Do you think the “bloggers vs journalists” fight is over, as Jeff Jarvis exclaimed to me at a panel we were on together last week at the Museum of Television and Radio? I argued with Jeff then that it was far from over, and to prove my point I can point you to today’s New York Times Week in Review, which has a giant 3/4 page charticle by Danny Glover of National Journal titled “New on the Web: Politics as Usual.”
To my knowledge, Glover’s piece is the first time the Times has looked so closely at the new phenomenon of blogging and tackled the question of blogger ethics, so — even if we wish this debate were over — it ain’t. Unfortunately, Glover sets up a straw man–that all political bloggers are contemptuous of the political establishment, outsiders, “revolutionary” even–and then knocks it down by producing a list of bloggers who went to work in 2006 for political campaigns: Jerome Armstrong, Abraham Chernilla, Peter Daou, Jule Fanselow, Lowell Feld, Jon Henke, Aldon Hynes, Patrick Hynes, Scott Shields, Aaron Silverstein, David Sirota, Tim Tagaris and Jesse Taylor. He goes further, essentially arguing that these political bloggers are for sale, either because they took jobs with candidates they had backed on their blogs, or because they didn’t disclose their ties to candidates on their blogs after the fact. Hence the “politics as usual” as the subtitle of his piece.
I’m kind of surprised to read this from Glover, having met him once and corresponded in a friendly way, and I’ve emailed him some questions (see below) about the piece in the hopes that he will clarify matters. For all I know, his editors at the Times made the piece worse than he intentioned. But what he published does a major disservice to political bloggers, and to any serious understanding of why blogging is a new force in politics and the media.
First problem: Like a lot of other commentators, Glover treats political bloggers as a monolith. According to him, they are all filled with disdain and contempt for the political establishment. “You might think that with the kind of rhetoric bloggers regularly muster against politicians, they would never work for them,” he writes, setting up his straw man.
But this is patently silly. Peter Daou, one of his targets because he is now a prominent blog advisor to Hillary Clinton, worked for a year on the Kerry campaign. How anti-establishment is that? Tim Tagaris, who Glover tags for his work on the Sherrod Brown and Ned Lamont campaigns, also did a stint at the DNC. Republican blogger Patrick Hynes, now working for John McCain, is a senior account executive with a Republican consulting firm.
Conversely, I’m not sure it’s accurate to describe going to work for a candidate like Ned Lamont or Sherrod Brown or James Webb as joining the political establishment. (Though I suppose it’s hardly as anti-establishment as, say, backing a third-party candidate or getting arrested in the street, but again, who said that bloggers were that radical?) Many bloggers appear more attracted to maverick candidates; and so far outsider candidates seem to be making better use of blogging in their campaigns. But Glover completely elides this nuance, since it doesn’t fit his argument.
Second problem: Glover makes a big deal over the fact that “Few of these bloggers shut down their ‘independent’ sites after signing on with campaigns, and while most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs, some–like Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits–did so only after being criticized by fellow bloggers.” Note those quote marks around the word “independent.”
That’s the “for sale” charge, and unless Glover can cite more evidence for it, he’s basically smearing the good names of the other twelve bloggers he cites by name in the piece without proof. Ever since the issue of conflict of interest came up in the political blogosphere, bloggers have dealt with it by saying that disclosure is key to earning and maintaining trust. No one serious has ever suggested that if you go to work for a campaign or a cause that you have to stop blogging!
I’ve written him the following note:
1. Other than Patrick Hynes, which of the other bloggers you list by name failed to disclose their campaign ties on their blogs? You say “some” failed to do so until after they were criticized by fellow bloggers; that implies more than one, and since this is a key part of your argument, I’m wondering who else you are hanging that on.
2. The other straw man in your argument is this notion that all political bloggers are self-styled revolutionaries who are now being seduced by, or hiring themselves off to, the political establishment. Problem number one–not all of these bloggers are revolutionaries”; take Peter Daou, for example. I mean, he was with the Kerry campaign before this. Conversely, does working for Ned Lamont suddenly make a blogger into someone ensconced in the establishment? Same with working for James Webb or Sherrod Brown, who were both maverick outsider candidates.
I think you’ve done the political bloggers you attack a disservice, but I’m open to hear your replies on these points. For the record, please.
Glover replies:
On No. 1
— The Times chart initially was going to include a section on disclosure — i.e., the different ways that bloggers disclosed. That section was dropped and the sentence in question here was added instead. The nuanced points I made about disclosure got lost in the process.
— That said, Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed was attacked by liberal bloggers this year for not disclosing his work for campaigns, and he in turn attacked several liberal bloggers for not disclosing their payments from a “new journalist” group (http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/minnesota_the_l.php). I mentioned Brodkorb in my initial article on this topic for NJ.com/MSNBC and in the first draft for the Times. He was dropped from the Times chart.
— If you think the issue of disclosure is a key part of my argument, you really missed the point. Bloggers in general have handled the disclosure issue very well and I acknowledged as much by saying “most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs.”
On No. 2
— This is the point of my article. While I never said all political bloggers are self-styled revolutionaries, that clearly is how the most prominent bloggers, their proteges and their readers see themselves. I suppose you could make the argument that Peter Daou doesn’t belong in that bunch, but he would be the exception among the bloggers listed in my article, both Democratic and Republican.
— I also would add that you are being unfair in characterizing my piece for the Times as an “attack” piece. On that point, I refer you to this comment I posted in response to a reader at Beltway Blogroll:
“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.
I hope this helps. Let me know when your response is online, and I’ll link to it at Beltway Blogroll.
Danny
I don’t want to beat this into the ground, and I appreciate Danny’s willingness to engage the discussion openly. But two comments on his email. First, it’s interesting that he admits that the only other blogger he knows of who failed to disclose his political campaign ties was a Republican, Michael Brodkorb. Too bad that his Times oped leaves the reader with the sense that some unknown number of these mostly Democratic bloggers listed were hiding something.
Second, I guess it’s clear that Danny thinks he’s discovered something big–revolutionary bloggers going to work for the Man–but like I say above, this is a straw man. Even the so-called Kingmaker of the liberal blogs, Markos Moulitsas, is not a revolutionary. No, he doesn’t care to go to work in a suit or even to move to Washington, but the notion that some liberal bloggers who have been hankering to revive the Democratic party might move from mere volunteer enthusiasm to paid labor is really not a big deal.
What is a big deal is the implication that this makes them corrupt. Danny says that he doesn’t believe that. Fine. Take a look at the graphics his designer added to jazz up his chart. We’ve got a line that goes from “blogger” to “candidate” to “payments” to “excerpt” (i.e. the favorable writing of said blogger, with no clarity about whether it was on the candidate’s blog or on their own blog, and if whether proper disclosure was made). And at the end of that line, in the top right corner of the page where you can’t miss it, is a big dollar sign.
This is unfair, and it’s too bad.
UPDATE: Lots more good commentary on this here on Pandagon (who points out that Jesse Taylor, one of the bloggers named by Glover, had given up ownership of that blog before he joined Ted Strickland’s campaign), on BlueJersey.com (by one of my favorite grad students, Xpatriated Texan, who defends blogger Scott Shields from Glover’s implication that he had failed to disclose his work for the Menendez campaign), and on Steve Gilliard’s News Blog.
Technorati Tags: blogger ethics, bloggers vs journalists, Danny Glover