« Will RedState's Ron Paul Hysteria Spread? | Main | 'Wimps And Weenies' At The State Department »

Congress Is Afraid Of Big, Bad Blogs -- Or Not

Conspiratorial rumors of blog bans have finally made their way to Congress -- and have been quickly shot down just like similar rumors that have surfaced periodically in federal and state agencies.

Lisa Hannah, a blogger in Nebraska who runs Smith Watch, a site critical of Republican Rep. Adrian Smith, started the congressional rumor. It had a slightly different twist than previous allegations aimed at government agencies, though.

In those cases -- first in Kentucky and then in the U.S. Interior Department -- the government stood accused of preventing employees from reading specific blogs, presumably for political reasons. But Hannah accused Smith of keeping bloggers from seeing his congressional Web site.

Under the hubristic headline "Does Smith Fear The Impact Of Smith Watch?," Hannah said that when she clicked on a link to Smith's site from her blog, she received an error message, but she could access the site through other avenues. Egged on by a Republican-bashing techie at the Google-owned Blogger.com, which hosts Smith Watch, she reached the conclusion that Smith was targeting her critical blog.

"Adrian Smith fears dissent," she wrote. "He fears truth. He fears anything that shows the REAL Adrian, rather than the false image he continues to try and portray. In other words -- HE FEARS ME!"

The story got legs when top Democratic blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD reported it. Even the Democratic National Committee and Nebraska Democratic Party repeated the blog-fearing rumor as fact without verification.

Then the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation lent credence to the allegation when Paul Blumenthal, one of the bloggers for the pro-transparency watchdog group, latched onto it. "This is a truly terrible example of a congressman miserably failing in his use of the Web and appears to be an attempt to silence an online voice by nullifying their ability to link," he wrote.

Alas, this brouhaha, like the others before it, was contrived by a blogger who thought more highly of herself than she ought and, with the help of her blog friends, spread gossip before she dug deep enough to find the truth.

As even Hannah herself has acknowledged, Smith was not so afraid of her that he hired a Web expert to keep her from accessing a taxpayer-funded Web site. Instead, he was the victim of GovTrends, an Internet company that overreacted to blog spam by blocking all traffic coming from Blogger.com. And that action applied not just to Smith's Web site but also to those of the other 35 members of Congress who have hired the firm.

GovTrends made that fact clear in a series of comments on blogs that spread the rumor. "We were contacted by [Smith's]office regarding the problem bloggers on Blogspot were having linking to the congressman's Web site," the note said. "Upon further investigation, we discovered our servers were set by default to block all referring traffic from Blogspot due to the proliferation of spammers."

GovTrends since has lifted that technological barrier but said it will revert to it if necessary. "Should these refer links cause harm or increased amounts of spider spam, we will review and block the http refers again WITHOUT WARNING. This decision is ours as our number one priority is security for all our congressional clients."

So has the experience humbled Hannah? Has she offered Smith an apology for an accusation that her own blog now exposes as false? Yeah, right. Like any blogger with an axe to grind against a particular politician, she found a way to blame Smith -- for refusing to talk directly with her.

Given [the Smith office's] history of negative actions, one was only left with speculation. Every time I've tried to get their side of a story, and tried to be fair ... nothing. And so far, when I've speculated, I've been on target.

If I got this one off line a bit, so be it. I wasn't that far off. I just went off a report, got no rebuttal and then took history into account. Maybe in the future, they will learn that it's actually a good idea to talk, to communicate, to open the lines between Smith and those who disagree with him.

Somehow I doubt that's the message Smith and his staff will take away from this encounter.

Posted by Danny | 05:32 PM

Comments

Danny, you can think of me what you will. Here's some perspective:

You apparently do this for a living. I actually work a full-time job that has nothing to do with politics or journalism. Yes, that's right, I'm one of those working class types that lives paycheck to paycheck, trying to make ends meet. I started tracking Adrian Smith's votes and his statements because too often they went unchallenged, and he frequently did not tell the truth. Have you ever been frustrated with your political leaders? We have a very solid belief in Nebraska: You can respect those whom you disagree with, as long as they respect you. I disagree with Sen. Hagel, for example, most of the time. But I deeply respect him and his work. Smith never showed any of that respect to his constituents. (here's a good example).

I don't get paid. I do it on my spare time. I don't have the fancy connections like you obviously have. I'm not an east coaster or a west coaster. I'm from the middle of the country.

I got through to his office a couple times when I first started the blog, but after that, they stopped ever talking to me. I'd send emails with questions on votes to understand his position. No response. I'd call with questions. No response. It was only when I started asking repeatedly for nearly 3 1/2-4 months for the reports he has to file (Gift & Travel, Franked Mailing, Foreign Travel - have to be picked up in person or requested through your congressman) with no response to dozens of phone calls and emails that they finally let me talk to Charles Isom. His response? I"ll check into and get back to you. Never heard a word again and that was 2 months ago.

Now for perspective: If, say, this was a story about Nancy Pelosi's office and not Adrian Smith's, what do you think would happen?

What are you supposed to do when your member of Congress refuses to communicate? What do you do when you're ignored? What would you do if you had months of efforts showing you were trying to always get their side of the story (and if you looked at my blog, you'd see multiple times where I did make attempt after attempt before printing a story). One example is when his campaign trailer was possibly parked illegally. I held that for a MONTH before doing anything with it, trying to talk with them. NOTHING. I finally posted the questions and the information available (state and federal laws, pictures). Result? Local law enforcement had the trailer moved within hours!

So, with all that in mind, if Nancy Pelosi refused to talk with you and you had a question as to why they were suddenly blocking links from your site - would you just sit silent? Would you just say "oh well....I'll just ignore this". Or would you finally just pose the questions where you know they would see them and see what happens? And if she and her staff had a regular, steady, ongoing pattern of avoiding you and your questions, what would you speculate about all this?

Given you didn't even know me or try to talk with me, I take it speculation is something you also have no problem doing. But wouldn't that also be speculation? But just so you know how I do things, just look at this link:

Open Secrets on Adrian Smith.

I just noted that Open Secrets showed Smith's father had gotten over $141,000. Next thing I knew, it exploded all over the internet. I hadn't made any accusation, just pointed it out. Know what I did? I actually looked into it further then and DEFENDED him! I showed that what had occured was legitimate.

When you're an individual who's Congressman refuses to accept you as even a voting Constituent with rights to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances", and you have a free website that gets a normal average of only 60 hits a day (give or take) that's all the recourse you have - to raise the question publically.

I'm sorry for the long post, but maybe now you'll understand that if Smith's office was just willing to answer questions now and then (and I actually don't ask that many), I wouldn't have asked the question on my blog. And if they had responded to me directly afterwords instead of continuing to ignore me, I would have been the first (like before) to step up and report exactly what the issue was, without hestitation.

Lisa Hannah | 11.07.07 08:02 PM

Danny,

I'd like to add that all the aforementioned blogs have since corrected the record. GovTrends, however, appears to have a way-too-tight policy on spider spam. I'm glad they reached out to all the blogs to explain what was actually happening but I their policy of cracking down on Blogger seems a bit severe, no? Anyways, just another example of bloggers jumping the gun. Luckily we can and do correct the record. I rarely see that in print and never on TV.

Paul Blumenthal

Paul | 11.08.07 10:46 AM

Lisa,

Two words: snail mail.

Did you ever try writing to him using pen and paper? An actual physical communication that can be tracked is more likely to get a Congressman's attention than a few electons that any old spambot can send out.

A lot of bloggers block Blogspot addresses, and with good reason. Why are you dumping on your Congresscritter for doing only what is sensible?

Yeesh.

And, no, I don't have a dog in this fight-- I'm from the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland, where the State Assembly's unofficial motto is, "State constitution? What state constitution? We don't need no steenking state constitution!"

Hale Adams | 11.08.07 11:22 AM

Lisa,

I sympathize with your frustration at the lack of responsiveness you've had from Adrian Smith's office. On the other hand, I think its par for the course. I've never had anything but a form letter or form email in response to my letters or emails to Congressmen and Senators over the years, and sometimes not even that.

I think you missed an opportunity here, Lisa. This episode offered an opportunity to build your reputation and reader base.

I don't know anything about Adrian Smith, but had I come across this story and found that having discovered your mistake in this case, you had forthrightly acknowledged the error, and shown some remorse about being the source of a broadly circulated bit of false information damaging to this fellow's reputation, I would have been very favorable impressed, and inclined to view you as a credible source whose blog might be worth checking out. A blogger with integrity is worth keeping an eye on. I suspect a lot of people would have reacted that way.

dmayes

dmayes | 11.08.07 11:55 AM

Paul,

Not all of the blogs I mentioned have corrected the record. Neither the DNC nor MyDD have updated their entries with the correct information as of now, and the Nebraska Democratic Party's "correction" is a bit like Lisa Hannah's -- it acts like there are two sides to this story. That's not the case.

I do agree with you that GovTrends' anti-Blogger policy is too severe. That would be kind of like banning all mail to congressional offices (or newsrooms) because some crazy people write letters. Hopefully, the company will not make good on its warning to resort to that approach -- and if it does, then bloggers would have every right to start complaining to their congressmen and ask that they change Web providers.

Danny

Danny | 11.08.07 12:06 PM

To Hale - why do I need to physically write a letter and spend the postage when I’ve got a way to track the message through email, can make phone calls, and can go into the local office that’s actually only about 6 blocks from my house? If none of that works, why would a physical letter be different? This is supposed to be the modern age.

To Dmayes - If it’s “par for the course” for members of Congress to ignore their constituents, isn’t that a huge issue and a violation of the First Amendment? And you’re lucky you get the form letters. I don’t even get that!! The thing is, I’ve contacted other elected officials, both state and federal, throughout my adult life. I’ve NEVER been ignored. That is, until Smith took office. And why would I show remorse for posing a valid question? No, you don’t know me, but if you saw the 10 months of history and saw how I’ve tried to be fair in presenting his arguments and the arguments of Republicans in general, maybe you’d understand the frustrations that led to having to ask a question where no answer was forthcoming? We still never got the ability to really verify what GovTrack was saying. They refused to provide who they were serving. Smith’s office remained silent except to a gossip columnist. As I pointed out, when people took off with the idea that Smith did something wrong with his campaign finances (after I had only highlighted some things off of Open Secrets, and bloggers jumped from there), I actually DEFENDED him. I will not apologize for asking a valid question with the history of behavior that has come from that office. There was nothing wrong with asking the question. I suggest you look over ALL my work and see why I actually have become a credible source for information regarding votes, bills, procedural issues, etc. Otherwise you will just be yet another person making a judgement with only about 2 seconds of soundbite from a one hour speech. And by the way, for someone like me who’s had no formal training in journalism or politics to have gotten as far as I have, and to have one “glitch” come out after over 150 reports, that’s saying something, don’t you think?

To Danny - to say there is not two sides to the story is wrong. Not everything can be broken down to it’s most simple terms, which seems to be the habit in Washington these days. Complexity seems to be a challenge people don’t want to face anymore, and the media is as much to blame for that as the politicians who press it. The fact is that asking the question finally forced the issue into light. If Smith’s people had just been open, it could have gone quietly into that good night. If they had been willing to speak to a constituent, they would have found me putting them in a very good light - Congressman Smith’s Office finally shows concern, and becomes open and accessible. Unfortunately, they chose to continue the roadblock. If you SERIOUSLY think that one had nothing to do with the other, you really are the one of the elite, self-promoting beltway types we in Nebraska think are completely out of touch with what real people deal with on a daily basis. It would be like getting a divorce from your spouse because you hate each other, but claiming that the fact the two of you never ever talked with each other about problems had nothing to do with the result.

The bottom line is that anyone can Monday-Morning quarterback on anything, and claim they would do different. But that would be with the benefit of hindsite.

Lisa Hannah | 11.08.07 12:53 PM

Lisa: You keep insisting that you did nothing but pose a question, and that's not true. You flat-out accused Rep. Smith of a "childish act of blocking access from a specific site." You were wrong about that, and your reasons for making the false accusation are irrelevant.

I'm on your side in the sense that I think lawmakers should be responsive to their constituents -- and to the press. (Many of our phone calls go unreturned and our questions unanswered, too.) I also love that blogs like yours exist to hold lawmakers accountable. Spend some time reading the entries in the "Media" category of Beltway Blogroll and you'll confirm that to be true.

But you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion in this instance and then compounded the error by casting blame on the man you falsely accused. That wouldn't be good journalism, and it's not good blogging, either.

Danny | 11.08.07 01:12 PM

This article and the subsequent comments fail to really hit the real root of the problem: spam.

Blog comments are riddled with spam ads for drugs, sex, and music downloads. It sucks up owner bandwidth and chills the actual discussions going on. It forces users to adopt draconic security measures that block legitimate users. It makes personal sites look like nothing but crass ads.

The internet is ridiculously overflowing with spam, spammers, spambots, bacon egg and spam spam spam. If this continues, it won't be long before simply using the internet becomes too much of a bother.

The solution isn't filtering the spam. The solution is going after the spammers themselves. We need to track down these people and organizations across the globe and prosecute them for interfering with legitimate business and communications. They are like modern day pirates with virtual ships hijacking virtual cargo.

I say we declare war on spammers, and retore freedom to the virtual high seas.

Gullyborg | 11.08.07 01:37 PM

While Gullyborg is correct, this doesn't address the fact that Smith's office seems determined to not to communicate.

Why couldn't they come out and say there was a problem unless they were either prepared to let it fester, or worse, just don't care.

Hannah wants Smith's office to be accountable, and no-one seems to care if they aren't. This technical screw up only helps disguise the fact that Smith's staffers would rather rot in hell than answer questions from an opponent.

It's all a little pathetic, and if it weren't for Lisa Hannah, we wouldn't have had this resolved.

Has it even been resolved?

Snail Mail? Are you kidding me. I live in the Nebraska 3rd and all my requests for info (via snail or any other kind of mail) have been ignored. His office is uncommunicative unless they like you. They don't like Hannah, or myself, it would seem.

Their unresponsive manner reminds me of the old Soviet Politburo, or Ulster Unionists. Sad unanswerable, unsympathetic individuals. I think his office are politically astute enough to use this to deride Hannah and deflect from their own callousness.

r1niceboy | 11.08.07 05:20 PM

Lisa,

Sorry, but in my common sense world there are two things that show juvenile gotcha-ism... and you're guilty of both.

First is the process itself, by which you decided due to LACK of information that you knew what was happening and why. By not responding, Smith's office-- proved your case? Ahem.

No. Congressional offices are famous for not responding, especially to internet based stuff. Like someone else already said, a good old letter gets much better results, and we older folk are already aware of that fact.

This performance of yours feels like "he walked past me on the sidewalk and looked right at me and then just walked away... the NERVE of him! How dare he ignore me? That kind of thing. It feels juvenile, and doesn't seem to be aware of the way the real world works there.

Number two? YOur self-explanatory posts are about ten times too long. Reflexive self-justification on that scale is usually at least influenced by a lurking sense of guilt on the part of the explainer.

Do you really believe that longer self-justification posts will make more people fall down on your side?

Doesn't work with me. Sounds like guilty dogs barking.

I'm not saying I now KNOW the real truth of your whole boring and long and painfully detailed experience... I"m not judging... I"m just saying that ordinary people judge by the criteria I've given here.

YOu complain too loudly about stuff that wasn't ever gonna work anyway, for common sense reasons, and then you justify your behavior later in the 'blogpost from hell' that no sane person should be forced to read.

Sorry gal, I'm with Smith on this one and you've done some small harm to the cred of his opponents.

Dave in Texas

Dave | 11.08.07 07:19 PM

Post a Comment