldo [Jaquith], and Not Larry Sabato have all at times provided smart commentary on the political events of the day and have passed on information -- gathered often from mainstream media sources, I might add.
Their value, it seems to me, is in three areas: first, in focusing attention on happenings to which the MSM pay too little attention; second, in offering analysis -- almost always filtered through a particular political philosophy -- that often goes far deeper than any mainstream media outlet has the time or resources to do; and third, in being effective political advocates for a cause or a candidate.
A couple of recent examples: Waldo and Kenton analyzed voter turnout data this week, recalculated it using [John] Kerry [2004 presidential] turnout numbers and posted fascinating articles. Bacon's Rebellion has delved deeply into issues like suburban sprawl and economic development. Chad Dotson has imortalized the caption contest. (OK, that didn't turn out so well for Will [Vehrs]. But more on that in a minute.)
And of course, the most recent example of being an effective political advocate is Lowell's Raising Kaine site, which clearly deserves a lot of credit for helping Jim Webb generate some excitement about his candidacy. And if there was ever any doubt that blogs can be an effective and important part of the political process, the YearlyKos convention in Vegas ought to have dispelled that, with several presidential candidates making treks to the Riviera Hotel.
(By the way, speaking of Treks -- I saw pictures of the 900 people who attended that convention and I'm convinced now that there's only a milimeter of difference between a blogger convention and a Star Trek convention.)
Those are the good, and positive parts about blogging. But then there's the not-so positive part.
Your sites serve too often as clearinghouses for rumors, innuendo, political attacks, misunderstandings, half-truths and gossip. (Boy, am I gonna get it on your blogs later, huh?)
As bloggers, your main role is to act as a publisher. In many cases you publish your own work, and some of that is excellent. But you also provide a forum -- a completely open forum -- for anyone in the world to publish, in most cases instantly and usually anonymously, whatever they want to. The discussions are, from what I can tell, almost completely free of any editorial control.
If someone wants to post a rumor on Lowell's site about Harris Miller, there's doesn't seem to be anyone there who has any interest in stopping them. If an exchange takes place on Not Larry Sabato about Jim Webb, it's not anyone's job to make sure that the charges made actually happened. At a newspaper, people can lose their jobs if false accusations are printed. In blogs, there seems to be no accountability at all.
Which brings me back to Will and the caption contest.
Having met Will last year, and not being from Martinsville, I personally don't believe that what he did or said justified the kind of reaction it got. Reasonable people can differ, I suppose, especially about whether he should have been blogging on state time -- though his explanations rang true to me and my gut tells me that many, many state employees do a whole lot worse on state time than Will.
But here's where I think the lesson is from that experience: Bloggers will eventually be held accountable, and it will be for the things you least expect.
In the next few years, I think bloggers will find that more of what you write is challenged by the people you write about. Some of it will take the form of criticism like that aimed at Will. Some of it will take the form of lawsuits that you will have to defend in court. But it will come. And it will be scary when it does. Just ask Will.
The only time I've been threatened with a lawsuit wasn't when I was writing an A1 story on some big political story. It was when I wrote a story about a high school kid who had gotten into minor trouble with the law. I didn't name him, but I described him enough that his father recognized his son from the story and was angry. He threatened to sue. My company's lawyers demanded copies of my notes. It was terrifying. In the end, the father calmed down and never sued. But I can tell you it's not a pleasant experience.
Let me wrap up by saying that I am not arguing for the end of blogs. On the contrary, I think blogs -- in one form or another -- are here to stay. And as technology races forward, more people are going to have virtually unlimited opportunities to communicate with the world like you do. You can't put that genie back in the bottle, even if you wanted to.
And I suppose I'm being a bit harsher than I really feel in the interest of stirring up some conversation. So here's my suggestions:
First, I urge you all to consider again adopting a blogging code of conduct and then strive to live up to it. If you can't agree on one, then let everyone write his or her own. The logistics are less important than having some standards to aspire to.
Second, eliminate anonymity, both for yourselves -- as most already have -- but also for the people who post. Require people to register at your site so that you know who they are and can block them if they abuse the privilege of your site. The Post's own site is moving to this system, and I would encourage you to as well.
Third, be honest about what you are -- and what you are not. You are pundits. You are aggregators of other people's work. You are analysts. You are political activists. You are gossips. You are agitators.
You are not journalists.
Thanks for listening, and I look forward to answering any questions.
Posted by Danny at 07:20 AM | Comments (4)
|
Media Convergence, Blog Style
Following are the remarks I prepared for Saturday's session of the Virginia blog summit in Charlottesville. I shortened them somewhat for delivery. See the extended entry for more details on the summit and what other bloggers wrote about it.
I have a confession to make, and it's one that I think many of you here today will appreciate: I'm a blog-aholic.
I get high on pithy prose and punchy headlines. My dream is to live in a world where everything happens in reverse chronological order.
I went to a reception in Washington last night for the launch of Congress Blog, and when I got home, my wife just looked at me and said: "I know where you were. You were with your mistress, and her name starts with a 'b.'"
Yes, it's true. I ... love ... blog.
I'm not a blogger, though; I'm a journalist. I work 40-plus hours a week as the managing editor of an online, subscription-based publication called Technology Daily. Members of Congress, lobbyists and lawyers pay to read the news we publish.
I am a Washington insider, a card-carrying member of the MSM. I am the sworn enemy of bloggers.
That is what you call convergence. Media convergence. And it is happening in Internet time between the blogosphere and the mainstream media:
-- Newspapermen write blogs, and bloggers write for newspapers. One recent headline in Online Journalism Review asked, "Can Newspapers Do Blogs Right?"
-- Both LexisNexis and Reuters have struck deals for distributing blog content, and the new BlogBurst syndication service already has some major newspapers as clients.
-- Associated Press has partnered with the blog search engine Technorati.
-- And CNN Money recently listed "blog editor" among seven trendy jobs.
One of the best examples of convergence recently happened in Washington. The print newcomer in town, The Examiner, hired my friend Mark Tapscott as its editorial-page editor. Mark is an ink-stained wretch who loves blogs almost as much as me, and he immediately proceeded to create a "blog board of contributors" at The Examiner.
Smart journalists like Mark realize that bloggers have one of the things that mainstream media value most: fresh voices. And smart bloggers know that their voices will carry much further in the amphitheater of old media than in the echo chamber that is the blogosphere.
The convergence of old and new media is apparent in official circles, too:
-- Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission largely exempted blogs from campaign finance law by characterizing them as media.
-- At about the same time, a House subcommittee invited bloggers to cover a hearing on Internet censorship, reserving space for them just as they would credentialed journalists and even providing wireless Internet access so they could live-blog. Some of the folks at the table were "pure" bloggers, and some were newspaper bloggers.
-- On another front just a few weeks ago, the state of Connecticut enacted a "shield" law designed in part to give bloggers and other citizen media the same rights as traditional media to protect the identities of their sources.
-- And not long after that, a California court sided with bloggers who had been sued by Apple Computer in its bid to learn the identities of anonymous sources.
Obstacles to the convergence remain. Not all states have shield laws, for instance, and some experts have warned against extending a proposed federal shield law to blogs. Credentialing also poses a serious challenge for bloggers. At least one of them in Kentucky was denied credentials to cover the state legislative session this year, and the rules for press access to Congress are stacked against citizen journalists.
But convergence is here, and it has only just begun. New developments seem to come on a weekly basis. I don't know exactly where it will lead, but I am convinced of this: Both blogs and the MSM will benefit from the convergence we are witnessing today.
And I, for one, can't wait to blog about it.
Coverage of the blog summit
-- The Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership hosted the summit and has podcasts of addresses given by Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, Attorney General Bob McDonnell and Washington Post reporter Michael Shear, who blogs at The Richmond Report.
-- The Daily Progress, the newspaper in Charlottesville, reported on parts of the summit. Rick Sincere, one of the bloggers at the event, also sent a report to a local newspaper.
-- Terry Rea of SLANTblog was one of two panelists who joined me in the discussion about blogging and journalism. At his blog, he offered some post-summit thoughts, including an entry on how bloggers are filling a political vacuum.
-- And the Blue Dog blog compiled a multiple-choice quiz based on quotes from the conference.
Other bloggers who attended the conference and posted entries on the event included:
-- CatHouse: "One of the reasons conferences like this are a good idea is that when you meet someone who differs so much from you in their political stance, sometimes you make assumptions about their personal character and attitude that really aren't there. Well, at least, I do -- sometimes. It is very good for me to see people face to face, chat with them, get to know them a little because then I see that for all our political differences, we are still very much alike. "
-- ChangeServant: "I agree with Mike Shear ... that, if a blogger wants to be seen as a journalist, a blogger has to act like a journalist -- not a repeater of idle gossip, innuendo and items of suspect truth. I also believe that those of us in the blogospere who play varying roles, campaign worker, lobbyist, etc., owe it to our readers to make clear what role we are playing on our blogs or posts."
-- Extra Innings: "[T]he real payoff was seeing and hearing the reeally, reeally young bloggers like Kenton Ngo and James Martin. Wow — those kids are technically sharp, scary-smart, opinionated, and politically engaged. They already are drilling into issues that we dodderers have tackled unsuccessfully for years and decades. In just a little while, I think they’re going to make change happen."
-- Waldo Jaquith (Day 1, Day 2): "Clearly things have changed a lot in the world of campaign finance since last year, and I speculate that I may have violated campaign finance law, based on what I learned."
-- The Jefferson Mammoth: "I don’t consider myself a journalist, but I think there are bloggers out there who should be. The discussion did somewhat inspire me to try to do some original stuff. We’ll see how long that inspiration lasts."
-- Shaun Kenney: "[T]he tables are turning. No longer are bloggers the conscience of the MSM, but rather journalists are reminding bloggers of their responsibilities to the public square. Mike Shear, for all of his constructive criticism of blogs, is proving to be the Socratic gadfly we all need to hear."
-- One Man's Trash: "Blogging cannot compare in reach or influence to a daily newspaper. That ought to be self-evident. At the same time, it should also be self-evident that online efforts like blogs are changing newspapers' business models before our eyes."
-- Vivian Paige (Day 1, Day 2): "[T]he two [workshops] I attended today -- ethics and blogging, and blogging and journalism -- both started with the same question: Are bloggers journalists? There was no consensus on this. ... Another thing that stuck with me today was the question of what would happen if bloggers didn't have the MSM to draw stories from for a week. Would we be able to generate our own content?"
-- Honesty Counts.
-- And I'm Not Emeril.
Posted by Danny at 07:47 PM | Comments (1)
|
The fight to ensure "network neutrality" for content on the high-speed Internet has generated plenty of attention in the blogosphere, but the lawmakers who will decide the matter do not appear to be fazed by the blog swarm.
When the House debated the issue last week -- and voted soundly against strengthening net neutrality language in its telecommunications bill -- only one lawmaker even mentioned blogs, according to a search of the debate in the Congressional Record, and it was a rather dismissive reference, too.
"[T]he advocates for this amendment claim this amendment is about consumers, the little guy," said Charles Gonzalez, D-Texas. "Countless bloggers have written all members of Congress in fear if this amendment does not pass, they will no longer be free to express their opinions on the Internet and have their voices heard.
"Let me tell you as directly as I can to all the bloggers out there, to all of [the] e-mailers out there, to all the households out there, to the average American: This [net neutrality] amendment is not about you. It is not about the consumer."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., challenged that view with this statement: "Bloggers, our citizen journalists, could be silenced by skyrocketing costs to post and share video and audio clips." But those written comments were inserted in the Record, not spoken on the floor.
In the Senate, meanwhile, Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told Bloomberg News that the Senate is likely to defeat the push for net neutrality, just as the House did. "I believe we'll have a similar vote on the floor of the Senate on net neutrality." And he added: "When it comes to interfering with the marketplace, in terms of major expenditures of capital, I think we should stay away."
Net neutrality is on the agenda at the George Washington University Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet in two days. No bloggers will speak on the panel. But Mike McCurry of Hands Off the Internet, the Democrat who Democratic bloggers have villified as a "shill" for the telecom industry and a "liar," will be.
Get the list of other panelists and details for the event here. RSVPs are requested. People who want to register can follow the link to do so online or via email, or call Ed Trelinski at (202) 994-1003.
CLARIFICATION: One of the panelists at Friday's discussion, Danny Weitzner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, does indeed have a blog. I checked it out, and he actually blogged about net neutrality recently.
I also failed to mention in this post, as I did in my original column on the net neutrality blog swarm, that IPDI panelist Scott Cleland of NetCompetition has a blog dedicated to net neutrality.
I share all of that to clarify that when I said "no bloggers will speak on the panel," I was referring to what I'll call pure bloggers, for lack of a better term -- in other words, people whose public personas are tied primarily to their blogging.
UPDATE II: PoliticsTV has video of the IPDI event, and Save the Internet has a partial transcript that claims "Telco Argument Implodes During D.C. Debate."
The video includes the question-and-answer segment, where MyDD blogger Matt Stoller proved himself to be ready for a career in journalism: He asked a question of McCurry that consumed more than two-and-a-half minutes.
Stoller's pre-question commentary made references to a "disinformation campaign," "falsehoods" and "bad faith and trust." But at least he didn't address his question to the "Mouthpiece For Deception."
Stoller's name came up in a different context yesterday at The Channel Changer, a blog that author Patrick Hynes bills as "one man's crusade for communications competition." Hynes noted a controversy surrounding MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong and wondered whether it might prompt Stoller to "have a word with [Armstrong] or at least rethink his affiliation with MyDD."
Posted by Danny at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)
|
Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather blogging? Would the man whose storied journalistic career was tarnished because of questions raised by bloggers really consider adopting the technology of his oppressors?
It's a possibility, according to blog pioneer Dave Winer.
"I think Rather could be a great blogger," Winer wrote. "He's a thoughtful, considerate person, who thinks about stuff. He has strong opinions about what should be covered by the news, about the responsibilities of citizens in a democracy, and he certainly has experienced the power of blogging personally, and has now had time to reflect. These are qualities of the blogosphere. ... I don't doubt that Rather would be listened to."
Now if Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., would give blogging some thought, that would be real progress.
If you're reading, senator, consider this an invitation to start your blogging journey with a guest entry at Beltway Blogroll. National Journal readers would love to hear your side of the story about the "railroad to nowhere," rising gas prices or whatever else is on your mind.
I am serious about the offer. Your staff can reach me at dglover@nationaljournal.com.
UPDATE: The New York Times has lent more credibility (or maybe less?) to the rumor that Rather may want to try his hand at blogging.
Ankle Biting Pundits found a nugget buried in a Times article about Rather, which said he "plans to create several other journalism ventures, including, perhaps, a blog." Wizbang readers had some fun coming up with potential names for a Rather blog.
Posted by at 01:02 PM | Comments (0)
|
Mid-Term Impact Of The Netroots
Each week, hand-picked political insiders answer questions posed by National Journal magazine. One of the questioins from the latest issue focuses on the potential impact of the netroots in this year's election. The magazine gave me permission to reprint the poll numbers and the select comments from the insiders.
Q: On balance, what impact will "netroots" (Internet political activists) have on the midterm elections?Republicans (71 votes)
-- Help Democrats: 14 percent
-- Help Republicans: 15 percent
-- No significant impact: 70 percent
Help Democrats
-- "On balance, the Internet has provided a new funding mechanism for the Democrats, which allows them virtual parity with Republicans in raising election money."
-- "Helps Democrats, but largely to motivate the liberal base, not to move independents or leaners."
-- "The one -- and only -- item that national Democrats can credit Howard Dean with: Galvanizing the Democrat Internet efforts. The Democrats seem to have the upper hand, presently."
Help Republicans
-- "More money raised on the left, but conservative bloggers underscore the ongoing liberal bias of major news media, and liberal bloggers drive Democrats hopelessly left of the American center."
-- "Overall, it amazes me that the Democratic Party is cowed by a bunch of bloggers who have never built a reputation nor accomplished a thing in their lives other than refining online invective. Yet, the Democrats are treating everyone who writes a liberal blog as if they suddenly became David Broder."
-- "Alternative media have already severely diminished one of the key elements to the old Democratic congressional majority -- monopoly control of the establishment media. And Daily Kos can never do to us what Dan [Rather], Peter [Jennings] and Tom [Brokaw] used to do every night."
No significant impact
-- "The largest impact of the netroots has been reducing the cycle time on information distribution, including messaging. But that impacts everybody the same."
-- "Let's be honest: The people who take the time and energy to participate in political blogs and Internet activism have made up their minds months before any election."
-- "Netroot swarms kept the mainstream media honest -- or exposed dishonesty -- in 2004, helping Bush. In mid-terms, without a single national race, swarming is harder, so it's unlikely they'll have the same impact."
-- "Most overcredited, overrated political fad since the 'Soccer Mom.' "
-- "Netroots will have a significant impact on future elections in how campaigns deal with information."
-- "When it comes down to it, those who are motivated to act via the Internet are not being swayed to a different party or to vote. They are simply using the Internet as another way to communicate."
Q: On balance, what impact will "netroots" (Internet political activists) have on the mid-term elections?
Democrats (65 votes)
-- Help Democrats: 69 percent
-- Help Republicans: 0 percent
-- No significant impact: 31 percent
Help Democrats
-- "Fundraising is where the netroots help Democrats, as they have been more successful in steering small donations into mostly competitive races."
-- "Netroots help Democrats raise money from small donors without costly overhead."
-- "They will help Democrats more than the mainstream media think, but less than they boast."
-- "Internet blogging has the promise of being the evangelical movement of the left: Now if we can get everyone singing from the same hymnal, we'll be all set."
-- "Netroots will aid the Democrats more than the Republicans but will have a greater impact in the traditional media covering the story than on the electorate."
-- "They have the capacity to instantly cut through and counter the [Rush] Limbaughs and Fox News' blubbering heads like the other corporate media entities should but don't have the guts to do so. Democrats are lucky they are doing what they are doing."
-- "This year we have the intensity advantage, and the netroots only intensify it further."
-- "When these guys get over their obsession with primaries, they're going to raise a lot of money for key Democratic candidates."
-- "Enormous help and unlimited potential for Democrats. The Net is proving to be an important source of ideas, funds, debate, and campaign volunteers for Democrats."
No significant impact
-- "My instinct is that the bloggers, at least at this stage, are not communicating with the voting class."
-- "Without discipline and direction, they can't help anyone."
-- "While the netroots may aid Democrats in raising money, the price candidates must pay in moving their ideology leftward makes general elections more difficult to win."
-- "After [losses in] Busby and Harman [races], the Democratic netroots are 0 for 21. The consultants they despise wouldn't eat if they had a record like that."
-- "The net will be a significant force in fundraising, but at the end of the day, most voters will make up their minds the old-fashioned way or just stay home."
Posted by Danny at 10:08 PM | Comments (0)
|
Blogs And The MSM: Ever The Twain Shall Meet
I will be speaking about blogging and journalism tomorrow at the Virginia blog summit in Charlottesville, and my introductory remarks will focus on how those media are converging despite the continued friction between "real" and "citizen" journalists.
Fortunately, Mark Tapscott, who blogs at Tapscott's Copy Desk, has made my task easier by giving me a telling example just in time for the summit.
By way of background, Tapscott graciously let me talk my way onto his blogging/journalism panel at the Heritage Foundation about a year ago. He recently left Heritage to take the helm as editorial-page editor at The Examiner newspaper chain.
Tapscott is a newspaperman from way back, but he has watched the media world evolve and has a keen sense of where it is headed. That explains why, only a few weeks into his tenure at The Examiner, he named a "blog board of contributors" to help fill his pages and pixels, and why he is still recruiting more.
Mary Katharine Ham of HughHewitt.com is one of the board members. Ironically, her first column highlights the competition between blogs and the mainstream media, comparing it with her experience of growing up as the daughter of a newspaperman in a two-newspaper town.
Even as blogs and the MSM compete, she said, they need each other -- and they can make each other better by competing. "I grew up watching two newspapers push each other to be better," Ham concluded. "I wanted to be a part of that, and I am. I'm just pushing from the outside now. But every once in a while, it's nice to get a little ink on my hands again."
She already has plenty of company. The current Examiner blog board also includes:
-- Stephen Bainbridge, ProfessorBainbridge (first column);
-- La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber’s Corner;
-- Lorie Byrd, Wizbang Politics (first column);
-- Robert Cox, president and founder of the Media Bloggers Association;
-- Jeralyn Merritt, TalkLeft;
-- Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters (first column);
-- Winfield Myers, Democracy Project and Campus Watch;
-- And Betsy Newmark, Betsy’s Page (first column).
Merritt is the only blogger from the left so far. Tapscott said a couple of others have declined his invitation -- perhaps not surprising in light of his ties to Heritage -- but he continues to reach out to the other side of the blogosphere. "My goal is to have a dozen total," he said.
Another publication inside the Beltway has taken a different approach in embracing the blogosphere. Rather than recruiting bloggers, The Hill newspaper is recruiting members of Congress, lobbyists and people at think tanks to contribute to the Capitol Hill newspaper's Congress Blog. The site has been online since late April but was officially launched at a Capitol Hill reception yesterday evening.
The venture appears to be working. By the paper's own account at the celebration, the blog has had 1 million unique visitors in just a little more than a month, and about 130 lawmakers have posted blog entries. Some of them are becoming regulars.
Those are just two examples of the convergence that is blurring the line between journalism and the blogosphere. If you want to hear more, you'll have to make the trek to Charlottesville. Then click back here on Tuesday to read my latest column, which will focus on how bloggers are moving into the mainstream.
By the way, Congress Blog is now on the blogroll to your left, along with these other new additions:
-- Rep. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas;
-- DMI Blog, which is published by the New York-based Drum Major Institute for Public Policy;
-- Footnoted, a blog that delves into the details of Securities and Exchange Commission filings;
-- The Locker Room, which is published by the North Carolina-focused John Locke Foundation;
-- NCLBlog, a forum used by the American Federation of Teachers in part to challenge the demands of the 2002 education law known as the No Child Left Behind Act;
-- Open Market, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (added this one a while ago but forgot to give it a plug in the blog);
-- And Political Punch, the second blog of ABC News senior correspondent Jake Tapper (he ceased blogging at his first one, Down and Dirty, in April).
Posted by Danny at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)
|
Last fall, I wrote a column about the ability of bloggers to rally opposition to even the most obscure of proposals. My case study was the unheralded blog swarm against "the Akaka bill," which would recognize native Hawaiians much like the federal government recognizes Indian tribes.
Last week, the Senate considered that bill, which is named after sponsor Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, but failed to muster enough votes to limit debate on it.
Conservative blogs -- including Betsy's Page, Capitol Report, HughHewitt.com and RedState -- might have had something to do with that. They were all over the story as the vote neared.
Soon after the roll had been taken -- the 56-41 vote fell four short of the number necessary to invoke "cloture" -- even Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had blogged his thoughts at VolPAC. "I am amazed and saddened that some would undo the great success story of Hawaiian assimilation into our country that we’ve seen since the people of Hawaii voted overwhelming to become America’s 50th state in 1959," he wrote.
The defeat apparently means the issue is dead for the remainder of the 109th Congress. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, told The Honolulu Advertiser that he thinks it would be "unwise" to seek another vote now. Instead, the paper said supporters of the bill are expected to draft a revision to file next year.
Posted by Danny at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)
|
I think blogs have power now, but Zack Exley, president of the New Organizing Institute, thinks their real power is yet to come.
Writing at The Huffington Post in the wake of the over-hyped YearlyKos convention, Exley said "all this buzz about the power of the blogosphere has been fake." He means it in a flattering way, though, because he said the real power of the netroots has yet to be felt.
Give it five years, Exley argued. "Blogs, and other insurgent media, will have lapped the combined readership of all newspapers and magazines several times by then."
But he also warned that because the mainstream media now has had its fill of the blogosphere, the blogosphere will stand or fall on its own. "The establishment has tasted the blogosphere. Chewed it a little. And will now spit it out," Exley wrote.
"If the blogosphere really has come into its own, then all will be well, and the breadth and depth of this new medium and new community will continue to increase -- without needing to be fed by mainstream media frenzy. But if the mainstream media has timed its inoculation exactly right, then the blogosphere could be left broken, with stars ... leaving the community behind (as others already have) for the mainstream before the greater blogosphere has grown its own full set of teeth."
Here are more blog bits from this week (and a few noteworthy ones that were in the news while I was on vacation in late May and earlier this month):
-- The communications director to Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt booted a blogger from a bill-signing ceremony. TPMMuckraker noted the news. The blogger and the aide have clashed before.
-- Republican Brian Bilbray of California vowed to be fiscally disciplined if elected to Congress, according to The Club for Growth, but he quickly decided that he has a taste for pork. "Bilbray claims to be a fiscal conservative, but so far he’s off to a bad start," Andy Roth wrote.
-- Some people in Congress want to restrict the flow of e-mail to lawmakers. I wonder if that has anything to do with how much heat the catch from bloggers and blog readers who are not shy about contacting public officials -- and encouraging others to do so.
-- The Next Prez is monitoring blog coverage of of potential presidential candidates. So far, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., are getting the most coverage.
-- One blogger shared some thoughts on politicians who podcast and on the most technologically astute lawmakers.
-- Check out the directory of democracy blogs.
-- Following the example of other blogs, TalkLeft accepted an ad about "network neutrality" and then publicly took a contrary position to the ad.
-- This may be a first: a newspaper gave credit to a blog.
-- The folks at ShopFloor will participate in another workshop for wonks who want to figure out this thing called the blogosphere. It will be Wednesday afternoon at the National Defense Industrial Association.
-- After some internal strife last month, PoliPundit landed a professional wrestler as a guest contributor. No more grief for PoliPundit, or he'll put you in a headlock!
-- Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga will remain in the spotlight a while longer after the convention that benefited from his name. He will receive a "justice award" from the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy in New York next week. Moulitsas also announced plans for a future debate with someone from the Cato Institute over his concept of "libertarian Democrats."
-- Jerome Armstrong, Moulitsas' "blogfather" and co-author, penned an essay for the first issue of a new online publication calle The Democratic Strategist.
-- Who's more offensive and more worthy of being made a pariah, Moulitsas or Ann Coulter? Read and decide for yourself.
-- Ana Marie Cox, earned her time in the blogosphere spotlight at Wonkette, has angered her base with critical articles like this now that she is writing about the blogosphere for Time magazine.
-- While I was gorging on crawfish, Wizbang Politics launched on the right, and BlogPac came under new management on the left. The Hill published an article on the change at BlogPac.
Posted by Danny at 12:01 PM | Comments (0)
|
CapitolLink: From The Floor To The Blogosphere
The House has just begun debate on a nonbinding resolution aimed at getting lawmakers on the record for or against continuing the war in Iraq, but the floor isn't the only place where they are debating the measure.
At least two Democrats have posted blog entries on the subject, and odds are good that more "blawgmakers" will share their views online as the day unfolds. Here are links to and excerpts from those entries:
-- Jim McDermott, D-Wash., at The Huffington Post: "Iraq Week is a staged Republican campaign event. The resolution that Republicans will force through the House of Representatives will have nothing to do with increasing the safety of our nation, or the security of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq. It's about the security of the Republican grip on power."
-- Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., at Congress Blog, complaining about the "rule" that governs floor debate on the resolution: "How can we ask the young men and women of our armed forces to die so that Iraqis can have democracy and debate when we are systematically undermining those same principals here in the United States Congress? It is unconscionable."
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, also added his voice to the debate at his congressional blog. He wrote: "The American people are going to be presented with a clear choice in this debate: We can maintain our resolve and continue to make progress, or we can walk away from the Iraqi people when they need us most."
And House Republicans will try to get their views into the blogosphere indirectly by holding another in their recurring series of conference calls with bloggers. The staff of Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., is putting the call together, and Kingston and other lawmakers are expected to answer questions from bloggers this afternoon.
Posted by Danny at 12:16 PM | Comments (0)
|
Blog Reactions To Virginia's Senate Primary
James Webb, a Navy secretary under former President Ronald Reagan, forsook his Republican past and won the Democratic Senate nomination in Virginia yesterday. He defeated former technology industry lobbyist Harris Miller by a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
Democratic bloggers inside and outside the state are celebrating the victory of the one-time Republican, who now must face GOP Sen. George Allen in November. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos noted that Webb's win means the netroots are on a "two-game win streak" in Senate primaries, the first one being the victory of Jon Tester in Montana last week.
The Blogometer has a roundup of other reactions to Webb's victory.
Posted by Danny at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)
|
That's what Cato@Liberty, the blog of the Cato Institute, is calling the minimum-wage bill approved by a House committee yesterday.
The proposal -- actually part of a broader spending bill rather than stand-alone legislation -- would boost the wage by $2.10 an hour, from the current $5.15 to $7.25. Seven Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee were among those to vote for it. William Niskanen said the measure would keep new job seekers from finding work, lead to worse non-wage benefits and working conditions for those who are employed, and do nothing to help primary wage-earners in poorer families.
"[T]he House Republicans should split off the minimum-wage provision from the appropriations bill, allow a separate floor vote on this provision, and demonstrate the absurdity of this proposal by a defeating this measure by a large margin," Niskanen wrote. " I’m waiting for a demonstration of good sense."
Ezra Klein, professing to be "rather tired of this argument," challenged the Cato writer's rationale about unemployment and the minimum wage, and he highlighted a few facts to make his case.
"The lowest unemployment rate in the country is Hawaii's 2.8 percent, which somehow survives their $6.75 minimum wage," Klein wrote. "Second lowest? Florida, with a luxurious $6.40 per hour. Vermont, resting comfortably at No. 5, has a minimum wage of $7.40! And the very highest unemployment in the nation? Mississippi, with no minimum wage laws at all."
Posted by Danny at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)
|
Virginia's James Webb: Darling Of The Blogs
Traffic at the Virginia polls may be light Tuesday, but candidates in the Democratic Senate primary may wish they had a nickel for every word written about the race on the blogs, Technology Daily reports.
Former Information Technology Association of America top lobbyist Harris Miller and former Navy Secretary James Webb are in the first competitive Democratic primary in 12 years. The winner certainly could use those nickels against Sen. George Allen, R-Va., this November. He has $7.5 million in campaign funds.
Miller has raised $1.2 million for the race. Webb, described as a Reagan Democrat who supported Allen in 2000, has raised almost half as much money as Miller but is a darling of the blogs. Fresh off his well-covered YearlyKos convention, for instance, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga boldly promoted Webb's candidacy.
Lowell Feld, the founder of Raising Kaine, which raised $40,000 and garnered 1,000 signatures to "draft" Webb, said the primary is seen partly as a referendum on the Internet grassroots movement.
"I suspect that there are plenty of politicians in both parties who hope Harris Miller pulls this off," said a posting at Virginia Centrist. "For them, a Miller win will signify that bloggers' shrill sense of self-importance is unjustified."
Posted by Danny at 04:36 PM | Comments (0)
|
The House last week easily defeated an attempt to strenghten "network neutrality" provisions in a telecommunications bill that later was passed by a vote of 321-101 last.
The vote was a setback to bloggers who have swarmed on behalf of network neutrality, a term that describes attempts to keep dominant Internet firms from acting as content gatekeepers. But that just means that bloggers are even more determined as the battle moves to the Senate. (The Senate Commerce Committee met today to discuss its competing version of telecom legislation.)
"We always knew the House was wired," wrote Matt Stoller of MyDD, a key force behind the blog swarm. "We always got that. We always knew the fight was in the Senate."
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo added the weight of his blogging empire to the debate this week. He and his readers are hard at work compiling a list of where senators stand on the issue, with lawmakers ranked as supporters (12), opponents (4) or "fingers in the wind" (35). The views of 49 senators have not yet been determined.
"With help from TPM readers we already got information on several senators," Marshall wrote in announcing the blog's version of a whip count. "And it was enough to show us that a lot of them -- including a lot of Democrats -- are just trying to avoid giving their constituents any straight answers on where they stand."
Marshall's effort is noteworthy because his similar work on Social Security, which ranked some lawmakers as part of the "Fainthearted Faction" or "Conscience Caucus," arguably helped derail the Bush administration's plan to overhaul the system.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is among the Senate supporters of net neutrality. Stoller got him to go on the record over the weekend while Reid was at the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas, his home turf.
At TPMCafe, an offshoot of Marshall's original blog, Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge argued that the key to victory is old-fashioned communication with lawmakers.
"We can blog forever, and it won't make a difference, except as a vehicle to informing those who want to read about these important issues," he wrote. "If you want to make your voice heard, you have to do it in person. ... You should find out when your House member or senator has a town meeting and attend. Or schedule a meeting with a group of friends. Put net neutrality on the agenda, whether the politicians want it there or not."
A Hot Topic For House 'Blawgmakers'
Brodsky may not have much confidence that blogs can make a difference in the debate over net neutrality, but that hasn't deterred House lawmakers from blogging about it.
The issue has been a hot topic among key "blawgmakers" like Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., for several weeks, but interest broadened after the floor debate. Three blawgmakers posted their thoughts at The Hill Blog, which is dedicated to posts from members of Congress.
Here are links and excerpts:
-- Lois Capps, D-Calif.: "The absence of net neutrality poses serious threats to the next generation of Internet innovators and to consumers who should be allowed to choose the best product regardless of whether it is offered by an established firm or a new technology startup."
-- Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the House telecom bill: The measure "will spur advances in technology, diverse programming and ownership opportunities, as well as provide critical relief of steep cable costs for consumers. [It] represents a huge step in providing equal access and equal opportunities in an industry that advances our thoughts, emotions and actions."
-- Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.: "[T]he Republican Congress has allowed ‘the pipes’ to control content in a way that goes directly against the level playing field and innovative spirit created by the Internet. Because no net neutrality provisions were adopted, the broadband duopolies and monopolies will be able to turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable television."
Posted by Danny at 04:17 PM | Comments (0)
|
The obsession with the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas this weekend is beginning to wane as the event nears an end, but yesterday's sessions generated more coverage.
The keynote speech by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. AP reports that he used the forum as an opportunity to announce a legislative bid to impose stricter rules on intelligence reporting from Iran by the Bush administration. He also made an appeal to bloggers to act as a force in this year's election.
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga also got some air time on this morning's edition of NBC's "Meet the Press." He touted the role of blogs and the Internet more broadly in influencing elections.
"[T]he role’s going to get bigger and bigger as the movement grows. ... Now, does that mean we can actually deliver an election? Probably not," Moulitsas said. "But what we can do is we can generate the buzz, we can raise some money, and we can act as a rapid reaction force the way that conservative talk radio and conservative television like Fox News has done for so long."
He also discussed the perceptions that liberal bloggers have of Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, former Vice President Al Gore, and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. All are potential presidential candidates in 2008. And Moulitsas explained why so many Democrats are behind the campaign of Ned Lamont in his primary challenge to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.
The Washington Post had two articles on the convention today. One piece by in-house blogger Chris Cillizza of The Fix focused on the popularity of Reid among bloggers. Political writer Dan Balz penned the other piece, and John Aravosis of Americablog took exception to Balz's argument that bloggers sound like liberals even while saying they are not.
Even The Observer in London covered YearlyKos in a story headlined "Top Politicians Pay Homage To King Of Bloggers."
UPDATE, 6/13: Here are links to more stories on YearlyKos.
-- "Why Kos Shouldn't Believe The Hype" (Slate)
-- "Getting Ahead Of The Game" (The New York Sun)
-- "How Much Is That Blogger In The Window?" (Salon)
-- "Kossacks In The Desert" (The American Spectator)
-- "At Vegas Blog-Fest, It's Not Politics As Usual" (MSNBC)
-- "Democratic Presidential Candidates Try To Take Advantage Of Blogging" (Cox News Service)
-- "Net-Savvy Democrats Aim To Pack A Digital Punch" (Los Angeles Times)
-- "Can Liberal Bloggers And Democrats Get Along?" (Knight Ridder Newspapers)
Posted by Danny at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)
|
NIH Live-Blogging: The Cure For Insomnia
I've often been tempted to try my hand at live-blogging some important news event or breaking news, like the staff of Rep. Jack Kingston did last month during the shooting scare at the Capitol. But I can honestly say that as much as I love policy debates, the thought of blogging a wonkfest like a scientific panel on tobacco use never occurred to me.
Today it occurred to Brooke Oberwetter of Open Market, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Surprisingly, she seemed to enjoy herself at times and even admitted to "getting all mentally pumped" about a session on smokeless tobacco. But I gather from these posts that scientific live-blogging is as mind-numbing as it sounds.
Let's hope Oberwetter's experience serves as a lesson to all the blog kids out there: Wonkery works best in white papers and on late-night C-Span. So if you're tempted to live-blog from anyplace with the word "institute" on its letterhead, please don't!
Posted by Danny at 07:34 PM | Comments (0)
|
Sen. John Kerry nearly pulled an upset in the 2004 presidential balloting in Virginia. President Bush outdistanced the Massachussetts Democrat by 51 percent to 48 percent in a state that had been trending Republican for years.
That helps explain why Kerry, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, is taking sides in Tuesday's Senate Democratic primary in Virginia. The race pits Harris Miller, the former lead lobbyist for the Information Technology Association of America, against James Webb, one of this year's "fighting Dems."
Kerry is backing Webb, and he explained why at The Huffington Post.
One key factor is Webb's status as a Marine veteran. "The people calling the shots in Washington have a habit of treating veterans and members of the military as terrific backdrops for their speeches," Kerry wrote, "but they don't listen to them about what they're seeing on the ground as they serve. ... They won't be able to ignore Senator Jim Webb. Jim won't tolerate that garbage when he's in the United States Senate, and I pity the Republican or bureaucrat who gets on his bad side."
Kerry also acknowledged a political calculation in his support for Webb: "He has the best chance to beat George Allen," the Republican who is seeking re-election to the seat -- and who may run for president himself in 2008.
Posted by Danny at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)
|
The YearlyKos convention is over, and the Democratic bloggers who for the most part ignored their laptops for the weekend in Las Vegas are beginning to ponder what it all means. Republican bloggers are doing the same, though with a sharper edge to their writing.
Beltway Blogroll is the place to read it all. So here are your links and excerpts, to be updated as I find more:
-- Capitol Report: "The YearlyKos convention is a cheerleading rally exclusively for the uber liberals. It is completely divorced from reality. ... The contrast highlights a real problem for the Democrats: They must pander to the luny left because they are better at making noise than the average Dem voter. But as they pander to the crazies, they disaffect their more moderate supporters."
-- Firedoglake: "[O]ne thing that came across loud and clear at YearlyKos? We want the politicians to represent us -- really represent us, not just the big donors, not just the lobbyists, not just the whomever-happens-to-be-writing-checks-today crowd, but us. And journalists? We just want them to do their jobs and tell the truth about how things are, and dig into the meat of the story and toss the phony balance crap out the window."
-- The Huffington Post: "[W]hat was clear ... was that the blogosphere has already crashed through. And one of the greatest pleasures of the conference was hearing the obvious stated as the obvious -- instead of the usual 'one side claims this, while the other side claims that' notion of 'balance.' ... Fortunately, because of the growing force of the blogosphere ... stating the obvious as the obvious is also getting some much needed intellectual cover."
-- MyDD (Chris Bowers): "Attending this conference made it clear to me that the only way I have ever achieved any success or influence in politics is because through the netroots, I have come into contact with so many brilliant people who have brought to the surface abilities I did not even know I possessed. ... There isn't a single corner of the American political landscape that does not take the progressive netroots seriously now. We cannot squander this opportunity. It is time to seize power."
-- MyDD (Jonathan Singer): "[T]he most interesting and important thing I heard during the duration of YearlyKos was that progressives of means were contemplating the purchase of media outlets -- including television networks -- to help counteract the effect of the vast conservative media, from talk radio to Fox News. If these discussions come to fruition and a wholly progressive network of television and radio stations are able to reach the bulk of American voters, we will be able to greatly hasten the day when we are able to continue building on the forward-thinking policies of the New Deal era and the 1960s."
-- A couple of noteworthy thoughts from The QandO Blog:
1) "[T]he one difference I do see between left and right is the fact that left leaning politicians have more openly embraced bloggers who reflect their political bent and ideology. They also seem more willing to use the venue of blogging (such as those that post on blogs such as Huffington Post) than do politicians of the right. And that isn't surprising for a minority party which is out of power and casting around for any edge in the upcoming elections."
2) "Energy, vitality and advocacy also don't translate into organization. ... [T]he track record [of the netroots] is pretty dismal. Looking to the blogosphere to make up for the basic grunt work of politics is a fool's dream. Good old ground-level political organizing -- something in which, at least for the time being, Republicans do much better than Democrats -- is still key to winning politically, and all the blogs in the world won't change that."
-- TPMCafe: "If Mark Warner kicked off the 2008 campaign for the presidency ... then in a more important sense [Democratic National Committee Chairman] Howard Dean and [New Democrat Network President ]Simon Rosenberg kicked off their campaign for a governing progressive majority that will stretch towards the 22nd century."
-- Wizbang: "[W]hile both sides have their extremists, their nutjobs, their whackos, it seems that the right is a little better at keeping them marginalized, holding them at arm's length, giving them the attention they crave without catering to their whims. On the left, though, they seem eager to embrace them, to bring them into the inner circles, to pander to their demands."
One last note: The House Republican Theme Team is seizing on YearlyKos as a tool to promote its second blog workshop for GOP aides. In an e-mail to bloggers this morning, David All, the press secretary to group Chairman Jack Kingston, R-Ga., dubbed the June 23 meeting the "Theme Team Anti-Kos Convention."
The meeting will include testimonials about what House GOP staffers have done in terms of the blogosphere since the first meeting in March, where I was a guest speaker, and a look at other tools and instruments for delivering the GOP message.
Posted by Danny at 12:32 PM | Comments (0)
|
Blog Reader Builds Supreme Court Clerk List
A reader at Confirm Them has embarked on the task of creating a historical list of Supreme Court law clerks. He is posting the information at Wikipedia and solicited the help of others.
"The Wikipedia site lists law schools, year graduated, previous [court of appeals] clerkships and [Supreme Court] terms," Bobo wrote. "There might be some mistakes because some of the information I have found conflicts with other information I have also discovered. ... I definitely think that it would behoove the White House to track down these clerks as possible district court or [court of appeals] nominees.
Another Confirm Them reader wondered whether the list might violate the privacy rights of the clerks. "Many of us will find it interesting. Generally, I expect the clerks will like it," TheAbsentMindedOne said. "But, are they public figures? Does it matter? Have they a right to just be regular people? Do they have a right to normal levels of privacy? Do you need their permission? In an Internet world, privacy seems a quaint and historic concept."
Posted by Danny at 03:50 PM | Comments (0)
|
An Overdose Of Yearly Kos
The netroots invaded Las Vegas this week for the Yearly Kos convention to celebrate the growth and influence of the liberal blogosphere, but you don't have to be there to appreciate the show. The confab is the focus of attention almost everywhere you turn online.
For $10, Air America Radio is offering live Web streams of the conference, which began Thursday and ends tomorrow. C-Span also covered the event yesterday (footage is available in C-Span's Web archives) and was expected to be there again for some of the sessions today.
The blog channel of PoliticsTV, a video offshoot of the liberal blogosphere that launched earlier this year, is running clips of speeches from the event and interviews with participants like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
Other video excerpts have been posted at ForaTv and Link TV, and by a diarist at Daily Kos,
Some transcripts from the event already are available online, too. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the founder of Daily Kos and the inspiration for the convention, posted the text of his keynote speech the morning after he gave it, and Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest shared his prepared remarks from two sessions.
Conservative bloggers sent a few spies to the conference, and they are blogging about the event and posting footage of their own. Hot Air, the video site recently launched by blogger Michelle Malkin, is offering the most frequent critical coverage, while blogger/New York Sun writer Ryan Sager offered an insider's view of liberal bloggers discussing whether or how to "spin" the killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "Nope. No way to spin this one," Sager concluded.
Both Expose the Left and RedState noted the footage of Boxer calling for the censure of President Bush now and the possibility of a future impeachment. RedState's analysis: "Impeachment with a wink and a nod. It's an impossibility now, but give us the House, and it's a whole new ballgame."
Several major media outlets are at Yearly Kos as well. Think Progress has a roundup of links from yesterday. The New York Times also published both a news article and a column by Maureen Dowd on the event today. And Ana Marie Cox, the blogger made famous at Wonkette, penned a column for Time magazine.
Washingtonpost.com sent its political blogger, Chris Cillizza. He covered Moulitsas' keynote speech on Thursday. Cillizza also has posted entries about former Gen. Wesley Clark and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Dean, and former Virginia Gov. (and potential presidential candidate) Mark Warner.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal was there as well. And here's a gem of an excerpt from Salon (one that apparently didn't set well with Chris Bowers of MyDD):
At the top, the Democratic blog movement is overseen by a small, and increasingly powerful, brain trust. They are organized, as one blogger explained to me, like a royal court. Moulitsas, as King Kos, sits in the throne overseeing the largest political site on the Internet, with substantial power to direct the conversation and raise money. His chief advisor is Jerome Armstrong, who pioneered liberal blogging and now works on the undeclared Mark Warner presidential campaign. Beneath them sit a set of ministers, most of them connected to Armstrong's Web site MyDD or DailyKos. Chris Bowers, a gangly longhair from Pennsylvania, plays the role of policy advisor, having mastered the wonky details of polling and district strategy. Matt Stoller, an aggressive preppie, plays the role of Washington enforcer, leading Internet-based campaigns into the halls of the Capitol. Beyond the inner court, there is a loosely held republic of Web sites that command hundreds of thousands of readers a day, even in off-cycle election years.
Never the fan of mainstream media, bloggers at the convention wasted no time in taking potshots at their journalistic enemies. Ezra Klein, for instance, accused National Review Online writer Byron York of misquoting him. Mike Stark of Calling All Wingnuts also ridiculed York for refusing to consent to an interview about abortion.
"I really don’t understand why one of the intellectual heirs of the modern conservative movement would be so quick to chicken out of what should be a thoroughly prepared and well-rehearsed debate subject for Republicans, but he did," Stark wrote. "Maybe it’s the paste."
Of course, there is also plenty of conversation in the blogosphere about the conference. The entries run from the celebratory and philosophical to the confused and critical. See the extended entry for excerpts.
Brainster's Blog: "Byron York infiltrates the Kossacks in Las Vegas, and highlights something that I've been talking about here for awhile; the tendency for the liberal blogosphere to think they've won when they beat other Democrats. Or even when they don't."
Peter Daou of The Grit: "Yearly Kos is certainly a milestone in the growing legitimacy of the blog world. But Dowd and [Adam] Nagourney [of The New York Times] seem to believe that cross-pollination among the netroots, the traditional media and the political establishment somehow represents the annexation of the netroots by the establishment. That's like saying the political establishment is becoming the media because of politicians-turned-pundits."
Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine: "So is this a party? A caucus of the party? A splinter from the party? A new party? A gathering of bloggers or media? A gathering of media or activists? A candy mint or a breath mint? Life is so confusing now. Since the Kossaks can sometimes be rather defensive, let me make clear that I’m not criticizing the gathering. I’m celebrating it. But I’m also trying to figure out what it is — as are the scribes in The Times. But I don’t think it fits any old definitions. It’s something new."
Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft: "Yearly Kos rocks. It's netroots at its finest, and the party leaders and MSM have finally figured out, ignore them at your peril. What's net roots? People power. Grass Roots to the Nth degree. It's here. Embrace it."
Stirling Newberry at TPMCafe: "It's not the party in the fight, but the fight in the party. And when the historians of this period draw lines, there will be one through this convention. It was the point where either the Democratic Party was reborn, or passed into history having not been able to convert on its last best hope for a governing, progressive majority."
Susan G of Daily Kos: "We are here. We are at the gates. We will no longer remain passive and meek in order to court favor. We, the people, are coming to power slowly and indefatigably, here in Vegas and here on the blog. We have arrived. And we'll never go back to silence again."
Micah Sifry of Personal Democracy Forum: "The last time an independent political movement managed to pull in [this] kind of political and journalistic firepower was at the ill-fated height of Ross Perot's United We Stand America. ... United We Stand America, which had 2 million dues-paying members at its height, was of course primarily a creation of Perot's bulging bankroll. The netroots, which has its beating heart here this weekend, is a very different beast."
And in a separate entry, Sifry said he isn't too impressed by Mark Warner's courting of the Daily Kos community and the netroots as a whole.
"I've now had two opportunities ... to ask Markos Moulitsas why he thinks Warner is the candidate who gets the Internet, and both times his answer is, essentially, 'He hired Jerome.' Now I think Jerome Armstrong is a smart guy and deserves a lot of credit for starting MyDD.com and nurturing a group of savvy bloggers there. And I respect him for his having spotted Howard Dean's national potential earlier than almost anyone else. But I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a new version of the Bob Shrum primary, where we're supposed to be impressed by the campaign with the best consultant.
Posted by Danny at 08:15 PM | Comments (0)
|
CapitolLink: The Take-Away From Zarqawi's Death
The U.S. air strike that killed Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi prompted a handful of lawmakers to blog their reactions about what the development means -- or should mean. Here's a roundup:
-- Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., at his own blog: "The road ahead is far from complete. However, the killing of one of the insurgencies key officials will deal a serious blow to the operational effort of those who are working to thwart the progress being made by Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki, the Iraqi people, and our troops on the ground."
-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, at The Hill Blog: "Mr. al-Zarqawi only represented a small portion of the large and growing anti-American insurgency in Iraq, so his killing is unlikely to end the violence in Iraq. ... The only way to end the daily attacks on U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis is to end the war in Iraq and bring all our troops home in a quick and orderly manner."
-- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at The Huffington Post: "Zarqawi's death should be a resounding call to President Bush and the Republican Congress that we must have a serious debate about U.S. policy in Iraq. His death does not alter the fact that our brave men and women in uniform are fighting a war of choice in which the president sent our troops into harm's way without a plan for victory and without leveling with the American people."
-- Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., at The Hill Blog: "Al-Zarqawi’s death is a strike against the terrorist organizations that attack innocent Iraqis of all religions; and it is a victory for the newly seated, representational government in Baghdad. ... [T]his a great day and an important step toward peace and stability in Iraq."
Posted by Danny at 11:05 AM | Comments (0)
|
Liberal bloggers villified AP reporter John Solomon for his recent series of articles that raised ethical questions about Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, but AP gave Solomon a $500 cash bonus for his work. One reason for the reward, according to AP: the stories were "the most-blogged about."
Mark Schmitt of TPMCafe said that tidbit highlights "the dirty secret of the press in America right now. For all the bluster about bloggers being pajama-clad, ignorant partisans spewing raw invective and denying objectivity, while real reporters do the real work of seeking objective truths that bloggers wouldn't understand, newspapers (in particular) have become slavishly devoted to attention on the blogs."
That's not a good development, Schmitt added. "Forced to compete for attention, [traditional media institutions] have lost sight of what journalistic standards actually mean, substituting a market metric. The ultimate irony is that it is blogs such as TPM that are trying to call them back to normal, reasonable standards of responsiblity and, yes, objectivity."
Posted by Danny at 10:47 AM | Comments (0)
|
Vacation Over, Back To Blogging
Well, that was refreshing. With the exception of posting my column from the road in Chattanooga, Tenn., on Tuesday, this is the first blog entry I have written since May 25. Come June 20, I will have been blogging for NationalJournal.com for a year. I needed the break.
I watched my first niece graduate from high school in Memphis, Tenn., gorged myself on catfish and crawfish in Shreveport, La., and spent some much-deserved quality time with my wife and three young children -- who often (and rightly) grow weary of my passion for blogging and for charting the influence of the blogosphere.
I appreciate both their patience in tolerating my online whims and their persistence in demanding that I periodically step away from the computer. I hope they will continue to help me find the right balance as I get back to work here.
First on the list, as you will see in the four succeeding entries, is posting the full text of the e-mail interviews I conducted for my most recent column on the push for "online integrity." My subjects: Josh Trevino of Online Integrity and Swords Crossed; Susan G of Daily Kos; Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice; and Robert Cox of the Media Bloggers Association.
The interviews are chock-full of "inside blogosphere" details about how Online Integrity came to be, how liberal bloggers decried it and turned against colleagues who didn't, and what the future might hold for a blogosphere without integrity -- all of the stuff I couldn't fit in the column. If you are a blog fan, the interviews are definitely worth your time.
The column and the interviews are even more timely now, thanks to the Media Blog at National Review Online, which is the first site to be chastised for violating the spirit of the Online Integrity "statement of principles." Yesterday, on the eve of the Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas, Media Blog outed anonymous blogger Armando of Daily Kos -- he is Armando Llorens-Sar, an attorney at McConnell Valdes -- and in doing so named his employer and clients.
The publicity prompted Llorens-Sar, one of the key players in the Online Integrity movement, to announce that he will quit blogging. "If people were wondering about why I was so adamant about [anonymity], I hope this explains it," Llorens-Sar wrote. "I have never written about my clients, and whenever I had a conflict, I disclosed it. But people of ill will have no decency or limits. If I sound bitter, it is because I am quite bitter about this. So, this is probably so long, Kossacks and bloggers. I fade away."
Stephen Spruiell of Media Blog defended his decision to post the details about Llorens-Sar's identity, noting that the blogger had occasionally done the same online. Spruiell also said he was surprised by Llorens-Sar's decision to quit blogging as a result of the exposure.
"I reported on a very public dispute playing itself out in a very public forum that involved questions of journalistic integrity and conflicts of interest," Spruiell wrote. "That's my job. It had nothing to do with any personal desire to 'silence' Armando."
UPDATE: Balloon Juice and Tacitus added their thoughts on the outing of Armando.
Posted by Danny at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)
|
The following e-mail response from Josh Trevino, the blogger behind the Online Integrity initiative, was conducted via e-mail on May 15 for the column that was published here Tuesday. The interview provides more details about what transpired behind the scenes amid the push for "a nonpartisan, non-ideological commitment to basic decency" in the blogosphere.
Josh Trevino: In brief, the story is this (and it's all corroborated in the e-mails I'll forward you if you want them):
1) Having seen what happened to the families of Erick Erickson and Ben Domenech when the online left went after each -- and operating on the assumption that similar things had happened to leftists -- I conceived of OI while on business travel in the last week of April.
2) I floated the concept to Mike Krempasky [and] Erick Erickson [of RedState], Armando and Mcjoan [of Daily Kos], and received their unanimous support for a nonpartisan, nonideological code of practice. (Later, at the suggestion of Krempasky and the agreement of the group, this was changed to a statement of principles.)
3) I invited a group of c.15 bloggers (I believe there was a 9-6 left-right split, but I forget the exact numbers) to help formulate and eventually publicize the concept. With the exception of Oliver Willis, who sent a rather petulant e-mail charging us with covering for Michelle Malkin (again, I can forward this to you), and Georgia10 of [Daily Kos], who remained silent, all the invitees agreed to participate.
4) Matt Stoller [of MyDD], one of the initial invitees, asked if he could share the concept with others. I readily agreed -- my assumption was that he would share it with his colleagues in the online left, and I wanted this to happen, as I strongly felt that absent that milieu, this effort would be crippled. I was right: He posted it to a Google Groups [distribution] list that he runs called Townhouse. It must be emphasized that Townhouse is, by all appearances, the internal brain trust of the big-time online left. I believe Garance Franke-Ruta of [Tapped] was once on it; and Maryscott O'Conner of MyLeftWing.com was once on it (more on her shortly).
5) The reaction at Townhouse was strongly negative. Several of the big left bloggers were upset that they were not invited (apparently [Daily Kos founder] Markos Moulitsas fell into this category), and others felt strongly that it was a right-wing trick. Rationales for opposition fell broadly along the following lines:
-- As there was no example of online-left malfeasance with regard to respect for privacy, adherence was unnecessary, and left-wing participation would only lend moral cover to the right. (This is, in fact, untrue -- to give just two examples, Duncan Black [of Eschaton] has passed out personal contact information at his site in the past, and John Aravosis [of Americablog] helped publicize Michelle Malkin's home address and phone number this past April.)
-- Coming from me (i.e., the right), it must be a trick or a trap.
-- This was a direct effort to spare Michelle Malkin the consequences of her publishing the phone numbers of those [University of California at] Santa Cruz students several weeks back. ... Ironically, Malkin refused to sign on to the final statement of principles, and she and Charles Johnson of [Little Green Footballs] remain the sole right-wing bloggers to reject an invitation to OI.
-- OI was merely a ploy to hammer those who did not sign on. (Which, if true, might make one think that signing on would be a good idea!)
-- Finally -- and this line did not emerge on Townhouse, but later in the left-blogs -- OI was rejected as being a profoundly hypocritical project of my own. It is, in fact, completely true that I have a long history of exposing the identities of would-be pseudonymous left-wing bloggers and commenters. And it is further true that I have generally treated the venomous left -- and dull-witted right (see my history versus [Little Green Footballs] and Steve Sailer) -- with open contempt that at points trespassed beyond what OI would allow.
This is no secret -- and this is why, in the original OI statement of principles, it is acknowledged that many of the endorsers have not lived up to the OI statement in the past. Past rectitude was never a precondition of participation (would we have invited Malkin or the dKossers if it was?) The point is to set boundaries for the future. I do want to note that since OI's debut, in the few cases -- one, actually -- where a leftist has complained that I violated his privacy in the past, I have offered that person an apology. I even offered the blogger Billmon an apology unsolicited. There is no question in my mind that the persons in question are men of low character. But that is irrelevant to the need to respect their privacy, lest no one's be respected.
6) With the reaction against OI at Townhouse, left-bloggers began dropping out of the effort en masse. Stoller, previously supportive, sent some e-mails which I find frankly dishonest (again, that I can forward to you) about his reservations, and his decision to withdraw. SusanG of dKos, previously an avid supporter, e-mailed to rescind her participation. Jonathan Singer of MyDD, upon learning of his blogging colleagues' opposition, also e-mailed to rescind his participation. The few left-bloggers that did stay on board either laid low and said nothing (i.e., Mcjoan) or were ejected from Townhouse for their refusal to conform. This last was, in fact, the fate of Maryscott O'Conner of My Left Wing, whom you should speak with.
Notably, in the end, the only two significant left-bloggers who remained willing to speak publicly in favor of the privacy concept were Ms O'Conner and Armando of dKos.
7) Since OI's debut, we have had just under 250 blogs signing on as endorsing the principles. (I can get an exact count if you need it.) We have also had a massive amount of negative publicity from the online left. In fact, I'd say that the amount of negative attention about OI from the online left outstrips the amount of positive attention from all sources by several orders of magnitude. It's that bad.
What are the lessons, to my mind, of this effort?
-- The online left, at least, is suffused with a paranoid ethic that precludes any meaningful collaboration -- even on areas of common interest -- with the right. Or, in this case, with the perceived right: OI has been nonpartisan and nonideological from the start, and we made strenuous efforts to give the online left a supermajority in its deliberations. That milieu rejected the profferred opportunity -- which still exists! -- and thereby fulfilled its own paranoid fantasies about the "true" composition of the forces behind OI.
-- Future efforts of this type are going to have to come from perceived neutral third parties -- the Media Bloggers Association, perhaps, or maybe something that the likes of Micah Sifry and Jay Rosen could put together. Now, I know Sifry and Rosen are themselves confirmed leftists. But there is simply little chance, in my admittedly biased experience, that the online right at large would react to them with the it's-a-trap reflex in the same manner that the big-left bloggers did to me.
-- The online left is also suffused either with a profound sense of its own moral rectitude and purity of mission -- or a profound insecurity about the public perception of the same. Thus, any implied need for a corrective (in this case, OI) is to be vigorously rejected.
-- Finally, any future effort must avoid the emergence of a single de facto spokesman or advocate, lest that person, rather than the endeavor itself, become the story.
I am heartened that OI has attracted so many endorsers, and I remain hopeful that it will play a small role in bringing some sanity to a medium -- blogs -- that too often resembles the no-holds-barred yellow press of eras past. But I am profoundly disappointed in the online left's reaction to the concept. It is one thing to not sign on -- virtue, after all, is not found in a signature -- but it is another thing entirely to attack and deride the concept. That remains a source of immense regret, not for OI but for those rejecting the opportunity to push the blogosphere in a sane or ethical direction.
Sadly, they will reap as they sow in time. We have been fortunate that for all the vile actions against family members and loved ones of the online mob's targets, no one has suffered lasting or grievous harm. But that won't last. And when the unthinkable does occur, be it from the left or the right, how many will look back and ask whether the seemingly inevitable could have been warded off long ago?
Posted by Danny at 05:20 PM | Comments (0)
|
The following e-mail response was received from Susan G, an anonymous blogger at Daily Kos, on May 22 for the column about Online Integrity that was published here Tuesday. Her response, offered from her perspective as an individual and not as a respresentative for Daily Kos, provides more details about what transpired behind the scenes amid the push for "a nonpartisan, non-ideological commitment to basic decency" in the blogosphere.
Susan G: Josh [Trevino] sent out an e-mail to, oh, about 15 people, of which I happened to be one. I read his proposal, it sounded good off the top of my head since I'd practiced it all anyway in my own writing, and thought, "Gee, wouldn't it be great if we all really operated that way?" I sent him back a quick e-mail saying something like, "Sounds great. Thanks for thinking of this."
As I recall, it came out near the end of a week. I recognized about half the recipients on the list; I didn't pay too much attention to addressees at the time, focusing instead on the content.
Over the next day or so, I was caught up in work and didn't closely follow the ensuing discussion. But on the weekend, when I had time, I went back to the beginning of the e-mail discussions and read more thoroughly through them. I also took a closer look at the recipients I recognized. As I read through the exchanges, I began to feel this familiar depressing ... exhaustion.
Blame began, self-righteousness and self-justification started going, feints at personal attacks (not full-fledged, but warning signs) were underway. Nitpicking stuff about wording went on. With at least a couple of lawyers on the list, I knew this was inevitable and probably necessary, but I'd come off my own frustrating project last year ... in which everyone got bogged down in bickering over process instead of keeping their eye on the long-term goal.
Perhaps I was oversensitive because of last year's experience, but I simply couldn't see, after reading through these dozens and dozens of exchanges, how any meeting of minds was really going to take place. I reluctantly came to the conclusion, based on the e-mails and the personalities involved -- on both sides -- that this project was going to turn into simply one more weapon to bludgeon "the other side" with.
In other words, if Righty Blogger A skirted the edge of infringing one of the project's precepts after agreeing to it, Lefty Blogger B was going to go call him/her out on it on a blog (the blogger "sides" could easily be reversed). Then what would ensue, I foresaw, would be four days of publicly bashing each other, dragging people in from the benches, parsing every damn word of whatever was ultimately agreed upon in the original project statement and arguing over whether Righty Blogger A really did such-and-such in this specific case.
In short, I came to the reluctant conclusion that the project, although well-intended by Josh, was going to be used as just one more weapon by both sides. So I told Josh, thanks, I wish you well, but I don't think this is going in a direction I'm comfortable with.
My own feeling is that any conciliatory understanding between the left and the right -- and here I mean blogs, traditional media, political parties and citizens -- is first going to have to start with informal alliances and contact. Trust needs to be built up, and I'm not sure at this stage that formal projects or proclamations are helpful.
People who really want to bridge the political gap are going to have to start with friendship and build from there, it seems to me, before moving on to courtship and ultimate official "project weddings." Once you make something official, in writing, if any ill will exists -- and there's plenty right now to go around on both sides -- then both parties will simply be on edge and forever looking to catch the other out in violations.
So I hope, for my own part, to continue to have informal contact with people from "the other side" (like Josh) and just work toward building some mutual understanding -- that we all love our country, wish it the best, spend our spare time obsessing about it and giving the best of ourselves to the online medium and our country. The time simply doesn't seem ripe right now for Josh's project (although again, as I said, I sincerely wish it the best). Some groundwork needs to be laid. I think it was undertaken just a little before it's time.
Posted by Danny at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)
|
The following interview with Joe Gandelman, a blogger at The Moderate Voice, was conducted via e-mail on May 23 for the column about Online Integrity that was published here Tuesday. The interview provides more details about what transpired behind the scenes amid the push for "a nonpartisan, non-ideological commitment to basic decency" in the blogosphere.
Beltway Blogroll: Why did you agree to participate?
Joe Gandelman: It looked like a genuine effort to do some self-policing on the part of Web logs, which in some cases have suggested that they are somehow better than the mainstream media but have been in danger of undermining their own credibility by not adhering to some standards that foster greater reader credibility. Also, I have great respect for Josh Trevino and Armando who do the site Swords Crossed.
BB: What particular incidents on the right, the left or both sparked your interest in the project?
JG: To be honest, on my blog, which has posts by me and a group of diverse co-bloggers (the latest one to join is based in New Delhi, India), on my own posts I try to avoid blog wars -- even reporting on them. I try not to get sucked into bloggers writing about and blasting other bloggers and going after them -- on the right or left.
I don't look at the issue as "a blog on THE RIGHT" only did this because something irresponsible on the right does NOT only reflect on conservative blogs but on ALL blogs. Do most bloggers differentiate between what all newspapers may write if they blast the "mainstream media" on an issue? No. They just say "mainstream media." And if a newspaper reporter is caught in a scandal, do most Americans limit their eyebrow-raising to just that one publication? No. They say it happened to "the press."
But if I had to say why I signed on, there were two incidents. One was the Jill Carroll fiasco, which to the vast majority of the general public reading about it was not a case of "this right-wing blog or that" but of blogs acting irresponsibly. Not all conservative blogs bought into the line being put out by some others. Some of those later retracted but not all. My own feeling was I would never link to or quote a blog that had not corrected the error on that story -- period.
The other was the Michelle Malkin post where she listed the phone numbers. I didn't do anything on that due to being behind on a zillion other posts (again, my policing other blogs is not why I started a Web log but to write on issues), and it became clear that blogs were screaming at each other on this.
One important point you should know: I periodically get e-mails from people on the left insisting I delink Michelle Malkin from my blogroll and never link to her roundups or when she does an interesting post. I periodically get e-mails from people on the right insisting I delink Daily Kos from my blogroll or link to their posts when they do an interesting post. I won't do that because both sites do offer some good information because just like any blog, you have good posts and posts that aren't as good. Plus: you do not get brain cancer by reading a variety of ideas.
It was clear that Trevino had a great idea that could (in concept) have the support of everyone. I e-mailed him that I felt it was important that it meant that once it was published, the new era began. That way anyone who had violated the principles in the past could simply start fresh. Why rehash all the past stuff? Why not just start from X-date, and each person could uphold the code from there? And that is what emerged.
BB: What are your impressions of how the effort developed? Was there a spirit of nonpartisanship?
JG: I don't know much about that since I got an e-mail from Josh. Yes, it was clear that -- initially at least -- there was indeed a spirit of bipartisanship.
BB: Once the final draft was out, some key bloggers on the left voiced skepticism, if not outright hostility. Some key bloggers on the right also did not participate or withdrew their participation after controversy arose. What happened?
JG: Yes. I was dismayed by that. I got several e-mails from some bloggers on the left who suggested it was all some kind of a trap. Some said that if the right-wing bloggers were serious, they'd also address right-wing talk-show hosts accusing Democrats of hating the troops and listed other things on other blogs as well.
I think that if America is polarized, then blogs are hyper-polarized: I got some e-mails (that I deleted as soon as I got) calling me names because I signed on early. This must mean that I am a close Bush supporter, they said. I was lending my name to a scam. Some of these folks on the left who had reservations about it were quite sincere. Then you have segment that views any fraternization with a blog on the right as fighting for the other army.
I don't know all of the details, but some suggested that unless some blogs signed the code, then they should not be blogrolled or quoted. In other words, this was supposed to be a voluntary code you could sign up with, then start to enforce it if people went over the line. It was never set up to mean that if someone did not sign it and put their name on their blogroll that that blogger should not be quoted or blogrolled. Basically, you have a segment of the left and right (which is not all of the left and right) that do not want any compromise and are almost trying to foment bad feelings between left and right. Just look at the language people use when the right and left talk about the other side. Swords Crossed is a great site because you have Armando and Josh debating issues -- not hurling adjectives at each other.
BB: What, if anything, could have been done to head off the negative reactions?
JG: Very little. If people stuck with the statement as issued, it would have worked. But you had some on the left saying it should have also included other things that went beyond the scope of its original issue. Then you had some on the right saying that unless some bloggers signed it, they shouldn't be linked to. Plus some other controversies. All of these were blown out of proportion.
BB: Could the project have stirred less controversy had some group like the Media Bloggers Association taken the lead?
JG: It would have made little difference. You would still have the people on the right and left who didn't like it raising the same issues and new controversies would arise.
BB: What do you think the future of the project is?
JG: You don't read much about it anymore. The future is what each person decides to do with it. In my case, I would not link to someone in the future who runs private numbers of someone for readers to call if it violates the code.
Why? There's a key reason, not just privacy. The way the blogospheres is operating now, with seemingly no constraints of accuracy or in some cases ethics, somewhere alone the line we may see someone who is killed by a nutcase reader who takes false assertions seriously, or uses contact information to stalk and kill someone in the news. Do we have to wait until this happens? Or do we as people who are our own reporters, editors and publishers lay down our own standards? If we see a zillion blogs reporting and linking to posts that have these numbers, don't we then become part of the problem? Or should we just say no matter how many "hits" we'd get it's just not worth it. Is the whole thing to just get "hits" no matter what or how? Or do we have our own quality control standards --- which could lose readers but help save our journalistic souls?
BB: Has it already reached its peak in terms of attracting signers? Have the negative reactions doomed the effort?
JG: I don't see much new promotion on it. If you do a story on it there will be a spurt. The negative reactions haven't doomed it but basically you have:
-- Some on the left saying it's an effort by right wing bloggers to use a bipartisan statement to cover up problems on right-wing blogs.
-- People on the right who have a variety of objections, including at least one suggestion that it means some external force is editing the blog (wrong: in the end each blogger does his/her own thing).
BB: What is the future of "online integrity," with or without the project? Do you think bloggers generally pursue the principles on their own, without a statement of principles?
JG: I have mixed feelings about this. I have many wonderful friends who have blogs on the right, left and center. Most are truly responsible. They should not be lumped in with those who go over the line. But there are some bloggers who don't want a statement of principles. The danger here is that blogs could eventually get the inaccurate image of being written by a mostly cranky partisans who simply regurgitate party positions and segments of left/right radio talk shows.
My most important point: The fact that a statement of principles was drawn up illustrated that some bloggers of varying viewpoints reached a point where they stopped and said: "Wait a minute, in the beginning weren't blogs supposed to be something more than this? Weren't they supposed to be constructive and powerful, positive new information tools? Do we really want to head down this road -- a road without any signposts?"
It was an attempt to put up a signpost. But some bloggers on the right and left don't want any self-laid-down signposts, which is OK -- but you know what can happen if you travel without any signposts.
Posted by Danny at 05:00 PM | Comments (0)
|
The following interview with Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, was conducted via e-mail on May 22 for the column about Online Integrity that was published here Tuesday. The interview provides more details about what transpired behind the scenes amid the push for "a nonpartisan, non-ideological commitment to basic decency" in the blogosphere.
Beltway Blogroll: How and when did you become aware of Online Integrity? What role have you played in trying to further the effort?
Robert Cox: I became aware of it about a week ago when I received an e-mail from Josh Trevino. I’ve played no role in trying to further the effort whatsoever, and I am not a signer.
BB: Why did you agree to participate? What particular incidents on the right, the left or both sparked your interest in the project? What are your impressions of how the effort developed? Was there a spirit of nonpartisanship?
RC: I did not agree to participate. I only recently became aware of Online Integrity, so I can't speak to how it came about. Josh asked me if the Media Bloggers Association might be willing to "take over" Online Integrity but was unclear what he meant by this. He expressed a sense that the initiative had stalled due to a negative reaction from liberal bloggers and thought that perhaps having a nonpartisan organization run the initiative would make it more acceptable.
BB: I understand from Josh that you tried reaching out to some prominent liberal bloggers you know. Could you tell me who they are and how they responded to your outreach?
RC: Josh Trevino told me that several leading liberal bloggers were adamantly opposed to the Online Integrity initiative. Josh explained that opposition took a variety of forms: that it was created by bloggers on the right; that it was somewhat of a "trojan horse" in that once liberal bloggers accepted the initiative it would somehow be used against them; that some conservative bloggers had criticized liberal bloggers who had not signed on to the initiative. Perhaps the biggest sticking point is that the precipitating event that led to the creation of the initiative was Michelle Malkin's publication of contact information for anti-war students at the University of California at Santa Cruz and that she was not supporting the initiative.
I pointed out to Josh that the Media Bloggers Association was not set up to "acquire" initiatives. Further, that we had our own internal process to consider policies, that we had already addressed "privacy" concerns in our statement of principles and that some of the signers of Online Integrity "pledge" were already MBA members. My best advice to him was for him to join the Media Bloggers Association and volunteer for our "standards and practices" committee where he -- and any other signer of the Online Integrity -- could have a voice in advocating for an enhance statement on "privacy" within the MBA statement of principles.
As a courtesy, I agreed to discuss Josh's request with some MBA members and asked him for some of the names of the most vocal critics of the Online Integrity initiative, two of whom turned out to be MBA members. I spoke with John Amato of Crooks and Liars and Oliver Willis, who has his own eponymous blog and writes for Media Matters for America. It was immediately apparent that Josh's sense of the opposition to Online Integrity was correct and that for liberal bloggers the entire initiative had become "radioactive". I went back to Josh and told him that not only would it not make sense for the MBA to "acquire" some outside initiative but that it was not even worth discussing how that might happen in theory because there was already strong opposition from within the MBA.
BB: What, if anything, could have been done to head off negative reactions among bloggers of various viewpoints? Could the project have stirred less controversy had the Media Bloggers Association taken the lead?
RC: The Media Bloggers Association spent many months in committee developing our MBA mission statement, our MBA statement of principles, a membership policy and by-laws. It was a difficult, contentious and time-consuming process that required taking into account the views of all MBA members. Only when the various committees had completed their work were drafts shown to the board of directors, which made some revisions before ratifying and, ultimately, publishing the results. You can find them now on our Web site.
It would have been nice if we could have done all of this by exchanging a few e-mails over a weekend, but by committing ourselves to a more arduous process, we ended up with a result that was fully supported by the entire membership -- a membership that spans the political spectrum in the U.S. and around the world.
Quite frankly, it did not occur to any MBA member that we needed to have a policy specifically designed to discourage members from publishing personal contact information of other members or of private citizens. If Josh had been a member, he would have been more than welcome to join the relevant committee and propose an amendment to the MBA statement of principles. He still can. It might have taken three to six months to ratify any changes to the MBA statement of principles, but by the time we had gotten to the ratification stage, the amendment would have been thoroughly vetted and amended so that its adoption would not have been controversial.
BB: What do you think the future of the project is? Has it already reached its peak in terms of attracting signers? Have the negative reactions doomed the effort?
RC: Online Integrity strikes me as yet another "Web 2.0" initiative. A few well-intentioned people toss out an idea like "respect people's privacy" and say "sign here". That's all well and good, but they may as well have asked people to sign a pledge promising to support "moms" and "apple pie". I don't have any particular problem with the values underlying Online Integrity but don't see any endgame for it as a "project" either. There may be many people who are willing to sign onto Online Integrity so there is no saying whether the number of signers has "peaked". I suspect that the rate of growth has peaked.
If the Online Integrity initiative was ever "doomed," it was doomed because the premise is flawed -- that there ought to be some "enforceable" code of conduct for bloggers. The MBA takes the position that we don't "enforce" a code of conduct for bloggers but rather put forward a statement of principles as aspirations for those looking for guidance and a common set of values with which they can associate. Those that are attracted to our ideals might then be interested to join the MBA and abide by our membership policies which, among other things, includes being intimately familiar with the MBA mission statement and MBA statement of principles and supporting them without reservation.
At the end of the day, we hope MBA members will lead by example and be a force for good within the large blogging community.
BB: What is the future of "online integrity," with or without the project? Do you think bloggers generally pursue the principles on their own, without a statement of principles?
RC: Bloggers are people, and people either have integrity of they don't. I would like to believe that most people are well-intentioned and would not even consider engaging in the types of behavior the Online Integrity initiative is intended to address. To that extent, it is a solution looking for a problem. As best I can tell, until the whole Malkin-UC Santa Cruz students kerfluffle, this was not a big issue and I expect as that the event recedes in people's minds, it will go back to being a non-issue.
I believe that bloggers generally follow their heart when it comes to confronting various ethical dilemmas and that, generally speaking, their hearts are in the right place. At the same time, few bloggers are aware of the various legal and ethical issues that come with being a publisher or making themselves a public figure. For them, it is useful to have some guideposts out there. If Online Integrity or the MBA statement of principles helps in this regard -- whether the blogger signs the Online Integrity pledge or joins an organization like the Media Bloggers Association -- then some good is being accomplished.
Posted by Danny at 04:50 PM | Comments (0)
|
The Quest For Online Integrity
Old Mr. Webster defines integrity as "the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity." That seems simple enough. But in the bitterly partisan, shoot-from-the-hip realm that is the blogosphere, defining integrity is anything but simple.
Just ask Josh Trevino. He is the motivating force behind a blog called Online Integrity, which bills itself as "a nonpartisan, non-ideological commitment to basic decency." The project generated both enthusiasm and endorsements for a few days in early May. But its call for bloggers to respect people's privacy on the Internet quickly deteriorated into the kind of partisan, virtual shouting match that is endemic to the blogosphere.
Though more than 200 bloggers have signed the "statement of principles" at the site, the quest for a nonpartisan consensus about virtue among bloggers is all but dead. There have been no posts at Online Integrity or the related Yahoo group in weeks, and much of the commentary since the initial wave of praise has been critical. The project even spawned a satire blog.
"A very frustrating and informative exercise in coalition-building," Trevino lamented of his efforts.
Trevino, a co-founder of RedState, had high expectations at the outset of the project. Having witnessed personal attacks against some of his blogger friends on the right and the outcry on the left over the decision by Michelle Malkin to post the contact information of anti-war protestors, Trevino thought the time was ripe for an ethical consensus.
Four bloggers, two each from the right's RedState and Daily Kos on the left, supported Trevino's plan for a "code of practice." About a dozen other bloggers -- more from the left than the right, Trevino said -- were invited to help draft the understanding.
"With the exception of Oliver Willis, who sent a rather petulant e-mail charging us with covering for Michelle Malkin ... and Georgia10 of [Daily Kos], who remained silent, all the invitees agreed to participate," Trevino said.
The "code" ultimately was changed to a "statement," and the final product encompassed three principles: not posting personal contact information online, protecting the identities of those who wish to remain anonymous, and not publicizing or driving traffic to Web sites that violate the principles.
When published, Online Integrity benefited from a burst of positive publicity across the political spectrum. The signers included: Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber; Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice; Jim Geraghty of National Review Online; Hugh Hewitt; Ezra Klein; Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters; Instapundit Glenn Reynolds; Max Sawicky; and Andrew Sullivan. John Cole of Balloon Juice was so supportive that he vowed to drop sites from his blogroll over it.
"I do think that establishing some norms for the blogging community is useful," Outside the Beltway concluded, "and such documents and the discussion about them helps advance that goal."
But the honeymoon was short-lived. Liberal bloggers took exception to matters of integrity the statement did not address. Others mentioned participating blogs that link to Malkin and concluded that the statement was not serious. And still others, noting the lead role played by Trevino, dismissed the effort as a right-wing ploy designed to blast left-wing bloggers for perceived violations of the statement.
"I do not need the online ethics police to tell me how to act ethically online," Chris Bowers wrote at MyDD, "and I certainly do not need the online ethics police to imply that I am unethical for not signing their 'pledge.'"
Some conservative bloggers also criticized the project. Malkin was a part of the early discussions about Online Integrity but asked Trevino to remove her name from the site. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs also withdrew after deciding that "any such statement will be used in a legalistic way that will quickly make the statement itself meaningless."
The public reaction did not surprise Susan G, an anonymous blogger from Daily Kos who initially joined Trevino's effort as an individual rather than a representative of Daily Kos. After reading e-mails among the drafters, she became disenchanted and withdrew before the formal launch of Online Integrity.
"Blame began, self-righteousness and self-justification started going, feints at personal attacks (not full-fledged, but warning signs) were underway," Susan G said. "Nitpicking stuff about wording went on.... I simply couldn't see, after reading through these dozens and dozens of exchanges, how any meeting of minds was really going to take place."
She feared that the principles were "going to be used as just one more weapon by both sides." Trevino, on the other hand, said the root cause of Online Integrity's downfall was not the statement but the unrelenting criticism and especially the lobbying against it.
"I am profoundly disappointed in the online left's reaction to the concept," Trevino said. "It is one thing to not sign on -- virtue, after all, is not found in a signature -- but it is another thing entirely to attack and deride the concept. That remains a source of immense regret... for those rejecting the opportunity to push the blogosphere in a sane or ethical direction."
But Gandelman thinks the idea may yet prove worthwhile. "The fact that a statement of principles was drawn up illustrated that some bloggers of varying viewpoints reached a point where they stopped and said: 'Wait a minute, in the beginning weren't blogs supposed to be something more than this?... Do we really want to head down this road -- a road without any signposts?'"
Media Bloggers Association President Robert Cox questioned whether Online Integrity is "a solution looking for a problem." Though MBA (of which I am a member) has a similar statement of principles, he said he would like to believe that most bloggers already act with integrity.
But Cox also said "guideposts" are valuable for bloggers who may not appreciate "the various legal and ethical issues" of online publishing. "If Online Integrity or the MBA statement of principles helps in this regard... then some good is being accomplished," he said.
Posted by Danny at 07:01 AM | Comments (0)
|
