Time For Another Blogger Ethics Panel?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:03:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Mother Jones runs a rather overwrought and, in my view, wrongheaded article discussing the A-List Bloggers as "The New Gatekeepers." I think the problem is a different one, as I outlined in my post The Dangerous Cooptation of the Blogosphere. The thrust of my post was this:

What is Digby suggesting? That the blogs/Netroots not give its true opinions? That we pull our punches? This is a very very dangerous game Digby is suggesting. For what do the blogs really have going for them? Integrity. If we don't have that, we have nothing. We become the Right blogs. This is terrible thinking, especially coming from our best blogger.

The Mother Jones article sees the problem as one of personal aggrandizement and love of influence and money. In my experience, and I used to be an A-List blogger, it is not that at all.

The Mother Jones article states that:

Today, top liberal bloggers have become an elite in their own right—one that is increasingly part of the political hierarchy. . . [A]ccording to the Washington Monthly. "Politicians court big bloggers now," says a national political reporter who wished to remain anonymous for fear of blogger wrath. "They have dinner with them. They have lunch with them. They stroke them in the hopes of getting favorable things written about them and harnessing that energy."

And? The problem would be if the big bloggers were taken in by this. I believe they have not been. The Mother Jones article stumbles on to the real problem when it quotes some of the A-List bloggers explaining themselves:

Part of the problem, says Armstrong, is that journalists wrongly apply their own ethical standards to nonjournalists. "From my perspective, I'm like, what are you talking about? You know I'm a Democrat. If I wasn't working for the person, I'd still be advocating for them. I'm a full-time partisan operative." Back in 2005, Armstrong set out his own ethics rule of thumb: "What the campus blogethicists don't understand is that we are at war out here every day on the front lines as partisan Democratic activist bloggers against a Republican machine that uses whatever means it takes to win. So, if it's not against the law, I don't want to hear about it, because in the political arena, the first thing that matters in elections and campaigns is winning, with the only accountability being the electioneering laws of Congress. . . .

See this is the problem in a nutshell. I didn't sign up for the "hometeamism" exemplified in Armstrong's statement. I see the Democratic Party as a vehicle for the policies I favor. "Winning" for me, for example, is ending the Iraq War. I will not "rah rah" the Democratic Party when it utterly fails and continues to pursue tepid and ineffective approaches. What I saw from the Blogosphere on the Iraq Supplemental was rank "home teamism." And guess what, no one made any money out of it. It was rather, a Left Blogosphere that lost its way. No one did it for money, influence or prestige. They did it because their highest goals appeared to be puffing up Democrats and tearing down Republicans. Ending the war seemed a secondary goal at best.

Don't get me wrong, come election season, I am sure I'll be "rah rah-ing" my butt off, but not now. And not on the Iraq Debacle. The Left Blogs arose from rejection of the Democratic Party's approach to the Iraq War. It is ironic that it compromised itself by supporting blindly the clearly fatally flawed approach the Democrats provided to end it.

< A Serious Disagreement | Back From Telluride, Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Time For Another Blogger Ethics Panel? | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Interesting post. Hadn't heard that (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by oculus on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:15:00 PM EST

the A list bloggers were wining and dining with the policitians. So that must explain who was included in the conference call with Reid?

P.S. This is really funny:

a national political reporter who wished to remain anonymous for fear of blogger wrath

For the record (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by mcjoan on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:16:32 AM EST

the only time I've been wined and dined didn't involve any wine. It was the Clinton lunch last fall.

Scott Kleeb bought me a cup of coffee (the darling--I had to meet him at 7:30 in the morning to drive to a chamber of commerce meeting, and he had a to-go cup waiting for me in his pickup). Larry Grant bought me an enchilada. Larry LaRocco bought me a salad. I think that's the extent of my intake of food and or beverage from politicians as a blogger.

Those included on the conference call were selected by Reid's staff as the bloggers who write most frequently about Iraq and issues in the Senate at the highest trafficked blogs, and who are, yes, partisans. Even though I bash Reid half the time on Iraq, they let me in, too.


: Thanks for the information. (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:13:56 PM EST

Next time, how about asking Senator Reid, or whoever sets up subsequent conference calls with bloggers who write about Iraq, to include BTD? He probably writes the most often and most consistently on the subject. Thanks.

: mcjoan, I compliment you on your focus (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:22:05 PM EST

on extricating the U.S. military from Iraq. Keep up the good work.

: And (none / 0) (#57)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:46:03 PM EST

my only problem on your reporting on that conference call initially was that you didn't disclose that the bloggers on the call were "bloggers who write most frequently about Iraq and issues in the Senate at the highest trafficked blogs, and who are, yes, partisans."
You (and the MyDD reporting) simply said he had a call with "liberal bloggers" which told us nothing. It's a phrase without any real meaning.
That's why I asked who was on the call - so I could go to those blogs and compare coverage. And, frankly, to see if any of those so-called "liberal bloggers" would just spin the party line put out by Reid in the same way that the MSM spins the Republican party line.
Also it would have been nice to have had a semi-transcript of the call posted somewhere the way we got with the Pelosi blogger conference call a few months ago.

Buried Heels (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by loooty on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:43:38 PM EST

Big Tent D,

Just thought I'd share my appreciation of your dedication to real solutions to the people's problems.

While I don't share your confidence with regards to the Iraq War, it is refreshing compared to the near- sighted rah-rahing I see so many other places.

People are FREE to read, to believe, to say (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by seabos84 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:16:43 PM EST

to dine, to hang with

whoever or whatever they want.

how many goose eggs have I picked up on kos for NOT kow towing to the conventional wisdom that has lead to 30+ years of losing with fake 'leaders'?

if blog-o-stan 'leaders' turn into broder turncoats, AND

people want to read that crap, AND

people want to support that crap

go ahead. all or any of ya.

know what the big researched big worded big sentenced big diaries

revising the sell-out-ism of the DC Dem sell out scum show me?

that sell outs and synchophants and chickens are using html.

wow ... got $500 designer glasses to make you look smart too ??

BFD. yawn.

there is accountabilty and a code of ethics in blogostan - it is everyone's mouse.

to be or not to be, that is the question ...

rmm.

: In the style of Jack Keroac (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:09:42 AM EST

You are still an A list blogger (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:33:03 AM EST

Gimmee a break. I don't know which I have more of, admiration or just plain appreciation for you because you stuck to the truth at such a vitally important time. Iraq isn't an opinion for me, it is a large unpleasant portion of my life right now. When the left blogosphere lost its way so profounding I was horrified. What was to become of Iraq and Iraqis, and American soldiers and their families? I'm sorry that most prominent bloggers on the left have lost the only real commodity they ever had, integrity, but you didn't lose yours so everyone will have a place to come to. The masses out there are really angry, wow are people mad. The people who read and comment on the left are just furious at the game playing and integrity squashed. This is a snapshot in time. Live with integrity, keep your integrity and you will never be sorry and you already know that or you wouldn't have made it this far. It always pays off. It's seldom instant gratification but it is always good to the last drop and the shelf life on everything you earn in this fashion is usually a lifetime.

well, at best I am a C+ list blogger (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by teacherken on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:46:23 AM EST

since the only places I have had front page privileges are Myleftwing (no more), Raising Kaine, and Never in Our Names. Yeah, I do get decent attention at big orange, and as I write this have something on recommended list.

But what visibility I have has given me access, and I have as a result formed friendships with politicians I like, for example Brad Miller and Tom Vilsack. But so far no one has wined and dined me - in fact the opposite: I took Brad out for drinks once and dinner another time.

Yes, I have had politicians or more likely staff who know who I am and therefore choose to cooperate with me, giving me access to events for free, or the opportunity to talk (usually about education) with the principal or the relevant staff.

I have a full-time life independent of my blogging - that is true even of many of the so-called A-list bloggers. I doubt I would ever be able to support myself by writing online, or even writing in general. And so far I want to stay in the classroom. So some of the issue really do not seem to apply to me.

I am an advocate - of positions about which I care, and for candidates with whom I agree at least for the most part.

I am an observer of things around me, political and non-political.

And I share - observations about music, books I have read, experiences from my own life.

I try to make others aware of things I encounter in my reading of which they might otherwise not be aware.

If some "journalists" have a problem with what I do, they can go Cheney themselves.

Everything begins and ends with Iraq for you (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:24:01 PM EST

I don't really disagree.

That's a good thing. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:33:43 PM EST

A One Issue Voter (none / 0) (#6)
by talex on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:21:18 PM EST

is never a good thing. Neither is someone who only offers some level of support when the 'play-offs' start while spending the rest of their time doing their best to rip to shreds that which they 'say' they support. it's like beating your wife until it is time to cook dinner and then take her to bed.

Of course real support is predicated on understanding the political process and what is and is not possible and dealing with reality within those parameters. But a quick look around the blogosphere and one will see that is not always the case. People get their info in drips and drabs and think they have a handle on everything. Some rely too much on misinformation that is spread by the Left just as it is on the Right.

The Left Blogs arose from rejection of the Democratic Party's approach to the Iraq War. It is ironic that it compromised itself by supporting blindly the clearly fatally flawed approach the Democrats provided to end it.

Actually the blogs would have become prominent even without the war. Their affect on politics was preordained from their inception. The role of the war was really a matter of timing as it came just as the blogs were rising from infancy.

It's kind of funny how some see things. They stand pretty much alone with solutions that have not been well thought out. But yet think the successful masses in the Blogosphere that see things different than them and with act in a manner that is consistent with the understanding of the political process as I stated above are all wrong and only they are right. It is the others who have achieved success on their own and started well know publications from scratch who are on the wrong path. Some how that does just does not have a tinge of legitimacy to it when you weigh everything in perspective.

But that is what is great about the internet - everyone can have an opinion - right or wrong.


You've got it so wrong (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:49:27 AM EST

Voters owe them nothing. Politicians owe us. They owe us the responsibility to express our will, to work for the good of the country and for the people of the communities they represent. They owe us more than working to maintain their own careers. They owe us not to sell us out to lobbyists. They owe us not to cave in because the opposition will say nasty things about them. They owe us not to lie to us. They owe us not to take the easy way out.

It's not my responsibility to be understanding of their needs. If they do what I want, I'll support them. If they don't, I'll oppose them. If it's someone who's earned trust because of their actions and they say something can't be done, I'll listen. If all they have is an endless litany of excuses why what they said they were going to accomplish never gets done, I stop listening and start looking for ways to replace them with someone who'll deliver.

And what's wrong with that? They do what we want, we say yay. They don't do what we want, we say boo. The polls go up, the polls go down. Politicians apply their knowledge of the political process to do the people's business and we let them know what we think of how they're doing. Why should I tell them I'm happy with something they're doing when I'm not? It's the appropriate feedback mechanism to keep the political system attuned to the real needs of the country. If we followed your approach and just cheered "our" pols on no matter what, the only ones who'd be getting what they wanted and needed would be the pols themselves.


Quote of the day: (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:01:55 AM EST

From Barry Commoner, who is 90, and who ran for president as candidate for the Citizens Party in 1980

The peak of the campaign happened in Albuquerque, where a local reporter said to me, 'Dr. Commoner, are you a serious candidate or are you just running on the issues?'

: ha (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:26:32 AM EST

My vote for quotes of the day - Helen Thomas' questions at the WH press gaggle:

Q A study shows that Iraq is the second-most unstable country in the world. Do we have anything to do with that?...
Q I'm talking about Petraeus, also, intensifying -- is he trying to build a kill record before September?...
Q Is everybody who resists our occupation a terrorist?...
Q Are we fighting Iraqis, inherently, in their own country?
MR. SNOW: Are we fighting Iraqis inherently? I think if you take a look at what General Petraeus is saying, is that increasingly Iraqis are joining with us to defend their country from the onslaught of outside fighters, whether they be from al Qaeda or Iran.
Q Good, but we have to admit we're killing a lot of Iraqis who are against our presence.
MR. SNOW: I'm not sure. I mean, that requires the kind of canvas of those who have died that I'm not capable of doing....

asdf (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:30:39 PM EST

If you care to respond further you can go to the link below. I will be happy to respond there. I do this because Armando has chosen to try to limit my free speech here.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/6/11/135631/424/202#c202

[Talex, 6/21/07]


Watch Talex play S#!^^% historian! (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:48:58 PM EST

Actually the blogs would have become prominent even without the war. Their affect on politics was preordained from their inception.

: He not only sees the future. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:41:10 AM EST

He can see into alternate universes.
Keep an eye on this guy.

Be Fair (none / 0) (#11)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:18:05 AM EST

Hometeamism, the rah rahs was ... i never saw great long threads....

"you ROCK reid."

"pelosi, pelosi, pelosi!!!!!"

stuff like that.

it was more like "this had better work. i'll give them a chance."

when what was needed was the ol' pre-emptive strike. with the blogging stick. stupid to even give them a chance. what evidence has ever been provided to us by which we could determine they deserved a chance? maybe the disagreement is simply what you see as the blogging leaders and what i see as the chorus. they are not alays in sync, of course. imo, the morale of the chorus was never high. the confidence of the chorus was never high.

lastly, to see a party you support as nothing but a vehicle for your agenda. it occurs to me that at some point in 2003 barry bonds might have stopped seeing the giants as anything but a vehicle by which he'll break a home run record.

if everyone in the entire party saw the party exactly as nothing more than a vehicle by which they may pursue their own agenda, well, i might submit that that is exactly one of the problems with the democratic party and how it oftimes appears less steadfast, more conflicted, always divided compared to the republican party.

of course, the question is always "so why should i stop caring about my agenda? my agenda is the single most important agenda!"

the answer of course is "no one should have to."

by all means.

Finally lost your mind, stewie? (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:48:52 AM EST

a vehicle for your agenda
one of the problems with the democratic party and how it oftimes appears less steadfast, more conflicted, always divided compared to the republican party

Stewie. Would you rather have an agenda or rather just click your heels, salute, and be told what your agenda is?


can there be something in between? (none / 0) (#16)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:55:13 AM EST

no. i don't suppose there can be.


can there be? (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:19:55 AM EST

A vehicle for their agenda (3.00 / 2) (#18)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:33:36 AM EST

Is exactly how the DLC, the Blue Dogs, the Neocons, and republican moles, see the Democratic Party.

So far it seems to be working out rather well in terms of keep the Iraq occupation chugging right along.

One of the trouble with bad infections is that they can kill the host body.


Yes (none / 0) (#21)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:57:31 AM EST

Everyone sees the Dem Party the same way.


It would so much easier if the (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:03:51 AM EST

Democratic Party was the Republican Party, right Stewie?

If it keeps going the way it is you'll have your wish soon.


Then they'll both be dead parties. (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:05:16 AM EST

Maybe after that some real change and progress can happen.


Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:06:37 AM EST

Nader/Bloomberg '08.

real change.


There really isn't (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:09:40 AM EST

a point you can't miss when you try, is there?


Did you make (none / 0) (#27)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:10:25 AM EST

a point?

Spell it out for us idiots.


I gave up trying (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:16:37 AM EST

to educate the ineducable long ago, Stewie.

I'm not surprised you forget I told you that before.


c'mon (none / 0) (#29)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:17:47 AM EST

make your point.

if not for my sake, other people might be looking at this thread.

you don't want to look like you don't have a point.


I just did. (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:21:04 AM EST

You didn't hear it fly past?


no (none / 0) (#31)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:23:28 AM EST

i saw someone try to say there was no difference between the two parties.

So i suggested to that person that if they truly believe that, then there are candidates that they can support.

if there was anything more to what you were trying to say, then my bad.

i missed it.

care to clarify?


Sure. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:27:38 AM EST

Read my comments again. Try not to miss it the second time around. If you do there's nothing anyone can help you with.


i did (none / 0) (#34)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:29:41 AM EST

you said if i had it my way there would be no difference between the two parties.

which is wrong.

if i had it my way, people such as yourself could tell the difference between gore and bush when it matters the most.


That's a pretty lame one, Stewie. (none / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:32:44 AM EST

What is the minimum passing grade at trolling school? Did you make it?


it's what you said (none / 0) (#37)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:33:45 AM EST

i didn't say it.

is there a difference between the parties?

that's not trolling.

that's a question.


No. (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:40:08 AM EST

I said if you get your way there won't be. You seem to be getting your way. Happy?


and i disagree (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:41:28 AM EST

if i get my way, people like you will stop pretending there's no difference between the two parties if people like me get their way.


Smoke and mirrors, stewie. (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:42:53 AM EST

Click your heels and salute.


this started (none / 0) (#41)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:46:21 AM EST

by me asking and concluding there was no middle gound here.

indeed. i either bow down to you and btd, or i must click my heels to the capitulating dems.

that's the choice, right?

just say it: "yes, stewie, that's the choice."

that's what you want to say. that's what you've been saying.

just agree with me when i've accurately described what's being said here at talkleft.com.


You've made your choice. (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:51:07 AM EST

It was your conclusion stewie.


but is it the right conclusion (none / 0) (#43)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:52:58 AM EST

edger?


As I said, Stewie. (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:59:16 AM EST

Click your heels and salute. You've found the one true path. Who cares how many die while you support paying for an occupation you claim to oppose, right, stewie?


yes (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:59:57 AM EST

it was the right conclusion.


Sure, stewie. (1.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:02:17 AM EST

You've finally lost your mind.


: not at all (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:04:28 AM EST

not when i come to right conclusions.

so (1.00 / 1) (#46)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:01:51 AM EST

just wondering. why do you think feingold voted for the 87 billion?

do you think, as btd does, that he opposed it, and then changed his mind and decided to support it by funding it?


: Please stop, you two. My eyes are hurting, (none / 0) (#53)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM EST

this stuff looks silly trailing off the edge of the computer screen, and BTD's point is important.

So???? (none / 0) (#22)
by JHFarr on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:58:02 AM EST

We spend entirely too much time (like, ANY...) responding to what anyone says about us. Addressing the faulting reasoning of critics only makes them stronger, not weaker. This is such an utterly rock-bottom foundation principle of basic metaphysics, I wonder that so few observe it.

: Metaphysics? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:30:37 AM EST

Ok.

: Not in reference to anything you've observed in (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:29:28 AM EST

comments to this post---right?

Isn't there an unwritten rule for bloggers: (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:19:08 PM EST

start with something another person wrote.

Ina way yes (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:30:41 PM EST

?But I think it is more about sopurcing your facts.

It has devolved into something else though I grant you.

But take my loatest post. I am sourcing the Times article I am critiquing but my critique is original and the only one I have seen.


: How about linking to that journalistic rule of (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:35:02 PM EST

ethics?
I remember either the L.A. Times or N.Y. Times encouraging reporters to spice up their investigative articles w/a bit of opinion interspersed. Then a decision, discussed in the newspaper, to stop doing so when it got out of hand and/or readers complained too much.