John Edwards and bloggers; bloggers and campaigns
Background and basic reactions
This story is now two weeks old, and I actually started writing about it the day after the story broke, but I thought I would let the drama play out first, and by then I had started working on other topics in my usual lightning-fast way. Anyhoo, the story has relevance beyond this moment, so I am going to discuss it.
I am going to give an abbreviated version of the story and some links where you can read more of the details. The Edwards campaign hired two bloggers to work for the campaign, specifically on its website. The bloggers were Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister. McEwan was hired as a technical adviser, not a blogger. I'm not sure about Marcotte. The basics of the story can be found here (which has a link to a Salon article that you can read if you watch an ad). Wingers started complaining about some of what Marcotte and McEwan had written in the past on their blogs, claiming that it was vulgar and bigoted.
Before proceeding, I will make some disclaimers and observations. I do not regularly read either Marcotte or McEwan because, while I have at times agreed with their viewpoint in what I have read, it has seemed to me that their primary objective lies not as much in the substantive content as in being provocative and combative in their use of language. They are certainly not alone, as there are plenty of blogs on both the left and right like that. I am not saying that Marcotte and McEwan are wrong to do that. Indeed, I do some of that myself, and there are times when that is useful and/or necessary. However, that is not what I want to write or read on a regular basis. Talking Points Memo and Political Animal are the types of blogs I prefer. But that's me. I am not in any way saying that Marcotte's and McEwan's approach is wrong or that they should be constrained. With that in mind...
Those leading the attack against Marcotte and McEwan and the Edwards campaign were Bill Donahue of the Catholic League and right wing columnists Michelle Malkin and Barbara Jean Lopez. For those three to complain about anyone else using offensive epithets and other language is a freaking joke; however, that is beside the point. Actually there are several points as far as I am concerned, but before discussing those, some of the reactions created by this situation should be mentioned.
There were early reports that the Edwards campaign was going to fire Marcotte and McEwan, and the reactions were swift and predictable: this was just another typical Republican smear tactic; Edwards shouldn't give in to such bullying; it would be a travesty if they were fired; Edwards would be a coward if he fired them, etc. Now, all of those reactions were largely justified and accurate. However, that is still beside what I see as the main points.
And by the way, Marcotte and McEwan were not fired by Edwards; however, they did resign. After the story broke, Edwards released the following statement:
First point: the Edwards campaign lacks good strategy and tactics.
Edwards either knew or should have known this sort of thing was going to happen. Marcotte and McEwan are well known and widely read in the blogosphere. This means that the Edwards campaign definitely knew or should have known the combative type of writing that Marcotte and McEwan utilize. Thus, the Edwards campaign should have known that hiring them--as in paying them to work for you and represent your campaign--might upset some people that Edwards would otherwise like to support him. Please note this is not a criticism of Marcotte and McEwan.
It is a criticism of Edwards. A few days ago I wrote an email explaining why Edwards was a huge disappointment to me in 2004. To make a long story short, I thought then that Edwards's experience and success as a "trial lawyer" would be positive attributes. I based that view on my own experience as a "trial lawyer" and my observations of other "trial lawyers." I put quotes around the term because it has been wrongfully twisted to mean only "plaintiff's lawyer," but that is another story. I wrote in my email that "Good plaintiff's lawyers are excellent strategists and tacticians." Edwards showed none of that in '04, and the hiring of Marcotte and McEwan shows a continuing lack of strategic and tactical acuity.
Here's another way to look at this. If Howard Dean was running again and using the same demeanor as he did in '04, hiring Marcotte and McEwan for his campaign might be a good fit. In '04, Dean was "in your face" and unapologetic about it, and he was consistent in those regards. However, Edwards is not Howard Dean, and from what I have seen, he is not running his campaign the way Dean ran his. So why did Edwards go out and hire two bloggers that really don't fit with his style? Doing this meant that he was hiring Marcotte and McEwan not just as they are now, but as they have been in the past (and they have been consistent), and that shows a lack of good strategic and tactical thinking.
See, having Marcotte and McEwan as paid staffers could (and did) upset some people that are more middle of the road, and the Edwars campaign should have known that was going to happen. I guess Edwards thought that by hiring Marcotte and McEwan he would gain "street cred" with the lefty side of the party and blogosphere (more on this in the next section). However, by first hiring them and then not completely backing up Marcotte and McEwan, Edwards just might have lost support in the lefty blogoshpere. That is bad strategy and bad tactics. And that leads to the second point.
Second point: Campaigns hiring prominent bloggers does not make much sense.
Candidates paying prominent bloggers and prominent bloggers accepting staff positions on campaigns seem like bad ideas. Why? Because credibility and independence are compromised. Because there are great risks involved for both parties. Because the possible benefits are outweighed by the probable detriments. Because the situation can become a huge distraction to anything else the campaign is trying to do. This very situation with Marcotte and McEwan is a prime example of all of the foregoing.
When people start campaigning for a candidate, they are representing that candidate, and their actions are going to reflect on that candidate. However, for a paid staffer on a campaign, that reflection rate goes up in a big way. I maintain that it goes up to a degree that requires the conduct of the staffer to conform to what the candidate wants. And that could be a big problem for bloggers. I think most bloggers on the liberal/left side of the political spectrum blog so that they can express their views in the way they want to express them with any outside control. The blogosphere has come to prominence during the Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress. It was the "opposition" that started using the blogosphere. When the wingers started getting involved, their objective was to maintain the status quo, which meant that they stuck to the party line as controlled by the GOP. As a result, it has been the liberal bloggers who have been more vocal, more creative, and more independent. I'm not sure that most "liberal" bloggers would be willing to change their ways in order to conform to a political campaign, which means that hiring a blogger could be trouble for a candidate. And if the blogger then changes his or her writing and publishing to conform to the candidate, that blogger will likely lose credibility with his or her readers, and then the blogger is not of much use to the candidate. On the flip side, a blogger who does not change her or his public ways runs the risk of harming the candidate's campaign. Indeed, the potential for harming the Edwards campaign was cited by Marcotte and McEwan as a reason for resigning from the campaign.
And if a candidate pays a blogger, anything the blogger does is subject to a charge that the blogger is supporting the candidate only because he or she is being paid to do so. That could be a tough charge to overcome in the eyes of many people, and once again, the blogger is not of much use to the candidate.
While it is fair to say that this post is largely nothing more than my opinion, that assessment is particularly true of this paragraph. Buying bloggers--at least for Democrats--simply is not likely to work out for anyone. This is related to the independent nature of many "liberal" bloggers. Both Howard Dean and Wes Clark had really good websites during the '04 campaign and made very effective use of the internet. None of the other Democratic candidates could really compare. Dean's campaign from the start was built on the internet. The draft movement which resulted in Clark becoming a candidate was started on the internet, and the internet enabled Clark to raise large amounts of money despite not having the organization or infrastructure or connections that other candidates had. The internet became a big player in politics during the '04 campaign, and its role has grown since then. It has spawned a new term. First there were "grass roots," and now there are "net roots." Grass roots and net roots movements spring up on their own, and therein lies their strength. Such movements cannot be manufactured. While Edwards probably wanted and still wants to get some support from the net roots, that support cannot be bought. At least on the Democratic side, people who are part of the net roots are likely to see through such attempts and have disdain for them. And the net roots will likely view bought bloggers with suspicion. If the prominent bloggers out there want to support a given candidate, it will likely be because they believe in that candidate and would believe in that candidate even if they were not prominent bloggers. Trying to buy bloggers presents a significant risk of damaging the credibility of the candidate and those bloggers. I just do not think it is a good idea.
To me, the credibility and honesty must be the top priorities. Thus, I feel the only way a blogger-as-paid-staffer deal can work is if 1) the campaign and the blogger make full disclosure of the relationship; 2) the candidate does not in any way trying to censor or muzzle the blogger; and 3) the candidate must be willing and able to deal with the consequences. Even then many of the other risks discussed above remain, and some perceptions might never be eliminated.
This story is now two weeks old, and I actually started writing about it the day after the story broke, but I thought I would let the drama play out first, and by then I had started working on other topics in my usual lightning-fast way. Anyhoo, the story has relevance beyond this moment, so I am going to discuss it.
I am going to give an abbreviated version of the story and some links where you can read more of the details. The Edwards campaign hired two bloggers to work for the campaign, specifically on its website. The bloggers were Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister. McEwan was hired as a technical adviser, not a blogger. I'm not sure about Marcotte. The basics of the story can be found here (which has a link to a Salon article that you can read if you watch an ad). Wingers started complaining about some of what Marcotte and McEwan had written in the past on their blogs, claiming that it was vulgar and bigoted.
Before proceeding, I will make some disclaimers and observations. I do not regularly read either Marcotte or McEwan because, while I have at times agreed with their viewpoint in what I have read, it has seemed to me that their primary objective lies not as much in the substantive content as in being provocative and combative in their use of language. They are certainly not alone, as there are plenty of blogs on both the left and right like that. I am not saying that Marcotte and McEwan are wrong to do that. Indeed, I do some of that myself, and there are times when that is useful and/or necessary. However, that is not what I want to write or read on a regular basis. Talking Points Memo and Political Animal are the types of blogs I prefer. But that's me. I am not in any way saying that Marcotte's and McEwan's approach is wrong or that they should be constrained. With that in mind...
Those leading the attack against Marcotte and McEwan and the Edwards campaign were Bill Donahue of the Catholic League and right wing columnists Michelle Malkin and Barbara Jean Lopez. For those three to complain about anyone else using offensive epithets and other language is a freaking joke; however, that is beside the point. Actually there are several points as far as I am concerned, but before discussing those, some of the reactions created by this situation should be mentioned.
There were early reports that the Edwards campaign was going to fire Marcotte and McEwan, and the reactions were swift and predictable: this was just another typical Republican smear tactic; Edwards shouldn't give in to such bullying; it would be a travesty if they were fired; Edwards would be a coward if he fired them, etc. Now, all of those reactions were largely justified and accurate. However, that is still beside what I see as the main points.
And by the way, Marcotte and McEwan were not fired by Edwards; however, they did resign. After the story broke, Edwards released the following statement:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.Strong stuff, eh?
First point: the Edwards campaign lacks good strategy and tactics.
Edwards either knew or should have known this sort of thing was going to happen. Marcotte and McEwan are well known and widely read in the blogosphere. This means that the Edwards campaign definitely knew or should have known the combative type of writing that Marcotte and McEwan utilize. Thus, the Edwards campaign should have known that hiring them--as in paying them to work for you and represent your campaign--might upset some people that Edwards would otherwise like to support him. Please note this is not a criticism of Marcotte and McEwan.
It is a criticism of Edwards. A few days ago I wrote an email explaining why Edwards was a huge disappointment to me in 2004. To make a long story short, I thought then that Edwards's experience and success as a "trial lawyer" would be positive attributes. I based that view on my own experience as a "trial lawyer" and my observations of other "trial lawyers." I put quotes around the term because it has been wrongfully twisted to mean only "plaintiff's lawyer," but that is another story. I wrote in my email that "Good plaintiff's lawyers are excellent strategists and tacticians." Edwards showed none of that in '04, and the hiring of Marcotte and McEwan shows a continuing lack of strategic and tactical acuity.
Here's another way to look at this. If Howard Dean was running again and using the same demeanor as he did in '04, hiring Marcotte and McEwan for his campaign might be a good fit. In '04, Dean was "in your face" and unapologetic about it, and he was consistent in those regards. However, Edwards is not Howard Dean, and from what I have seen, he is not running his campaign the way Dean ran his. So why did Edwards go out and hire two bloggers that really don't fit with his style? Doing this meant that he was hiring Marcotte and McEwan not just as they are now, but as they have been in the past (and they have been consistent), and that shows a lack of good strategic and tactical thinking.
See, having Marcotte and McEwan as paid staffers could (and did) upset some people that are more middle of the road, and the Edwars campaign should have known that was going to happen. I guess Edwards thought that by hiring Marcotte and McEwan he would gain "street cred" with the lefty side of the party and blogosphere (more on this in the next section). However, by first hiring them and then not completely backing up Marcotte and McEwan, Edwards just might have lost support in the lefty blogoshpere. That is bad strategy and bad tactics. And that leads to the second point.
Second point: Campaigns hiring prominent bloggers does not make much sense.
Candidates paying prominent bloggers and prominent bloggers accepting staff positions on campaigns seem like bad ideas. Why? Because credibility and independence are compromised. Because there are great risks involved for both parties. Because the possible benefits are outweighed by the probable detriments. Because the situation can become a huge distraction to anything else the campaign is trying to do. This very situation with Marcotte and McEwan is a prime example of all of the foregoing.
When people start campaigning for a candidate, they are representing that candidate, and their actions are going to reflect on that candidate. However, for a paid staffer on a campaign, that reflection rate goes up in a big way. I maintain that it goes up to a degree that requires the conduct of the staffer to conform to what the candidate wants. And that could be a big problem for bloggers. I think most bloggers on the liberal/left side of the political spectrum blog so that they can express their views in the way they want to express them with any outside control. The blogosphere has come to prominence during the Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress. It was the "opposition" that started using the blogosphere. When the wingers started getting involved, their objective was to maintain the status quo, which meant that they stuck to the party line as controlled by the GOP. As a result, it has been the liberal bloggers who have been more vocal, more creative, and more independent. I'm not sure that most "liberal" bloggers would be willing to change their ways in order to conform to a political campaign, which means that hiring a blogger could be trouble for a candidate. And if the blogger then changes his or her writing and publishing to conform to the candidate, that blogger will likely lose credibility with his or her readers, and then the blogger is not of much use to the candidate. On the flip side, a blogger who does not change her or his public ways runs the risk of harming the candidate's campaign. Indeed, the potential for harming the Edwards campaign was cited by Marcotte and McEwan as a reason for resigning from the campaign.
And if a candidate pays a blogger, anything the blogger does is subject to a charge that the blogger is supporting the candidate only because he or she is being paid to do so. That could be a tough charge to overcome in the eyes of many people, and once again, the blogger is not of much use to the candidate.
While it is fair to say that this post is largely nothing more than my opinion, that assessment is particularly true of this paragraph. Buying bloggers--at least for Democrats--simply is not likely to work out for anyone. This is related to the independent nature of many "liberal" bloggers. Both Howard Dean and Wes Clark had really good websites during the '04 campaign and made very effective use of the internet. None of the other Democratic candidates could really compare. Dean's campaign from the start was built on the internet. The draft movement which resulted in Clark becoming a candidate was started on the internet, and the internet enabled Clark to raise large amounts of money despite not having the organization or infrastructure or connections that other candidates had. The internet became a big player in politics during the '04 campaign, and its role has grown since then. It has spawned a new term. First there were "grass roots," and now there are "net roots." Grass roots and net roots movements spring up on their own, and therein lies their strength. Such movements cannot be manufactured. While Edwards probably wanted and still wants to get some support from the net roots, that support cannot be bought. At least on the Democratic side, people who are part of the net roots are likely to see through such attempts and have disdain for them. And the net roots will likely view bought bloggers with suspicion. If the prominent bloggers out there want to support a given candidate, it will likely be because they believe in that candidate and would believe in that candidate even if they were not prominent bloggers. Trying to buy bloggers presents a significant risk of damaging the credibility of the candidate and those bloggers. I just do not think it is a good idea.
To me, the credibility and honesty must be the top priorities. Thus, I feel the only way a blogger-as-paid-staffer deal can work is if 1) the campaign and the blogger make full disclosure of the relationship; 2) the candidate does not in any way trying to censor or muzzle the blogger; and 3) the candidate must be willing and able to deal with the consequences. Even then many of the other risks discussed above remain, and some perceptions might never be eliminated.
posted by WCharles @ 2/21/2007 11:29:00 AM
8 Comments:
I wonder if you are equating a blogger with a news reporter? A reporter, whether for print or TV news, is to remain objective and when they stray into commentary they are accused of bias then lose credibility. Hence the accusation of a liberal press. But, I don't see bloggers as unbiased reporters.
It seems anymore that anyone with an agenda has a blog - even bass trombone players. Or worse yet, lawyers. A blog is often nothing more than a tool used to push one's agenda.
I'll give Edwards credit for his attempt to use the blogosphere as a tool, and I like the statement he made after it blew up in his face. But, I also agree with you that he should have known up front that this would happen. Makes you wonder, based on his decision making capability, would he have invaded Iraq, too?
A quick check on these two lovely ladies tells me I have no interest in reading what they have to say. Their tone turns me off so I have no desire to even hear their message. So, the only way they would influence me is by their reputation. Edwards did not use very good discretion.
And relative to your last paragraph all I can say is, HUH?? Why can't a paid staffer be muzzled or expected to write per the party line? They are an employee! Do what you're hired to do or get out! This is no different than expecting any paid staffer to be discrete in what they say to the media or public. Edwards should have gone one step further, he should have fired whoever recommended he hire these two bloggers.
"I wonder if you are equating a blogger with a news reporter?"
No. Objectivity is not necessarily the concern, for, as you note, bloggers typically have a viewpoint and an agenda. However, integrity and independence are important (IMHO). Being a paid staffer for a political campaign presents significant possible conflicts in those areas. Reporters can have influence on the public; hence the need for objectivity. In a similar manner, bloggers can have great influence on their readers and public discourse in ways that reporters cannot.
I will not dignify with a response the personal attack in the second paragraph of your comment...because I have to concede it is true. :-)
The problem I see with Edwards's response was that he was trying to have it both ways, and I don't think that really is possible in this situation.
"Makes you wonder, based on his decision making capability, would he have invaded Iraq, too?"
Oh, he was a HUGE supporter of going to war. To his credit, he now admits that he was wrong and made a mistake, but in '03 and '04, he definitely would have invaded.
As for your puzzlement over my last paragraph, on one hand I agree with you. As an employee, yes, the blogger should conform. However, that decreases the crdibility of the blogger. If the candidate is trying to show that he has the support of a prominent blogger, the only way to show that such support is sincere and not just bought is to not constrain the blogger in any way.
The last paragraph in your response makes a lot more sense. If a blogger is employed, paid for his services, then he must conform to the rules established by the employer. If the blogger merely buys into the candidacy of the individual and lends his support, then the candidate must be prepared for the good, bad and ugly when applicable.
I guess I should have stated after that last paragraph that I still think that campaigns hiring bloggers is a bad idea.
I think it is inevitable. Politicians hire press secretaries and often they come from the reporting ranks, such as Tony Snow. Bloggers are next.
You just may be right. And wouldn't that be ironic? The blogosphere has been a part of the public forum which has been the most open, provided anyone--regardless of status or position--a chance to reach the whole world, and seemingly incapable of being controlled and manipulated, and now it is being co-opted into "the system."
You write very well.
Thank you, inari.
Post a Comment
<< Home