« The First Blog Scandal Of Campaign 2008 | Main | Blogger Now Jailed Longer Than Any U.S. Journalist »

Amanda Marcotte's 'Conflict Of Interest'?

Pandagon blogger Amanda Marcotte has been the subject of much debate here and elsewhere the past few days because of her new assignment as the "blogmaster" for the presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards.

One thing has gone unmentioned in that debate, however. Late last year, after Marcotte took me to task for my New York Times article about bloggers hired by campaigns, she told her readers this:

I think it's a conflict of interest to blog independently while working for a politician, but if you disclose it, then it's up to the audience to decide how much attention they pay you.

Marcotte continues to blog independently at Pandagon while working for Edwards.

Marcotte also said in response to a reader's comment that disclosure by bloggers working for campaigns may not be sufficient. "I think you're technically right," she said of disclosure being the key, "but the one problem is that disclosing in a post gets buried fast."

Marcotte's Jan. 30 disclosure that she is working for the Edwards campaign already is relatively buried (a few pages deep) in the Pandagon archives. Neither her biography on the site nor her author page currently appear to mention her work for Edwards.

I have e-mailed Marcotte to ask if her view has changed about it being a conflict of interest to blog independently while working for a campaign and to ask whether she considers her current disclosure post at Pandagon to be sufficient.

UPDATE: Marcotte said she does not now see blogging independently while working for a campaign as a conflict of interest and said disclosure of such arrangements is sufficient. "For myself, I am happy to have a permanent disclaimer," she wrote in an e-mail. "My opinion has always been that permanent disclaimers are good things. If my comments earlier indicated otherwise, I am sorry they were confusing."

Marcotte also pointed me to the disclaimer at Pandagon. It is on a separate page rather than being included as part of her bio or the archive of all of her posts.

Marcotte did not answer a question about whether it might be more useful to have the disclamer on those pages, too, or even within each post that she writes at Pandagon. Several bloggers hired by campaigns last year followed that approach, and one posted a running disclosure across the top of each page on his personal site -- at the request of the campaign that hired him.

Posted by Danny | 11:06 PM

Comments

boy, you really nailed her. Caught her red-handed being consistent (disclosing her work with a politician) with what she'd written in the past (bloggers should disclose when they work with a politician). Way to go! Another great use of National Journal's resources and money! We eagerly await the second "blog scandal" of 2007. Go get em woodstein!

newyorker | 02.06.07 12:04 AM

Here's an idea: why don't you email someone for comment and then write up your story before or after they comment or don't rather than make up a whole accusation/insinuation and then say you've emailed them? If someone wrote "I think Daniel Glover eats babies live, but I'll be emailing him to see if that's true" wouldn't be right, would it?

Oliver Willis | 02.06.07 12:15 AM

Bloggers should have the disclosure on their FP in a prominent place. Carry the dislosure above the ad space. Because the disclosure IS an ad.

Also, if they have a political consultancy that information should be displayed with a link to a list of clients.

The faithful rank and file is getting shat upon by the A list bloggers.

Lydia | 02.06.07 02:43 AM

Speaking of... How about Matt Stoller getting paid by the SEIU to promote Andy Stern on MyDD and not mentioning this until months later?

Is that a conflict of interest?

Cattus Petasatus | 02.06.07 09:44 AM

Excuse me for being late to the party but is this a personal vendetta between you and Amanda Marcotte?

To the outside observer these last few posts seem pretty petty. Please explain if there are real issues here because I'm just not getting it.

not the senator | 02.06.07 02:52 PM

Post a Comment