I know your readers enjoy our supporter testimonials on our blog. đŸ˜‰ We just posted another one from a wonderful suporter from Otis in the Berkshires. His name is Joel.
When Amy Gorin, our Campaign Co-Chair, posted the first testimonial it created a buzz about the format we used to identify her. The new testimonial is in the same format – “Joel M from Otis”.
We take seriously the concerns about transparency and disclosure raised the first time, and we welcome input from your readers.
With that in mind, here’s what I propose:
On this thread, I’d ask the Blue Mass Group community to work out what the correct policy should be. We trust the boys from BMG to moderate the discussion and we promise to abide by the result of that effort. If they agree, I’d ask that David summarize the best ideas into a policy by next Wednesday, the 17th at 5PM. We’ll use the new rules when we post the testimonials we’ll be taping at the debate on Thursday.
Thanks to all of you for taking the time. You are changing politics in Massachusetts.
John Walsh
Campaign Manager
Deval Patrick for Governor
PS: Oh yeah, while you are working out the policy, be sure to listen to why Joel drove two hours to say why he supports Deval.
I think that if the person is doing or has done paid work for the campaign, it’s important to disclose that relationship. If they have a staff position or title, say so; if not, just say they’ve done paid work for the campaign. It can be in a note at the end.
I don’t give an Ameriquest share how Deval’s web site identifies its testimonials. I never would have doubted their veracity anyway. Everyone knows he has plenty of passionate supporters and they’re making converts.
<
p>
Surely only Patrick supporters would want to do this. That being the case, why go through BMG to ask them, other than to blur the line between BMG and the Patrick campaign? And to draw in neutral BMGers by making them feel a part of the campaign? And to make a favorable contrast with the recent anonymous Reilly hack comment?
If Gabrieli or Reilly want to ask for our imput I’m sure they’re welcome to do so.
I’ll front-page those requests when they come in.
Maybe they actually want our input? (Even if you don’t care about it)
For folks who are used to getting their marching orders (not to mention their paychecks) from a more top-down campaign, but as been proven time and time again, Deval is running a different kind of campaign.
<
p>
I don’t agree that only Patrick supporters would like to address this issue, because how campaigns use testimonials in their advertising should be of interest to all campaigns.
<
p>
Disclosure: I am a Deval Patrick delegate: unbought and unbossed.
I bought you dinner once! You promised that you would vote for me for world emporer! đŸ™‚ Given the atomosphere lately here at BMG I feel like I have to disclose the fact that I support Deval Patrick and Tim Murray even though my post pertains to neither.
(Note: I’m not supporting Tom Reilly in the primary.)
<
p>
“Amy G.”, Deval’s campaign co-Chair, says why she, appearing as a regular average voter (anonymous for all intents and purposes – “AmyG” might as well be a blog posting handle), not a campaign official, supports Deval, and that’s all well and good.
<
p>
But a Reilly volunteer/supporter writes a blog post commenting on Deval Patrick and Ameriquest, and it’s a federal case.
<
p>
Just seems like another double standard that Deval supporters are creating to insulate Deval’s campaign from seeming like they do anything the slightest bit bad. And it reflects poorly on Deval that his supporters are doing it. Put the Kool-Aid down and just try to be as objective as possible when judging the actions of candidates, campaigns, staffers, volunteers, etc.
I think Blue Mass Group used the same standard in both cases: front page posts disclosing the previously undisclosed relationship, and embarassing the campaign. I don’t know who the “Deval Patrick supporters” are you set up as straw men here, but I don’t remember us whining that Blue Mass Group did something wrong when they embarassed the Patrick campaign over that testimonial – quite the contrary. And that was before the Tom Reilly commenter.
<
p>
Now, the Patrick campaign acknowledges in public right here on our blog that we had a point, and they’d like to hear from us about what standards we want, so they don’t run into similar problems in the future. You respond by slamming them for it, while calling for “objectivity”. Why so bitter?
You might also want to consider where these things happened. “AmyG” was on Patrick’s site. It was duly reported here, and embarassed the campaign, as Cos says.
<
p>
“johd”, however, was here, and as such is, indeed, more important to all BMG readers.
<
p>
Do you get the difference between the Patrick campaign blog (which I would never expect to be unbiased) and this site (which I would and do)? One of them is news and worthy of discussion, and one of them demands our attention and hashing things out.
Honestly, I could care less what format the Patrick campaign uses to post its self-interested “testimonials.” However, I am very disappointed to see BMG used as a vehicle by the Patrick campaign under the guise of “let the people decide” populism. Let the people decide what? The oh-so-important video testimonial disclosure policy? When we are done with that, will they also let us decide the font style, size, and colors of their press releases? (I vote for Times New Roman, 16 point, black print, with a red, white, and blue banner! Thanks so much for asking!)
<
p>
There is absolutely no difference between a campaign-produced video “testimonial” and a campaign press release, except the fiction that a “testimonial” somehow represents something genuine or authentic. The content of both are carefully crafted, edited, and delivered by the campaign. The Patrick campaign got caught using their campaign co-chair for their first “testimonial,” so now they want BMG to legitimize round two and salvage the concept. Whose interest is being served in that bargain?
<
p>
The tenor of Deval Patrick’s Campaign Manager’s request is meant to flatter, while its real intent is to promote Patrick’s candidacy. I don’t blame the manager, that’s his job. I am, however, quite troubled that the request is being promoted by BMG. If the site does not post campaign press releases, which are clear and transparent vehicles of self-interest, why on earth would it allow the Deval Patrick campaign to formulate the policy for the video equivalent of a press release. I repeat: this is very disappointing.
Speaking, I am sure, for David Charley and me, if any other campaign wants the BMG community to help them shape policy, we would be delighted to assist — the whole world should be so forthcoming. I personally welcome this particular approach by the Patrick campaign, and urge folks to take them seriously and respond with constructive comments rather than self-conscious sniping focused on form rather than substance. As to the video at issue, I thought it was misleading to present it as an average supporter’s testimonial when it was actually from a member of the campaign staff (paid or unpaid). I think the suggestion by Cos in the first post on this thread is just right: testimonials should identify as specifically as possible the relationship of the person making the statement to the campaign. They should also use the person’s full name, if possible. Thus, “Jane Doe, Patrick Campaign Volunteer since 15 February 2006;” or “John Doe, Patrick Campaign Deputy Director for Media Relations,” or “Frank Doe, Independent Voter, Restaurant Owner, Beverly resident since 1987.” This kind of disclosure also makes the videos more compelling, in MHO.
I hardly think this shaping “policy,” at least in any meaningful sense of the term. This is pure theatrics, aimed at a left-leaning audience in an effort to simultaneously promote the “testimonial” and appear solicitous in the process. Of course, my opinion will likely be characterized as cynicism and I will be told to “lighten up,” but that still won’t change my strong feeling that this is less of an appeal for our opinion and more of an attempt to keep folks on the reservation at a time when the perception is that Patrick’s campaign has slipped in recent weeks.
Let’s be clear: this is definitely theatrics for the Patrick campaign. It is decidedly solicitous. The question is whether it’s good theatrics, based on substance.
<
p>
If Reilly’s or Gabrieli’s campaigns want to come by here and ask the community’s advice on any issue whatsoever, we’ll give them similar, respectful treatment. That’s an invitation.
Let’s get real. Many things in a political campaign are a form of theatrics. Reilly calling on Patrick to release his tax information is theatrics, Gabrieli talking about his “surge” in the polls as a reason to be on the ballot (even though they’re mostly caused by a an ad blitz) and Patrick campaign reaching out to BMG is all theatrics.
<
p>
The question is, now that the Patrick camp wants to at least make moves to include the “netroots,” what do we do with it? Do we dismiss it out of hand as pure theatrics, or do we use this as an opportunity to say what we feel is appropriate–disclosure. Moreover, is it possible to use this opportunity to build a relationship going forward so that the Patrick campaign might solicity more advice about things of more substance? Should Patrick become governor, perhaps he can become a more accessible governor by reaching out to the public through the blogs to find out what they want to do
going forward.
<
p>
Obviously, this is theatrics, but it’s good theater that indicates a willingness to listen, which has been the theme of the Patrick campaign from the start.
“As to the video at issue, I thought it was misleading to present it as an average supporter’s testimonial when it was actually from a member of the campaign staff”
<
p>
I can tell you from real life that Joel M is not by any stretch a paid member of the campaign staff. Nor is Amy G, for that matter. She is co-Chair of Deval’s Committee, to be sure (not a “member of the campaign staff”), but that does not mean she is being paid by the campaign. In fact (reality check here) she is more likely to be on the other end of the checkbook.
<
p>
All of that said, I don’t disagree with Bob’s basic point that more disclosure is better.
Incidentally, in fact we freaking ENCOURAGE them, so long as the posters disclose who they are. Oh my God, enough blogging for today. I have to go have a beer and watch the Red Sox crush the Yankees. GO SOX!!
I was just going off of David’s preface that BMG typically will not promote a campaign’s press release to the center/main page. Since a video testimonial is the functional equivalent of a written press release, I do not see why an exception was made in this instance. If it is because the Patrick campaign has requested feedback, well, isn’t every campaign soliciting feedback in some form when it puts out a release?
<
p>
I, too, hope the Sox topple the Yankees tonight.
…and I am a Deval supporter, tho not a hardcore fan.
At best, this is the Deval campaign trying to be a caricature of itself.
I think Deval’s (and John’s) instincts are better than this; I think they need to listen to them a little closer and not get caught up in what a “different” campaign they’re running. (Because at the end of the day, what we need is a winning campaign and nothing more.)
Above, Bob wrote,
onship of the person making the statement to the campaign. They should also use the person’s full name, if possible. Thus, “Jane Doe, Patrick Campaign Volunteer since 15 February 2006;” or “John Doe, Patrick Campaign Deputy Director for Media Relations,” or “Frank Doe, Independent Voter, Restaurant Owner, Beverly resident since 1987.” This kind of disclosure also makes the videos more compelling, in MHO.
I agree somewhat, but I think this goes a bit too far. When someone records a testimonial, they’re volunteering for the campaign, so we know at least that much. I don’t think we need to be told that person is “a volunteer” – what does that mean? Does it mean they volunteered to make the video? Or that in addition to making the video they also made some phone calls from the office? Or that they’re a die-hard canvasser who has knocked over 1000 doors already? I don’t think it tells us anything to label someone a “volunteer” and it sounds like overkill.
<
p>
And saying when they’ve been a volunteer since is even more overkill đŸ™‚
<
p>
However, if someone has a title, or coordinating a project for the campaign, etc., that’s worth disclosing. And I agree, it does make the testimonial more compelling. Same goes for “personal color” – where they’re from, a business they own, etc.
that blogger independent streak has a double-edge to it. when was the last time a gubernatorial campaign specifically asked for the blogging community’s advice, at large??
<
p>
stop jumping down John’s throat, he’s given everyone a chance to have some input (a seat at the table, if you will.)
<
p>
can bloggers let down their hyper-sensitive guard long enough to see a good opportunity? I think BMG has been pushing blogging in the right direction, toward acceptance and rapport. let’s not be so reactionary that we can’tacknowledge a good opportunity to have some direct say in the political process.
<
p>
(And Reilly and Gabrieli would do well to acknowledge the blogging community and work with them, as it appears Patrick is doing.)
<
p>
I have no disclosure for this post, as I’m currently not working for any campaign (the shame.)
If you’re using someone’s video testimony, i.e. his/her face, just disclose the whole name, where they’re from, profession, i.e. “Hi, I’m John Mason, bricklayer from Stoneham, and I’m supporting Deval Patrick because…” If they have a paid position, or a titled volunteer position in the campaign, disclose that too. Simple.
<
p>
The specificity of full names and a little background is good — it seems (and is) more genuine than the “Amy G” or “Joel M” or whatever. I mean, if these folks are proud to be supporting Deval, why aren’t they (or the campaign, more to the point) using their full names? The last initial just adds an unnecessary level of sketchiness to the whole thing.
I think the semi-anonymity of using a last initial might have been meant to convey a sense of “the everyman”. It doesn’t make the person unidentifiable, so I doubt it was meant for anonymity, but maybe they were trying for a message of “lots of people like this feel this way, not just this one individual”.
<
p>
I don’t think it works, though.
<
p>
I like Charley’s guidelines. Basic name, and title or staff position, always disclose. Personal color, include if the person wants to, and it makes the testimonial better.