In fact, the blogosphere in general is not much different than talk radio or TV punditry. It is dominated by the left and the right. The difference, of course, is that the far left is largely nonexistent on radio and TV (unless you buy into the mainstream media liberal agenda argument), but my point is that the blogosphere is almost entirely comprised of extremes, e.g. Patrick is supported by 30% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, but 90% of the lefty blogs. I am a self-described moderate Democrat, so the typical lefty blog holds no appeal to me.
BMG has been different. In maintaining its neutrality, BMG had a credibility that none of the other lefty blogs could claim – credibility built upon the “major contributions” of the “supporters of all three candidates.” To be sure, the BMG editors have played a critical role in the creation and management of the site, but it is the diversity of opinion that distinguishes BMG. Perhaps 75% of BMG posters are Patrick supporters, but I would respectfully submit that it is the other 25% that make BMG worth reading. Vanity? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. Without us, it would be, to borrow David’s expression, an echo chamber.
Now, as a non-Patrick supporter, I face a dilemma. I feel as though my contributions help maintain, or even enhance, the credibility of BMG. But to what end is that credibility being applied? To defeat my candidate in the primary? Each time that I log on I find a permanent shrine to that objective: “BMG Editors Endorse Deval Patrick. Read the endorsement. Volunteer. Contribute.” I am told, keep on writing. . .you never know who is reading. We’re all in this together. Gee, thanks, but why are non-Patrick supporters the only ones being asked to sacrafice something by contributing to a pro-Patrick site? Sounds like a good deal for the folks supporting Patrick who don’t want this to become an echo chamber. If this place became exclusively pro-Patrick, who the hell would bother to read it? Even the mainstream media might tire of a one-trick pony.
I started to share my feelings in a comment yesterday. Both Charley and David thoughtfully replied, as they almost always do. They mentioned that the editors did not start BMG as a “neutral institution” and I can appreciate that. BMG is their baby, not mine. I also believe that they are earnest in their pledge to “continue to recommend and promote substantive posts, regardless of which candidate is favored.” However, for me, BMG had been a “neutral institution” before their decision to endorse and I never before felt the need for their assurances. Yesterday, that changed and, while BMG’s endorsment may be in line with the editor’s (well-earned) vision for the future of their site, I very respectfully submit that it detracts substantially from my personal experience.
About 70% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters support a candidate other than Deval Patrick. The few non-Patrick that regularly contribute to this site are what make BMG interesting or, at the very least, different than the other lefty blogs.
Although I respect that it was the editor’s decision to make, I genuinely believe you guys sacraficed something great (nuetrality) for something that feels good (the endorsement). That’s my opinion and I thank you for the opportunity to share it. The question is, do I want to continue sharing my thoughts with a site that has literally been redesigned to support my candidate’s opponent? I don’t know. Maybe.
I don’t think they have jumped the shark with the endorsement. It seemed pretty clear to me (with the exception of Bob) that the editors were behind Patrick. All they did was come out and say what most of us probably already knew.
<
p>
The link to contribute is another issue. That makes them IMHO appear to be a tool of Patrick’s campaign and while not “jumping the shark” it does seem inappropiate.
<
p>
In the end it doesn’t make any difference to me. I’ll still read and post when I can.
<
p>
FYI: Still undecided between Patrick and Gabrieli.
This is trhe second post I’ve seen in a couple of days that the option to recommend was unavailable…
I don’t see the “Recommend” button either, but that may be because I wrote the diary.
Sorry about that. It is an occasionally recurring bug with soapblox. I’ll see if I can get it fixed.
Except for the distorted estimates of who has likely voter support. When did it become Patrick 30, non-Patrick 70? The last polling I saw, Patrick held a small lead over Gabrieli and a slightly larger one over Reilly. (And my recommend button is missing too — help!)
<
p>
You make many good points, MD. I am a Patrick supporter, and I had recommended and voted against a BMG endorsement for some of the reasons you articulate so well. Your spinning of the poll numbers detracts from an otherwise fine and thoughtful post.
I’ve seen Patrick numbers between 30-35%, so I went with the lower number to emphasize my point. Even if you opt for the higher number, my point stands. One thing I didn’t account for were the undecideds, but they would also be included in the Likely Democratic Primary Voters who are not currently supporting Patrick – or anyone.
I stand by what I said in my comment earlier – as far as the “endorsement” goes, nothing’s changed except that now you know as much about my plans for Sept. 19 as I know about yours. But I do see your point about the fundraising box. I’ve taken it down while the three of us discuss the issue further.
I respect your earlier comment and your continued fair treatment. As I stated in my post, I honestly do believe that the editor’s are earnest in their pledge to continue promoting substantive commentary.
<
p>
I especially appreciate your decision to take down the fundraising box. I hope you leave it down. Otherwise, I would feel like a complete heel by contributing to a site that is generating money for another candidate.
<
p>
Also, thank you for promoting the post.
Personally, I think “jump the shark” has jumped the shark, but maybe that’s just me.
MavDem – Well thought out and I understand where you are coming from. As a Gabrieli supporter, I have no problem with the endorsement of Patrick by BMG. It’s not surprising in the least, will not impact the race, and will not limit lively debate amongst us here between now and the 9/19. Despite occasonally heated exchanges, this blog is typically a great read and fun. I hope Gabrieli wins on the 19th, but regardless of who does, the level of the debates will likely change after the primary as most us “unite” behind someone.
I like the honest exchange here but I do not like the endorsement.
I think Deval was chasing the buck and sold his soul to some questionable corporate boards.I still think values count and I wish BMG took that into consideration before endorsing anyone.
I take MavDems point, but I hate these discussions. This is where the echo chamber begins, in my book. Endorse away, BMG.
Although I am a Patrick supporter, I think it would have been wise for the editors not to have done an official endorsement. I believe that would have kept the site a “Democratic Party” site, rather than a “Deval Patrick” site. It would have kept BMG on a pedestal of some sorts, elavating it from the smaller sites run by individuals who clearly are for Patrick.
<
p>
However, I still love Blue Mass Group. The reasons I do not support the decision are basically symbolic and the endorsement should not hinder a free expression of ideas from supporters of various candidates.
Interesting post. I don’t understand the neutrality argument. Blogging isn’t neutral and I don’t recall in the entire time that I’ve been reading and contributing to this blog (I’m from the Type Pad era) of any of the editors claiming any such thing.
<
p>
The crediblity of this blog is directly related to the quality of the writing of editors Bob, Charley and David. Any praise that this site receives is rightfully theirs.
<
p>
As contributors to this blog, our praise comes to us in the form of recommended user posts, but untimately this blog belongs to the hard workin’ fellers of BMG. It is their right as editors to dictate the direction of the front page content and they have excercised their right to do so with this endorsement.
<
p>
I personally do not see why things should change. The only real difference is that now we know where the BMGers stand, which for anyone who had been paying attention, is not a huge surprise.
<
p>
If BMG had endorsed a different candidate, I doubt we’d be having this discussion.
I think we probably would, actually – just with different players! đŸ˜‰
the most punk rock endorsement would have been Mihos.
<
p>
Now that would’ve been QUITE a pie fight. g
has its rewards. I have never seen an expectation of neutrality on any political blog. All of the major bloggers have their preferred candidates and causes, and do, indeed, raise a ton of money for their candidates. There is no legitimate reason why this blog cannot do likewise. If people are unhappy with the candidates you endorse, they are perfectly free to one of several things including: a) complain about it b) start their own blog c) pretend the endorsement never happened. That’s the beauty of this thing. Personally, I’d like to see BMG evolve into a major blogging player in Massachusetts as I think this state could benefit immensely from a muscular forum.
<
p>
Blogging communities are many things, but a big extended happy family, in any meaningful sense, is not one of them, despite the fervent wishes (or needs?) of some.
is just part of the big circle of life and I think it’s very helpful for the marketplace of ideas. This won’t be the last thing we can’t all come to an agreement on, and I think that is healthy. I would hate to see BMG become an echo chamber, so I hope that folks that disagree with the endorsement will stick around — and advocate for their candidate in a constructive manner.
<
p>
This election cycle is really the first big test of the local Mass. blogsphere. We won’t really know until after the election how much of an impact that blogs had. On the other hand, there are some indications that bloggers are having an impact, if anything by drawing attention to stories and issues that wouldn’t have gotten much press, if we hadn’t started squawking about it.
<
p>
We might not all be a big happy family here at BMG, but I like to think we put the “fun” in dysfunctional. đŸ˜›
you will find that I nevr said that it wasn’t the editors’ right to endorse. I simply argue that the site would be better if it does not become a vehicle for any particular candidate.
<
p>
But my favorite line, Susan, is this:
<
p>
<
p>
You can’t be serious, can you? Stop and think about it. If BMG had endorsed a candidate other than Deval Patrick, this site, quite literally, would have imploded.
<
p>
I carefully wrote my piece to make it about a principle (a neutral forum) and not about an individual.
I’ve ever heard of any blog that attempts to be objective. I know you say that BMG’s strength was it’s neutrality, but it seems to me that BMG’s strength is really it’s fairness. How much consideration will decent, well thought-out posts receive pre and post endorsement? I don’t really predict all that much of a change.
<
p>
Also, if it’s true that the majority of BMG readers are pro-Patrick it actually makes sense that BMG would endorse him. It more accurately reflects the majority of the community. But that doesn’t mean there’s no room for the minority. In any event, the endorsement wasn’t supposed to be a reflection on the overall community, but rather a reflection of editorial opinion.
<
p>
As an aside, I think it would be interesting to see a blog completely devoted to neutral assessments of MA politics. But I’m not sure how you’d do that and have it be a community styled blog. As soon as anybody can make a post, people will spin for their candidate. And it won’t achieve the popularity of BMG without the community atmosphere.
I know you say that BMG’s strength was it’s neutrality, but it seems to me that BMG’s strength is really it’s fairness.
<
p>
afertig is wise…
Broken record time: The best we can attempt to do is to be “fair and biased”; to express ourselves while maintaining an open mind. I think we’re committed to doing that. But I don’t see why everyone else should hold forth for their candidates but I shouldn’t do the same for the guy I favor. You’re not the boss of me! Waah! Ahem.
<
p>
And I think we should all beware of the temptation of sour grapes — sour Kool-Aid, perhaps — and just address the real arguments presented. If you don’t like the endorsement, the best one can do is to say why it’s the wrong decision; but I don’t think one can fairly contend we shouldn’t come to one at all.
<
p>
Oh, I’ll make a post of this at some point. sigh
my post may have been motivated by sour grapes. It wasn’t. And as some of the Deval supporters who have responded to this post have observed, there is a legitimate argument to be made for the beauty of a totally neutral forum.
<
p>
Just my opinion. As an editor/creator, I respect that your opinion should carry the day, but that doesn’t stop me from having my own.
… that you’ll continue to have your own, and that you’ll express it at length here.
It seems to me that they’ve been supporting Deval Patrick for a while now; they’re just being open about it.
<
p>
It’s actually a lot like parents dealing with their kids when they “come out.” They think their child has somehow changed, almost instantly, into something completely different…. except that their kid was always gay, just being more open about it. Well, BMG was pro-Deval long before they “came out,” now they’re just being more open about it.
<
p>
They’ve promised to deliver fair content and they have a strong reputation on that – I for one believe they will. They’ve criticized Deval in the past and I, for one, expect they will in the future.
and I thought you would have my back 100%! LOL
as a supporter of Chris Gabrieli, I was not at all surprised with BMG’s endorsement of Patrick.
I was out of state for a few days (and sorry, Editors, BMG is not competition for a warm beach and pounding surf), and was surprised to see this, but figured hey, they can throw their weight around if they want.
<
p>
But now I’m concerned. What does an “endorsement” mean exactly? The contribute/donate button is unfortunate enough, but rapid-fire posts on new ads and new doodads on the website worries me much much more. If BMG is just going to be the latest news from Libby De Vecchi, then it’s really lost something…
<
p>
MavDem, I’ve always admired your posts. Very thoughtful indeed. I would hate to have you stop posting because I’ve always taken your posts to be a prelude to the next tack that would be taken by the Reilly campaign. I would hate to be deprived of that insight.
<
p>
If you’re right about “65% of voters supporting someone else” [to correct your number!] then obviously Patrick can’t win, unless that 65% splits right down the middle. But since, as I remember, that same poll found that “81% of voters don’t support Reilly” and “70% of voters don’t support Gabrieli” then we’re in quite a bind, aren’t we? It turns out that not one of the candidates can win. You’re using bad logic, in case you don’t get my drift.
I don’t profess to be a prognosticator for where the Reilly campaign is going nor am I sure that my track record suggests much success in that regard. I write what I believe.
<
p>
As for the numbers, I think you may have missed my point. I am not arguing that our candidates cannot claim a majority in November. I was noting that, while Deval Patrick has 30-35% support among Likely Democratic Primary Supporters, he has a disproportionate level of support in the blogosphere. Therefore, in order to prevent sites such as BMG from becoming pro-Deval echo chambers (and quite boring), it is healthy to have commentors blogging for the other candidates.
<
p>
Frankly, whether you agree or not, I find my logic sound, at least in this regard.
David has been trying to teach me — sorry I’m such a slow learner.
<
p>
I happen to agree with your conclusion, if not your logic. I treasure diversity of opinion, as long as it is respectful and not ad hominem. Your posts, it seems to me, have generally been done in that spirit.
<
p>
Diversity is the fuel of a healthy community, and I hope you and other non-Patrick types will continue to share your ideas and challenge those of the “echo chamber”…
While I personally like the guys at BMG and read regularly, this self-examination and self-promotion seem overblown.
<
p>
Deval is certainly blog/blogger savvy, but he hasn’t even added that category to his Endorsements page. He may, but we’d be the tip end on the train of the gown.
<
p>
He is also savvy enough to know that labor unions with thousands of members and popular politicians, and particularly local newspapers carry serious weight.
<
p>
I’m a Deval supporter (and an endorser as of June 1). So, I’m mildly pleased BMG endorsed his candidacy. Nuff said by all.
is BMG endorsing in the Republican primary for MA Gov?
oops.
I finally decided this endorsement was similar to that of a newspaper. The Globe can endorse someone and still provide fair coverage of issues, and we should be able to too. Your comments here — which I value along with your other admirers — are, perhaps, comparable at some level to continuing to subscribe to a newspaper with which one disagrees in some instances. For example, I don’t much care for the WSJ’s editorial positions, but I read the newspaper every day and get a lot out of it. Separately, I submit that the removal of the Patrick fundraising box, which I also thought was too much in one’s face, is an example of how BMG will continue to be “fair and biased,” in Charley’s excellent phraseology. Please keep writing, and remember this just one endorsement in one race and there will be others — we want a process of reform and improvement in Massachusetts politics, as well as immediate successes.