techPresident - campaign bloggers - Comments

Community blogging

Peter Erickson — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:06:25 -0400

That's the funny thing about community blogging on these candidate websites, I don't actually agree with this part of your argument:

There is a culture growing in places like Edward's & Obama's community spaces that contains a good deal of vilification against other democrats as well as Republicans and other groups (right to life movement, the NRA, religious right etc).

This seems reflective of the common misconception about Internet 2.0 or online communities. The reality is much more mundane and kind of beautiful. Fourteen thousand people on the Obama website not only took the step of setting up a profile, but they decided to set up a blog, though most of these people are no doubt not very active --- if the website was more transparent in how it operated and was more adept structurally at encouraging interaction, there would be more.

These are not the people who we traditionally think of as political bloggers --- all of those people blog elsewhere. I have the feeling that these community blogs draw in a broader sample of the public. Campaigns have the ability to draw people in and encourage them to be a part of the discussion in ways that other kinds of websites don't. This isn't just about winning the campaign but about fostering an active, engaged electorate, about improving our democracy.

And if you flip through the list of all blog entries posted on my.barackobama.com, the overwhelming majority of posts are first-hand accounts of a recent rally, accounts of a grassroots organizing action, occasional discussions of unrelated current events, lots of repostings of news articles about the campaign, etc. There's not all that much that's offensive. There aren't that many "slanderous accusations" or "obscene ideas." The community is actually pretty tame.

I'm not that interested in these community blogs becoming the face of the campaign. What I would like to see is the internal walls within these sites taken down so that these supporters can better communicate with each other. Supporters can exchange encouragement, share organizing ideas, build ties, etc. etc.

One of the best ways that online communities police themselves is not just through active administrators but through user-generated feedback: recommended lists that bump the best diaries to the top and encourage bloggers to read each other's posts, troll ratings that can hide offensive comments, etc.

Embracing the Web Community

Jeff Commaroto — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:31:21 -0400

Wonderful comments! I am so glad this conversation is continuing.

Psericks to your question about opening up the community and really making what is there known, I think the big danger comes in two forms. The first is that these communities are really little islands that create echo chambers seperated from the rest of the voting public. Adrienne Royer followed up on that at techRepublican saying "The majority of this country receives the news from reading a newspaper or watching TV". What happens online influences the MSM now in a way that cannot be separated, but it is not necessarily equal.

There is a culture growing in places like Edward's & Obama's community spaces that contains a good deal of vilification against other democrats as well as Republicans and other groups (right to life movement, the NRA, religious right etc).

Meanwhile I sometimes wonder how someone who rallies others with such combative ideas against candidates in their own party can turn that off if their pick loses. In this echo chamber can they rejoin the party for the general election when they are on record for a year of their lives saying terrible things about them and encouraging others to do the same?

The general election is the second problem area. When Edwards hired Amanda Marcott and Melissa McEwan he had a taste of how an uncensored and highly ingrained sub-culture on the far left of the party plays in the television, newspaper, magazine, talk radio world.

When I read through those spaces and see the things written, slanderous accusations, somewhat obscene ideas, even things that can be misconstrued as threats, I think "how will this play when Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly" give the impression that it comes directly from the campaigns? The call will be, "It is on your Web site, you must encourage it". They have weight because what they say is easily picked up by the MSM with their slant and repeated, and repeated, and repeated like the Dean scream.

There is a lot to chew on and a lot to explore in your question but those are my first two thoughts. What do you think?

www.electiongeek.com

Spokesblogger

David All — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:38:16 -0400

Excellent post and discussion.

Regarding this sentence, "Bloggers working for a campaign are digital press secretaries," you're right.

In fact, that's why I used to go by the moniker "Spokesblogger" on Congressman Jack Kingston's blog:

I never had the title of “New Media Director” or “Blog Coordinator.” On Capitol Hill, I was known as the “communications director” who was using a new medium to communicate a Republican message. But in the blogosphere, I used the moniker, “Spokesblogger.” I was no longer simply writing press releases and taking incoming calls or trying to pitch a story to a reporter - I was also blogging incessantly on a Congressional website and at Redstate - and loving every minute of it.

There's also a difference between a professional communicator who becomes a blogger and a blogger that becomes a campaign operative. For me, it wasn't until I actually had a blog of my own that I saw the blogger-side of the world. However, that didn't mean I still didn't help get out a message effectively.

For a blogger-turned-operative, I think it's likely a delicate balance. But just as a reporter has a "beat" that they may not always agree with or want to write about, it's still their job and it's likely helping them get where they need to go.

Again, great thread.

________________________________________
David All
http://davidallgroup.com
http://techRepublican.com
http://slatecard.com
________________________________________

Community blogging and the David Geffen moment?

Peter Erickson — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:29:53 -0400

I would agree that the greater potential from candidate blogging is from community blogging (i.e. my.barackobama.com) and not so much from official paid candidate blogs. I've been wondering about something: How much danger is there really from opening up access to community blogging on a website like my.barackobama.com? I made the point in my post that Obama's website needs a recommended list, a blogroll, a full list of diaries --- all of these tools that other sites have used to great success in creating vibrant, engaged online communities.

These are supporters who will, independently of the candidate, magnify and spread their message throughout the country --- this is true even if the readers of these new blogs are no one outside of their family and friends. New people are draw to blogging through mainstream candidates than through establishment blogs that are perceived in the media as too far left or too far right.

Most of these newly-minted bloggers are very committed to the campaign, defensive about their candidate, happy to take tips from the campaign and spread its message. These community bloggers exchange tips and encouragement, coordinate responses to news articles and write letters to the editor (this is one of the biggest functions of my.barackobama.com that i've seen so far), exchange new arguments that could be useful while canvassing or phone-banking. There are clear benefits from the liveliness that such a website could produce. (DailyKos and MyDD have also proven that online communities can be pretty potent when it comes to generating fundraising too.) Such a community has the potential to revitalize democracy a little bit.

So what is the risk? For one, there's the possibility that a journalist could do a piece on the website and quote from community bloggers extensively as if they were surrogates for the campaign --- this doesn't actually seem that likely to happen. First, partly because the mainstream media still seems reluctant to quote these kinds of online sources. Second, other candidates have taken the plunge and haven't really suffered any consequences: Edwards has a blogroll and a recommended list, while Clinton's Hillaryhub.com highlights a list of blog posts on MyDD and DailyKos --- and to my knowledge not one has even been cited in a press piece (though Hillaryhub also seems to steer away from some of the more caustic Clinton supporters/bloggers on MyDD and it doesn't highlight community blogging on its own site.)

The bigger risk is another David Geffen moment . Racist/sexist/obscene comments posted on candidate blogs aren't really the problem, since the campaign has no problem deleting and repudiating them, though it is an interesting point that MyDD and DailyKos work partly because they have no compunction about banning users that cause trouble --- would political campaigns be as willing? The bigger problem is when candidates are called upon to repudiate statements from supporters critical of other candidates.

Opposition research teams will probably be scanning through the blogs. It would probably not be too hard to find a critical comment of the Clintons somewhere on my.barackobama.com, and, in this scenario, just to take an example, Obama would be challenged to reject the comment. (Geffen's "lying comes to them so easily" comes to mind.)

But besides just being uncomfortable, is there really any danger in this kind of situation? The David Geffen moment was a pretty tiny ripple in this campaign. No one not playing insider baseball would know who he is or why he matters. In the media coverage, it was more about judging the relative professionalism of the media veterans in both campaigns. Second, the campaign can just as readily say that they had nothing to do with the comment --- that it doesn't respresent their views, etc. Wouldn't that suffice? (Hm... I wonder if a rival campaign could actually call upon them, as site administrator, to delete the comment or ban the user...)

Anyway, sorry for the long comment. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

BOOTS ON THE GROUND

RPmaniac — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:06:00 -0400

Meetup.com members as of 9/09/2007
These numbers are important, because they are unsolicited grass roots support.

Republicans

Paul 42,440
Hunter 194
Thompson 169
McCain 107
Giuliani 55
Tancredo 33
Romney 30
Huckabee 30

Democrats

Obama 5804
Edwards 4123
Kucinich 4034
Clinton 2021
Gravel 43
Richardson 33
Biden 0
Dodd 0

some thoughts

Zephyr Teachout — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:18:14 -0400

I largely agree. Here are some thoughts.

The Dean blog served a few different purposes.

(1) Many of Matt's blog posts underlined real policy differences, and did so in a refreshingly combative way. Howard had ideas about the war that were NOT getting reported, and needed to get reported--so it was a real use of the new media to get outside the throttle of old media.

(2) We used it for what you might call organizing, but I would call everything. We used it when we wanted to get programmers to volunteer to help build something. We used it when we needed people to give us ideas. And, because we were such an underdog for so long, we really needed people--this was no "its all about you" as in, "all i care about is you," but as in, "if you don't volunteer in seattle, we are really in trouble." In that sense, for a long time, it was honest.

(3) It was very much a place for idea sharing and organizing among non-staffers.

(4) It was a place to spring surprises on the press--now that was fun. Part of the reason I think we got early traction was because of how mischievously Matt and Trippi used it to leverage the msm against itself, so no-one knew what was going to happen.

Going to the point of this essay, we also used it to engage people and inspire them. This is a tricky task, and can easily fall into meaningless PR--and I'm sure it did for us, too at times. What we hoped, though, was that we were giving a different way of thinking about politics, and provided a new narrative, a new way of looking at the world, that would support activists in their uncertainties.

When it worked, the inspiration and community and cheerleading was there, but it was secondary to unreported policy and real needs. We hoped it was like the inspirational speech at the beginning of a working meeting--part of the thing but not the only thing.

You're partially right

cfinnie — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:52:11 -0400

I've written blog posts for candidates, so you are right to a certain extent. However, I have to say that both candidates told me in advance what their position was, and approved or changed the posts before they went up. For the record, the candidates were Jerry McNerney and Christine Cegelis. They appeared on the campaign blog, as well as on public sites like DailyKos.

Having said that, I'd also like to agree with the first comment. Howard Dean did live blog--and more than once. I was on a live chat with him one other time, and I heard about others. I also read a few posts. The Dean blog was also rather unusual in that supporters actually used it as an organization and communication tool. I knew one woman who only read the comments because she said she found out what other supporters were doing around the country. I also know for a fact that the campaign manager, Joe Trippi, read the thing all the time to find out the same thing. I believe Eden James still does that for the McNerney blog too.

The DFA blog became far less interesting to me, however, once DFA started restricting who could post on the blog. It cut out all that interesting and energizing communication, and with it the sense that this was a tool to empower supporters.

IMHO, that's the problem with most campaign blogs (and most campaigns)--they only go one way. Blogs, as Al Gore notes in his new book, have a fairly unique ability to be true communication tools. However, in most cases, nobody reads replies. Some don't even allow them. When that happens, they're rightly perceived as PR.

So obvious, it's a wonder all candidates aren't doing it

Luigi Montanez — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:50:38 -0400

Thanks for this post. In fact, I had the similar thoughts after reading Thompson's blog for the first time today, drawn to it by the Giuliani Guns kerfuffle.

The only example of similar authentic blogging by a candidate I can think of is when Dean liveblogged on Blog for America while eating a turkey sandwich for lunch (complete with a picture of Dean eating that sandwich at his desk). But that was a rare occurence for even that campaign, and Thompson has taken it to a much higher level.

This goes beyond Donohue

Jonathan Trenn — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:12:52 -0500

Let's take a look at one of the things Amanda Marcotte wrote:

"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

As a Catholic, I find that offensive. Equating the Holy Spirit to a human penis and the entire religion to an "ancient mythology". And it was obvious she wrote it with the intent to offend.

It's one thing to argue abortion, gay rights, and the involvement of the church in political matters. It's another to intentionally deride sacred teachings of a religion in a self-righteous manner.

This goes well beyond Bill Donohue, whom I regard as a buffoon and a bigot. I can assure everyone that he doesn't speak for me.

And I don't really see him being put on a pedestal. He's a spokesperson for a relatively large organization. With that, he gets invited on political talk shows. I'm sure Marcotte will now be invited to speak as well.

Think about it. The Edwards campaign hired her in a communications capacity. She's written things that are both highly and intentionally insulting to the religion of 76,000,000 Americans. Please.

www.digitalstreetjournal.com

Mike's got a point

Micah L. Sifry — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:27:04 -0500

It's true that Marcotte's prior writings were controversial enough that the mainstream media could have raised questions without Donohue's intervention. And yes, once the questions were raised, they had to be addressed, regardless of the accuser. But I still don't think the media has done a fair job of informing the public about Donohue's motivations and beliefs.

I have to take issue with Micah's question.

Michael Turk — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:37:55 -0500

2. Should the big media that jumped on this story once Bill Donohue blasted the Edwards campaign do a fair job, or did they parrot Donohue without telling their readers of his own, shall we say, checkered record as a would-be opponent of religious defamation? Why is he on a higher pedestal?

I respect the idea behind the question, but that's really not how the media operates. The story was Amanda Marcotte. If you're charged in court, there is a burden of proof and the motives of your accuser will be questioned.

That isn't the case in the news media. In the media, you have a responsibility to disprove the charges against you regardless of the accuser. Maybe Micah's is a question that needs to be asked of the media, but they are hardly to blame for the concept of guilt by association.

If you hang with thieves and drug dealers, you can't exactly be surprised that people think you might be one. If you hire people with an anti-religious bent (call it anti-theocratic if you want), you can't be surprised if people question your campaign's beliefs on the subject of religion.

If the Edwards camp hired her in ignorance of her writings, that shows a lack of due diligence that indicates a serious flaw in his campaign apparatus. If they hired her despite her past writings, it shows that they were willing to cozy up to someone with anti-religious views in order to score a big name for the credibility and media attention it would garner.

Well, they got the media attention, but not in the way they might have hoped.

I'll one up you -- there's much more

Nancy Scola — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:06:16 -0500

To start, I for one nodded along when Ezra Klein's suggested that Amanda's hire was a great deal suprising. I think it has to make you wonder if the Edwards organization wasn't mostly interested in scoring themselves a high-profile name. Without claiming too much insight into their motivations and thinking, this whole episode does hint at a superficial understanding of online politics, and a certain lack of respect for it to boot.

I'm not at all sure about this, but it seems to me that Amanda's Children of Men review went up at just about the same time she hopped off the Edwards train. (Marcotte is said to have written "The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels." But Pandagon's down due to alleged "asshat spammers," so it's hard to verify much.) Maybe it was a cathartic post, who knows. Either way, posting in the midst of such turmoil might seem appropriate behavior for a blogger, not so much for a campaign staffer. So in my mind, the question before campaigns now is this: when hiring on bloggers/netroots activists/online staffers, just what is it that you want from them? Seems to me that a campaign mining the online world for advantage owes it staffers to tell them just what sort of relationship they've gotten themselves involved in.

There's more going on here

Micah L. Sifry — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:12:48 -0500

There are lots of issues raised by this episode. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. Did the Edwards campaign do a careful enough job vetting Amanda Marcotte's writing before hiring her to be their blog-master? I'm not saying they shouldn't hire people who have written passionately and provocatively in the past--that would make it impossible for lots of great political activists to enter electoral politics--but you have to wonder if they did their homework.

3. Should Marcotte have continued to post on her personal blog after she started working for the Edwards campaign? When I went to work for my partner Andrew Rasiej's campaign for NYC Public Advocate, I stopped blogging at Personal Democracy Forum (and found a terrific pinch-hitter for me in Chris Nolan). I don't understand why Marcotte thought it appropriate or even realistic to keep her personal blogging going.

4. Do we as a community want now more witch-hunting of campaign staffers who have written things in the past that might have offended someone? How far down that slippery slope do we want to go?

Micah