Will Blog for Food
So the latest blogstorm centers around two prominent bloggers who were hired by the Edwards campaign, only to be reportedly fired soon thereafter when a far right wing catholic guy claimed they had said offensive things about Catholicism and demanded their immediate termination. There is some confusion about whether they have actually been fired or if some other compromise has been reached, but that's neither here nor there. My issue is: why are campaigns hiring bloggers in the first place?
I understand that the internet and blogosphere have an ever-increasing influence on presidential politics and that stories that eventually gain traction in the so-called "Mainstream Media" (hereinafter to be annoyingly referred to as MSM). I understand the importance of candidates wooing the political blogosphere in order to gain favorable coverage for themselves and hopefully fairer treatment as mini-blogstorms hit during the campaign season. I just don't understand why the method of wooing the blogosphere that the campaigns have chosen is to actually hire well-known bloggers to be part of their campaign.
To start with, aren't we all saying that bloggers are part of the media? Haven't they been demanding and getting media credentials, and access to the Scooter Libby trial and such? Hasn't there been at least some push (albeit largely unsuccessful) to try and hold bloggers to journalistic standards for integrity, fact-checking, defamation, etc.? So if we're part of the "new media" (another annoying term) then why would it ever be acceptable for a media member to be bought and paid for by a particular campaign? If the Romney campaign hired a couple Washington Post reporters or a couple of the guys from Fox News, we'd cry foul. I just don't really understand why bloggers should be treated all that differently. When I first heard that Shakespeare's Sister was going to work for the Edwards campaign, I had a bit of a problem with it. I didn't say anything but it didn't sit well. She covers political issues all the time on her blog and intended to continue to do so. Either she would now have to glaringly omit the presidential nomination fight from her coverage or she would inherently be assumed to be biased in favor of the man who is paying her. Objectivity would be out the window.
But the second part of the problem is the one that came into play here, and that is that anyone who has blogged about controversial issues with any regularity (and both of the bloggers who were fired definitely fit this bill) will undoubtedly have said things that their candidate boss would not agree with. And by hiring a blogger, it is far too easy to have people assume that they are not only putting their stamp of approval on the candidate, but that the candidate is by extension adopting the positions of the blogger as well. If John Edwards hired a campaign consultant who had previously been a TV pundit, and that pundit had gone on TV and claimed the holocaust didn't actually happen, you better believe he'd hear about it from everyone. They would say how can you hire someone who has expressed such a position?! And I don't think there is any reason to believe that this won't also occur every time a campaign brings a blogger on board. Bloggers have a lovely archived website that undoubtedly contains statements that some people will take issue with, and will then seek to ascribe to their candidate.
And this is exactly what happened with Shakespeare's Sister and Pandagon.
What is the upside for the campaigns of hiring bloggers? Is the hope that they will blatantly shill for their candidate throughout the blogiverse? Do we think that shit actually works when the financial payoff is so transparently obvious that their shilling can be instantly discredited as wholly lacking in objectivity? Or is the thought that they get all these readers because they are such good writers, so (to paraphrase myself in a comment elsewhere) they'll write the best damn reports of the whistestop tour visit to Omaha ever written, and bring in readers by the dozens to marvel at their prose?
If it's neither of those things then someone please explain to me the point because I just don't get the upside for the campaigns or the bloggers (apart from the sweet, sweet cash). The campaign probably inherits PR headaches and an already-discredited mouthpiece, and the blogger gives up their objectivity and journalistic credibility and the ability to thoroughly blog about the presidential election. It makes no sense for either party.
The sorts of blogosphere-wooing that I think DO make sense are having blog monitors who actually watch the coverage that a candidate is getting on the blogs and integrate it into their PR strategy. I also thought it was smart for the candidates to have events with the bloggers who attended conventions such as YearlyKos. There are a variety of ways for campaigns to improve their standing in the blogging community and to integrate and control the new media coverage of their candidate, but I just don't see why hiring bloggers is a wortwhile strategy. Maybe one of you will enlighten me.
Update: Apparently they have not been fired, just personally scolded by the candidate.
6 comments:
Excellent review of recent events.
I've never understood why the blogosphere is considered "media" at all, and certainly not journalists in the strictest sense of the word. Any poorly-informed schmuck with an opinion can register and create a blog; the blogosphere is not exactly known for it's objectivity and integrity, either.
Edwards' campaign did a poor job of vetting the two bloggers in question views before they took his coin, otherwise they'd have known the previous strong views held. It doesn't help for them to be associated with extremist thinking/ideology if they're trying for broad appeal.
the blogosphere is not exactly known for it's objectivity and integrity, either.
And the mainstream media is?
On what planet, exactly?
Partisan journalists abound, and they're generally recognized as such.
But mainstream media does have a history of self-enforcing a social contract of fairness and equanimity in what it offers readers & viewers.
See I think the blogosphere can sometimes be considered media. At least to the extent that it covers public events like the media does, I think many within the blogosphere try to adhere to standards of journalistic integrity. But I think the question of when a blogger becomes truly part of the "new media" is largely a question of audience. A lot of bloggers with 5 readers probably commit defamation every single day, but then we have people who get 25,000 readers a day and at that point for me it's pretty tough to distinguish between those sorts of bloggers and a columnist who publishes on a newspaper or magazine's website. At least in terms of the responsibilities and ethical obligations they have.
But really I think it's what all bloggers should aspire to, even if they don't have to answer to a circulation desk or a managing editor. For example I know that when he was covering the Love Shack story, griftdrift adhered to the same basic ethical standards that a journalist would follow. I'm sure he did it just as a matter of good practice, which is what I think all bloggers should do and many of the most widely read ones aspire to.
But mainstream media does have a history of self-enforcing a social contract of fairness and equanimity in what it offers readers & viewers.
Not so much. Have you ever tried to get a newspaper to print a correction? You practically have to hold a gun to their head.
Does Fox News ever issue corrections for the unadulterated bullshit it dumps onto the airwaves? Negative again.
How often do you see local television news run a correction on the next night's broadcast?
I could go on, but I hope you get the point. The idea that those people are policing themselves is ridiculous.
Have you ever tried to get a newspaper to print a correction? You practically have to hold a gun to their head.
Never had to, but from what I hear it *is* difficult.
Does Fox News ever issue corrections for the unadulterated bullshit it dumps onto the airwaves?
I don't know, but what would you expect from a partisan news organization?
How often do you see local television news run a correction on the next night's broadcast?
I've seen our locals do it often enough.
The idea that those people are policing themselves is ridiculous.
Aside from the formal training that most professional journalists go through, there are industry societies and organizations that maintain codes of ethics for their members. On top of that, most larger news organizations maintain an ombudsman to oversee accountability to the reader- and viewership. Add to that the fact that news organizations love to shred competitors for ethical lapses.
Post a Comment