« AARP's Blogger-To-Be ... And More Beltway Blog News | Main | If You're Still Interested In The Blog Swarm ... »

A Follow-Up Piece On Paid Bloggers

After MSNBC republished my piece on paid campaign bloggers, an editior at The New York Times asked me to write a follow-up piece for an op-ed chart.

That article and accompanying chart were published this morning.

The names and numbers in the piece are the same as in my previous piece, but the Times asked me to highlight some of the praiseworthy posts that the bloggers wrote about their employers or their critical comments about opponents. Check it out.

UPDATE: Lots of bloggers are peeved about my Times article. I wanted to make sure their voices are heard here, too, so here are the links: Eschaton, MyDD and Pandagon.

Others don't deserve to be heard because they don't know how to debate an issue with civility and dignity. But for the sake of being complete, I'll link to them as well: Roger Ailes, The News Blog and Whiskey Fire.

Ann Althouse had a different reaction: "Politicians: If you're worried a blogger might undercut your campaign, know that about $2,000 a month will not only cut off the criticism; it will buy you a stream of free ads, written by a free ad writer. What a bargain!"

UPDATE II: Micah Sifry of Personal Democracy Forum has a thoughtful response to my piece, including my answers to his questions. Though I disagree with Sifry, I commend his entry as the best rebuttal to date I've seen to my Times piece.

For the record, and as I stated in a comment below, I also agree with this point by Instapundit Glenn Reynolds: "I think this is fine if there's full disclosure, but you can form your own opinions."

UPDATE III: I'll link to more responses here as I find them. The latest is at Blue Jersey.

Others: Blog P.I., Digital Destiny, Done With Mirrors, Daniel W. Drezner, Marry In Massachusetts, Stubborn Facts, TalkLeft and Talking Points Memo.

UPDATE IV: This comment at TalkLeft is worth highlighting: "I think that this information is important. I want to know who is behind these new political powerbrokers. ... Transparency as a political principle doesn't stop at the gates of the blogosphere. Especially since established bloggers are now taking in and spending seven-figured sums of political money, meeting former presidents and being interviewed on CNN on Election Night. If I were a blogger, I wouldn't attack the messenger here but rather ask some serious questions about credibility."

In the same vein Jeff Jarvis said this at BuzzMachine: "We, of all people, must be very transparent about our roles and relationships, especially as we demand such transparency of media and politicians.

"It's not just about appearances. It's also about loyalties: Bloggers ... are taking on roles of leadership, and those who choose to follow deserve to know whether the bloggers to whom they link are more loyal to a cause or to a candidate and whether their loyalty stems from payment. So the Times charting these paid relationships is doing to us as we would do unto others. Golden Rule, I'd say."

Posted by Danny | 10:21 PM

Comments

Your original articles listed almost equal number of Democratic and Republican-paid bloggers. The Times articles of today lists only one Republican but many Democrats! What gives? Is this an attempt to make Democrats looks "corrupt" because they have been paying bloggers for campaign help?

Karl Weber | 12.03.06 09:09 AM

Karl,

The Times wanted me to focus on people who had their own blogs and then went to work for campaigns. My original piece also included people who were paid to blog for campaigns or advise them on Internet strategy but who weren't independent bloggers beforehand. Most of those happened to be Republicans; most of the former happened to be Democrats.

With the exception of McCain hiring Pat Hynes (by choice) and Allen hiring Jon Henke (because of viral online events that spiraled out of control), I'm not aware of many Republican bloggers who worked for campaigns. Both Democrats and Republicans will acknowledge that Democrats have a clear advantage in the online realm at this point.

Furthermore, my article neither states nor implies that anyone, candidates or bloggers, is "corrupt" because of ties between the two. I don't believe that. Candidates have the right to pay for Internet advice, blogging, etc., and bloggers have a right to be paid for that work -- or to do it on a volunteer basis, if they so choose.

I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.

Danny

Danny | 12.03.06 02:52 PM

So, Danny, are you going to ask the Times to run a correction about your piece, since a number of the bloggers you insinuated had a conflict of interest actually had none?

zuzu | 12.03.06 09:27 PM

zuzu, I would expect that he wouldn't, as his article didn't insinuate a conflict of interest. Danny likely knows how many in the blogosphere would react to the knowledge of candidates paying bloggers, but he doesn't do anything but report the disconnect between what many people think about the blogosphere and what actually is.

I will, however, note that I just commented over at your own site about creating impressions rather than sticking to the facts as they are. I have to ask if you are able to read for content, or just react off your hot buttons?

Assistant Village Idiot | 12.03.06 11:11 PM

I made a brief post on my blog about my involvement in the piece.

essl | 12.03.06 11:31 PM

I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that many bloggers have learned how to monetize their otherwise freely-given hackery.

TLB | 12.03.06 11:34 PM

Dear Mr. Glover:

Up above, you write:

>"[M]y article neither states nor implies that anyone, candidates or bloggers, is "corrupt" because of ties between the two. I don't believe that. Candidates have the right to pay for Internet advice, blogging, etc., and bloggers have a right to be paid for that work -- or to do it on a volunteer basis, if they so choose."

But the second paragraph of your NYT article read:

>"You might think that with the kind of rhetoric bloggers regularly muster against politicians, they would never work for them. But you would be wrong."

Given that webloggers have a right to work for money, and that candidates have a right to hire them, why would anybody ever think that webloggers "would never work for [politicians]"? Can you tell us what you were thinking when you wrote that paragraph--if not that webloggers with financial ties to politicians are corrupt? I can't read it any other way. Please help me out here, and offer an alternative reading.

Yours,

Brad DeLong

Bradford DeLong | 12.04.06 12:49 AM

Steve Gilliard "deserve to be heard"? Is this for real?

Bob Brigham | 12.04.06 12:55 AM

I am a regular contributor at Kos, Gilliard's site, FireDogLake, and a sometime contributor at Kevin Drum's, Atrios', Needlenose's and other sites.

Your piece is disingenuous in the extreme, simply because of the following:

First, you state I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.

And you use that assertion to underpin your entire thesis, which is that somehow these bloggers are tricking, lying to, or otherwise bamboozling their readership.

First of all, NONE of the Liberal/Lefty bloggers you name ever tried to make names for themselves as revolutionaries. Not a one. They opposed REPUBLICANS and they opposed Democrats who tried to cast themselves or who successfully abased themselves to Republicans.

Second of all, most, if not all of the Liberal/Lefty bloggers you name in your piece have ALL spent a lot of time, energy, pixels and verbiage talking about the need for informed citizens having direct input into the making, enacting, and implementation of policy; ALL have talked about the dire need for American Citizens to get directly involved in American politics; ALL have talked about the need for "people power" in general politics and in the Democratic Party.

Third of all, each and every one of the bloggers you name in your piece have either a) stopped blogging for their "namesake" site during (and in some cases following) their work for the campaign in question, b) have clearly and openly disclosed their work and the fact that they received some form of compensation, and c) have, in general, been quite free and open in their use of language and in their posting of political opinions about the candidates and about the races, regardless of their position or their remuneration.

Overall, what you imply in your piece is that somehow we, the readers, commenters, diarists, and contributors to the sites you name (particularly the Left/Liberal sites) are being hoodwinked, tricked, or fooled by our "leaders" who are on the take, who channel our energies and monies in directions determined by who decides to hire that particular "big name" blogger...

We are not stupid, we are not children, and we are not naifs, babes in the woods, or otherwise open-walleted, bug-eyed fools.

Did you read what happened on Kos and MyDD during the "water testing" being done by Warner et al? Did you read the responses and conversations related to the Hackett/Brown dustup? Are you aware of just how diverse, savvy, and combattive those communities are?

Your piece is shallow, you're reaching (badly), and making a Herculean stretch to find "evidence" of some kind of malfeasance, when in fact what is happening is that people who write for and are enjoyed by large communities are getting (gasp) attention and in some cases support (monetary, infrastructural, or other) for their efforts and for their communities.

Horrors!

Give it a rest, and look at it for what it is: Large, diverse, and dynamic communities of people who are spending a lot of time and energy working to understand and change our political system.

And remember this: The communities that you are "analyzing" are not what you think they are...or at least we are not what you seem to think we are based on the way you write about us.

Do you know what I do for a living? Do you know how old I am? Do you know how many countries I have lived in, visited, worked in? Do you know my demographic, where I was raised, what kind of education I have?

I think you might be surprised by that information...and more importantly, you might be surprised by just how many people there are very much like me (in terms of scope and scale, not in terms of specifics) on those sites.

RedDan | 12.04.06 01:03 AM

Why not do the same graph for MSM people like George Will, Tim Russert, etc -- after all, they have even more egregious conflicts of interest.

Matthew Hornyak | 12.04.06 01:49 AM

Hey Danny, Steve Gilliard at the news blog completely debunked your article. That doesn't warrant some kind of correction???

No wonder that right wingers like Instapundit, Althouse, and Jarvis agree with you.

wag | 12.04.06 04:02 AM

Is it time for another blogger ethics panel *already*? Gosh.

How do folks in the media have time to organise these things? Between cocktail parties and asking those in power what to call things (is civil war ok? no? ok) - just when do they find the time?

I'm filled with admiration at their dedication to holding bloggers to their own lofty standards.

Truly awe inspiring.

Kevin Lyda | 12.04.06 04:10 AM

Oh for Pete's sake! Do you think you could just TRY to grow up?

And you want to be a journalist. Well, hunting down and using 'facts' would be a good place to start, don't 'ya think?

Angie | 12.04.06 05:39 AM

Oh heavens! Twelve bloggers have taken money from political candidates! The medium is forever compromised!

smitty werbenmanjensen | 12.04.06 05:59 AM

Why no stories detailing the busy social calendars of the Washington Post Reporters?

How many times will Gwen Ifill serve Condi dinner, how many times will Bob Schaeffer play golf with George, how many cocktail parties will you guys attend with cabinet members?

Don't you think THAT is a form of selling out that the people should know about?

jerry | 12.04.06 07:35 AM

Even the estimable Brad Delong falls into the trap of " a possible interpretation of the sentence must be the true interpretation." People, including the blogosphere itself, have an impression of what bloggers do. Glover points out that it is not so. There is a natural irony there which is comment-worthy. To extend that into accusations of deceitfulness and hypocrisy is to over-interpret.

Yes, it is true that if Glover were actually disapproving or accusing, he might use such bland language as a disguise. But that does not mean that his op-ed is disguised. The leaping to conclusions here bespeaks a certain defensiveness.

Assistant Village Idiot | 12.04.06 08:41 AM

Mike Essl was described in the article as a "graphic designer." The piece failed to disclose that he is in fact a blogger (mike.essl.com).

Also the piece failed to disclose how much money he made for his graphic.

Please ask the editors to run a correction.

The Cunctator | 12.04.06 09:17 AM

I see that I too have been deemed as undeserving of being "heard," apparently for using the word "Fauntleroy." Hmmm. Must be that, as otherwise the only obscenity in my post is a quote. I can take my point about civility being more valued than the truth as confirmed, then?

If Glover wanted to avoid interpretations like Brad DeLong's, he could have pointed out that the bloggers he cite have been transparent about what they're doing.

Most of the problem here comes from the chart, which with its inclusion of the quotes, most certainly does misleadingly insinuate conflicts of interest.

Finally, the thing about the "Establishment" and bloggers working for campaigns is silly and reveals an ignorance about blogs. Glover could have said that anyone who has this idea is wrong and then cleared up the misapprehension. Except, as is clear from his comments in this post, he in fact shares it.

Thers | 12.04.06 09:18 AM

Folks, we have to remember that, beyond politics and ethics, print media and broadcast media people are threatened by bloggers just because the blog is a new medium which is cutting into their biz. This isn't going to go away. Kos is very moderate and almost non-ideological (albeit partisan) Democrat -- but he will be hated because he's threatening some cash cows.

As for the main point, yes, I think that the potential for conflict of interest is there, and I think that there should be disclosure. Over the course of the last two years of actual history, though, bloggers have raised the journalist standard rather than lower it -- both by their own example, and by making it harder for "legit" journalists to get away with their customary disgusting crap.

I can't think of a single blogger more ethically-impaired than George Will, but George is untouchable. I'd love to see a non-holds-barred fight about media ethics, but Will and Limbaugh and Hannity and Judy Miller and the others have to be on the dock too.

John Emerson | 12.04.06 09:26 AM

Thers,

I don't recall seeing a previous comment by you. The only ones I have been deleted have been laced with vulgarities. We have had problems in the past with Moveable Type rejecting comments (including some of my own) for reasons that we've never been able to figure out.

Danny

Danny | 12.04.06 09:31 AM

Danny, my blog is WhiskeyFire.

Thers | 12.04.06 09:48 AM

Brad,

I was thinking exactly what I wrote -- that some readers might be surprised to know that bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians are willing to work for some of them. There's nothing corrupt about bloggers choosing to work for politicians, but it might seem inconsistent with their rhetoric.

People can draw their own conclusions as to whether it's consistent or even a good idea. Bloggers have disagreements among themselves on that point, and I'm glad they are being aired.

Danny

Danny | 12.04.06 09:50 AM

With the exception of McCain hiring Pat Hynes (by choice) and Allen hiring Jon Henke (because of viral online events that spiraled out of control), I'm not aware of many Republican bloggers who worked for campaigns. Both Democrats and Republicans will acknowledge that Democrats have a clear advantage in the online realm at this point.

You mention three bloggers from the Lamont campaign in the article, but none of the three who worked for Lieberman.

Take Dan Gerstein and Marshall Wittmann. Both were bloggers who ended up not only working for Joe Lieberman, but doing so in very high positions. Gerstein was his Communications person during the campaign, Wittmann (the "Bull Moose") was hired by Lieberman to be his Communications Director last month. Both ran independent blogs.

Given the Lieberman's campaign's constant attempts to discredit the blogosphere throughout the campaign (including, in Gerstein's case, being an anonymous source alleging anti-semitisim on the blogs in the pre-primary period), this would seem to be relevant, and their omission is telling.

Their hiring (along with another blogger who ran the slimy Joe2006 blog) exposes an hypocrisy much greater than the one you claim as the thesis of your article.

And including these employees of the Lieberman Party also would have added some partisan balance to your flawed piece.

Charles | 12.04.06 09:51 AM

Pls read this comment by Micah Sifry (of http://www.personaldemocracy.com ) at Buzzmachine:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/12/03/disclose-unto-us/#comment-223339

"Glover admitted to me that the Times’ editors removed a column from his chart that would have shown how each blogger made their disclosure"

Danny, do you confirm this quote? This is important, since it deals with the main line of criticism of the op-ed. As Micah correctly observes, "By not including clear mention that these bloggers HAD properly disclosed, the Times and Glover does them a major disservice."

Gray | 12.04.06 10:03 AM

Re:

>"I was thinking exactly what I wrote -- that some readers might be surprised to know that bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians are willing to work for some of them. There's nothing corrupt about bloggers choosing to work for politicians, but it might seem inconsistent with their rhetoric..."

Let's pick one of your subjects at random... Jesse Taylor. Do you have a quote from Jesse Taylor that is "inconsistent" with his going to work for Ted Strickland?

Yours,

Brad DeLong

Brad DeLong | 12.04.06 10:26 AM

"There's nothing corrupt about bloggers choosing to work for politicians, but it might seem inconsistent with their rhetoric."

Only if they seriously critizised those very same politicians before, to the point where it would be surprising if they still accepted a job at their campaigns. But this is a point you haven't proven in your op-ed, Danny. You provided not a single evidence for this!

Btw, I'm surprised you omitted the most recent story of blogger-turned-staffer, and a possible example of conflict of interest:
Marshall Whitman, who rooted for Lieberman at his blog Bull Moose, while, at the very same time, being spokesman of the DLC (Joe L. is member of the DLC). Now he's working as a staffer for the Joellaborator. Not interesting? Hmm.

Gray | 12.04.06 10:28 AM

I was thinking exactly what I wrote -- that some readers might be surprised to know that bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians are willing to work for some of them.

I'm sure your readers would be surprised to know that bloggers who passionately dislike so many vegetables are willing to eat cheeseburgers.

Just because I dislike a range of foods then its surprising that I absolute love cheeseburgers?

Sounds like a gross generalization of both bloggers and politicians.

sanitas | 12.04.06 10:34 AM

You write:

"that some readers might be surprised to know that bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians are willing to work for some of them"

This is as dishonest a piece of work as I have seen. A very neat slide from so many to some. While a blogger or a reporter may passionately dislike so many politicians the blogger can find a few that he or she likes and work for them.

In short, either you think we are stupid, or you are.

Eli Rabett | 12.04.06 10:35 AM

Mr. Glover, I'm a female political blogger in Ohio. I posted this entry last night regarding your piece. Could you give some background re: did you notice the lack of females too, both as bloggers and candidates employing bloggers? Did any editors think it mattered? I'm curious to know what light if any you can shed on this aspect. Thanks.

Jill | 12.04.06 10:38 AM

Danny, you say, "Some readers might be surprised to know that bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians are willing to work for some of them. There's nothing corrupt about bloggers choosing to work for politicians, but it might seem inconsistent with their rhetoric."

It sounds good, but it's both internally inconsistent and just plain wrong on the facts. OK, maybe *some* readers might be surprised, but only those who, like you, apparently, don't really read the blogs in question but just give them a quick glance once in a while.

And this part makes no sense whatsoever; "bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians are willing to work for some of them." Please, think about that sentence. Because I passionately dislike Stilton means it's odd that I buy Muenster at the supermarket?

None of the blogs you cite express a loathing of all politicians of all stripes at all times. None of them. They disdain and mock and insult *some* politicians, maybe even most. It's in no way inconsistent -- in fact, it's totally consistent -- for them then to go to work to help a politician when they find one who doesn't exhibit the hypocrisy and/or dishonesty and/or cowardice they so dislike.

What on earth could possibly be odd about that?

I *expect* people who rail and complain about the crummy quality of politicians in this country to go out and do something to elect better ones. How is that in any way hypocrisy or unethical or odd or whatever it is you're suggesting? It makes no sense.

*Everyone* agrees that there should be transparency on this, and after a couple of initial stumbles, there has been. Every one of the left or left-center bloggers you cite has been completely up front about their campaign activities.

So I ask, like just about everyone else in the blog world, What's your problem?

gyrfalcon | 12.04.06 10:48 AM

It is safe to say we can look forward to years of right wing references to "even the NYT says Lib blogs are on the take." Mission accomplished.

david | 12.04.06 10:49 AM

I made $600.

essl | 12.04.06 12:29 PM

Fess up, Danny. You were paid to write hit piece on the blogosphere by a media outlet that is very fearful of its bottom line being chomped on by those working from the "fever swamp."

Heck, if you can't come clean here -- in the blogosphere itself -- where can you do it? I mean, it doesn't seem like the NYTimes is RUSHing to issue a "corrections" for its silliness and slander.

And what's this rot about an explanatory column being left off the chart -- inadvertent? Sounds like a weak excuse & one that simply emphasizes just how craven you and your editors actually are.

IncandenzaH | 12.04.06 12:45 PM

I see that I too have been deemed as undeserving of being "heard," apparently for using the word "Fauntleroy." Hmmm. Must be that, as otherwise the only obscenity in my post is a quote. I can take my point about civility being more valued than the truth as confirmed, then?

Well, let's see if Mr. Glover decides to elide this comment, as he did my earlier one.

Thus, I am forced to waste precious electrons to repeat-- Danny, dude, have you seen Steve Gilliard's response to your piece?

Do you have a response? Other than, of course, he uses too much "uncivil" language?

(Full disclosure-- in my earlier comment I did say that he should check into a Level One Trauma Center to get Steve Gilliard's boot our of his a**. I'm sure that Mr. Glover considers that... uncivil.)

FB

Fat Bastard | 12.04.06 12:48 PM

For the record: My phone conversation with Danny Glover:

>**Brad DeLong:** My name is Brad DeLong, calling from Berkeley. Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?

>**Danny Glover:** I'm not going to discuss that. I'm not to discuss that over the telephone.

>**Brad DeLong:** So you wont tell me which of the twelve you named yesterday themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?

>**Danny Glover:** I'm happy to discuss that over the internet. I'm not going to discuss that over the telephone. I'm on deadline. I have to get back to work.

So: once again: Danny:

Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?

Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe failed to adequately disclose their relationships?

Brad DeLong | 12.04.06 01:10 PM

There's no inconsistency between disliking politicians in general and working for one single politician. Straw man. Most bloggers have always had a few politicians they like. (Most of us disike the majority of the print, broadcast, and cable media more than we dislike "politicians".)

I actually do dislike almost all politicians, but I regard myself as exceptional this way among bloggers, and I am in no danger of being hired. Most democratic bloggers are mainstream (but not DLC) on the issues; they mostly just want a more effective strategy by the Democrats.

John Emerson | 12.04.06 01:22 PM

Others don't deserve to be heard because they don't know how to debate an issue with civility and dignity.

Doesn't deserve to be heard. Doesn't deserve to be heard. Gosh you folks in the old media aren't taking this paradigm shift very well are you? I'm old enough (53 years old) to remember a time when all I knew about the world beyond my neighborhood was what I heard from you people. You need to understand, those days are over. You are not the gatekeepers anymore. Your standards of decency don't dictate what I have access to anymore. Thankfully.

My world is swimming in information nowadays and I don't have time to read more then a minuscule fraction of it. So I read what I trust. And I'll endure lectures on civility and decency from a lot of sources, but not from news organs that served as little more then cheerleaders for the catastrophe that is the Iraq war.

I read who I trust. Do you think that if you don't link to bloggers whom you feel don't deserve to be heard, that they won't be heard? No...no. If they don't link to You, then people won't be reading you. The only time I bother with a Times piece, is when a blogger I read links to it.

Bruce Garrett | 12.04.06 01:27 PM

"The Times wanted me to focus on people who had their own blogs and then went to work for campaigns. My original piece also included people who were paid to blog for campaigns or advise them on Internet strategy but who weren't independent bloggers beforehand. Most of those happened to be Republicans; most of the former happened to be Democrats."

So you Originally wrote a really balanced article, but that's not what they wanted to pay you for, so you changed it to a really one sided article. Golly, I don't know why anyone would feel smeared by your embrace of such high journalistic standards.

feckless | 12.04.06 01:36 PM

Your chart is misleading, because it doesn't include a column to show whether the blogger disclosed to his readers that he was working for a campaign.

Nor does the chart address that some of the bloggers (like Jesse of Pandagon left blogging before taking a campaign job.

Eric Jaffa | 12.04.06 02:39 PM

Mr Glover, the point of the article was obvious: stop reading those crooked bloggers and come back to us! You can trust the NYT!
Yes, we are supposed to reject atrios and kos and TPM and Brad DeLong and come back to Judy Miller.

Sorry, Mr Glover, we don't get our news from the NYT anymore.

JR | 12.04.06 02:49 PM

Civility is overrated. We are after all animals in pants.

In any event civility does not exist solely for the purpose of being invoked by self-appointed guardians of virtue when the powerful are criticized by the peanut gallery. I don't want any part of some faux decorum if all it does is protect those who deserve scrutiny.

Mr. Glover your article is dishonest on its face.

nota bene | 12.04.06 02:59 PM

K. Daniel,

You quote Ann Althouse's response to your piece. She clearly takes your article to mean that the relationships you document constitute improper conflicts of interest.

Do you agree with her? Does your piece mean that the bloggers you listed have improper conflicts of interest? You keep on saying that you don't agree with her, that your piece isn't meant to imply that at all--if that's really the case, you might want to correct her. If you don't, it's hard to take your claim that your piece wasn't intended to make insinuations about bloggers seriously.

Also, we're all waiting for your response to Brad.

Sean | 12.04.06 03:04 PM

If I had written this article, I would have been laughed at by Mr Sawyer the editor of the High School Newspaper. The irony is that Mr Glover purports to display the professional hypocrisy and dishonesty of bloggers.

skeeenah | 12.05.06 12:38 AM

Still waiting for a response to Brad:

"Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?

"Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe failed to adequately disclose their relationships?"

smuggler | 12.05.06 03:14 AM

Brad, "smuggler" and others,

To answer Brad's questions:

1) Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does. I never said or implied that any of them disdained to work for candidates. That's obviously not the case because all of them DID work for candidates.

2) I answered this question when asked by Micah Sifry, and you have my answer and his response on your blog, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question again. People can go to your blog for the answer or follow the link on Beltway Blogroll to Micah's post at Personal Democracy Forum.

Danny | 12.05.06 07:29 AM

You didn't answer Brad's question. He's asking which one of them billed themselves as revolutionaries, not which ones you think see themselves as revolutionaries.

Matt Stoller | 12.05.06 09:42 AM

Matt,

Brad's question (emphasis mine): "Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday DO YOU BELIEVE billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?" I answered his question.

Danny

Danny | 12.05.06 10:02 AM

Whoa! You don't need to keep taking that axe to those hairs, there. I think you've split 'em enough...

Thers | 12.05.06 12:57 PM

Danny,

Brad's question (emphasis mine): "Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe BILLED THEMSELVES as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?" I answered his question.

Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow | 12.05.06 01:37 PM

Danny,

I'm not going to get into all of the questions or comments that may be swirling around my head. But your comment above has stirred my interest. On what do you base your assertion that I've billed myself or that I "certainly" see myself as a revolutionary? (I'll assume you're not referring to my love of berets and AK-47s.)

Thanks for all the free publicity,
Scott

Scott Shields | 12.05.06 02:35 PM

So, Danny, here are the lessons I'm taking from this piece.

• If Daniel Glover says someone sees themself as a revolutionary, it's just true, with or without proof.
• Because they are revolutionaries (see lesson #1), that means that it is hypocritical to work inside the system in any way.
• Bloggers who passionately dislike so many politicians must, therefore, dislike all politicians, whether or not they repeatedly call for their readers to support them.
• Hiring at the National Journal is based on three things: Location, location and an almost fanatical devotion to inference.

Thanks for teaching me so much.

nitpicker | 12.05.06 04:02 PM

There were two things wrong with the piece. One was conceptual. There's no point in crashing a gate if you're not trying to get inside. Of course, bloggers are going to try to help the candidates they favor (armstrong) and of course political consultants aim at the grass roots will use the web (Tagaris, Daou). The idea of crashing the gate is getting influence from a broader spectrum of the American public.

The second mistake is practical. When bloggers do sign up for campaigns, they either announce it or stop participating on their blog. There's no secret that some of these activists will take paid staffing jobs. This ticks bloggers off, because they see the mainstream media involved in more egregious conflicts of interest. Everything from George Will helping Reagan to prepare for a debate to Jim VandeHei being assigned a beat that has a clear conflict with his wife's profession is considered okay. It's not the fact of bloggers' getting paid positions or not getting them. It's the hypocrisy of asserting some kind of violation of ethics that the traditional media doesn't apply to itself.

jayackroyd | 12.05.06 04:50 PM

Just a reminder from W.C. Fields
(re: the moniker of a revolutionary):

"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to."

Jill | 12.05.06 04:54 PM

Danny -

The reason you are coming under attack is that your article unreasonably infers that certain bloggers are sell-outs because they have worked for political campaigns. That inference is just a silly as arguing George Washington was a sellout because he spent years leading a rebellion only then to become the leader of a government.

Think about the "Crashing the Gate" metaphor you reference to begin your article. Once the gate falls, you are inside. Political bloggers are political junkies. Why is it so surprising that some bloggers would accept the opportunity to participate directly in politics?

p.s. Does it bother you when bands you "discover" at a small club later become famous? Just guessing that it might.

Chuck | 12.05.06 05:23 PM

I find it amusing that the majority of this dust-up is over bloggers and their disclosure. I've just watched 4 straight hours of cable TV news and all these people keep getting introduced as a Republican consultant or Democratic consultant. They go on and tell us why suit #1 (is/is not) a viable candidate for president or (is/is not) a terrorist enabler. Not once have I heard one say anything to the effect of: "in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I worked for John McCain in 2000, so when I say he is a serious and reasonable person and should get your vote, keep in mind I may be full of it."

flounder | 12.05.06 05:25 PM

"Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does. I never said or implied that any of them disdained to work for candidates. That's obviously not the case because all of them DID work for candidates."

Oh. So then, um, what's the point of the article again?

It might help you, Danny, if you stopped for a moment and spent a few minutes thinking about what it might be that the "revolutionaries" actually see themselves as rebelling against.

I realize that's a hard question to answer for someone who hasn't read them very much, but give it a try and let us all know what you come up with.

gyrfalcon | 12.05.06 07:46 PM

To recap: Danny Glover said that the point of his article was not that: "anyone... is 'corrupt'.... I don't believe that. Candidates have the right to pay for Internet advice, blogging, etc., and bloggers have a right to be paid..."

He said that the point of his article was that: "it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns..."

I then asked: "Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?"

Danny Glover answered: "Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does."

So we have eight who have not billed themselves as revoutionaries--if they had, wouldn't Glover know? Eight added to pad out a list that would otherwise have been an anemic four names long.

Saddest thing I've seen in a month.

Brad DeLongq | 12.05.06 10:51 PM

If being a "revolutionary" means using ones skill with a computer to help make our country a better place, then I am very proud to call myself a "revolutionary". I am proud to have worked for Ned Lamont, and I greatly respect the work of other bloggers, both listed and not listed that helped with the campaign.

However, working to make the country a better place does not equal having "contempt for the political establishment", nor does it imply we should starve and wear hairshirts.

As a matter of fact, I would hope, by the first definition of "revolutionary", most people in journalism would be considered "revolutionaries". How many people entered the journalistic trades out of a belief that reporting the truth would help make our country better. I would even hope that Danny would consider himself a "revolutionary" by this standard.

I think my real disappointment isn't about being outed as a blogger who has been paid by campaigns. I've been very forthcoming about this.

No, the real problem is that the article was way too superficial and too easily construed as slanted.

If Mr. Glover wanted to create an article of greater worth, he would have spoken with the bloggers about what they did for the campaign and how they became involved with the campaign. He would have asked them, and perhaps even some of their readers if there were perceived conflicts and how these conflicts were addressed.

Unfortunately, he failed to do this and left himself open to being criticized for suspect motives and poor journalism.

Let's hope that Mr. Glover can learn from this and present a more indepth, balanced and thoughtful article about the emerging role of bloggers in the public sphere.

Aldon Hynes | 12.06.06 03:15 PM

Marshall Wittman works for money!

Nullset | 12.11.06 05:25 PM

Post a Comment