I thought these attacks were simply a tactic used by the Ed O’Reilly campaign, except they are still popping up like today. So now I throw up my hands and figure I will throw the question to the community. And to be clear, being paid and not disclosing is a scandal. The Georgia blogosphere was rocked by one this summer. It had major repercussions.
A leading Georgia political blogger is being accused of conflicts of interest for doing work for politicians and failing to disclose it. The issue raises a couple of broader questions about ethical standards for political bloggers.
Atlanta Progressive News released an investigative article early this morning that details work done by Georgia Politics Unfiltered’s Andre Walker for U.S. Senate candidate Vernon Jones and incumbent Congressman David Scott, as well as a long list of favorable posts on Scott.
The scandal reverberated all the way to Erick Erickson, who is an editor for RedState.com but also runs a Georgia blog, Peach Pundit. One of his token Democratic writers was Andre Walker.
Peach Pundit, the state’s leading right-leaning political blog (to which Walker contributes), is run by Erick Erickson, who’s done some political work and has been a candidate for public office. Erickson and other contributors have at times disclosed their dog in a particular fight when their writing touches on it. But what’s the standard for disclosure by political bloggers (or by bloggers about anything)?
For that matter, how can the average reader even tell who bloggers actually are when they use pen names like Rogue109 (another Peach Pundit poster) and decaturguy? It’s a principle of the blogosphere that people get to be anonymous. That may be an unavoidable part of the nature of the medium. But if influential bloggers are anonymous, how can you where there bread is buttered?
In a post this morning, Erickson says he knew Walker was doing some consulting work for Scott. He writes that he asked Walker “to refrain from writing about those he might be working against.”
Well, the standards are obvious. You get paid, you disclose. If you don’t, expect a scandal.
But I think the ethics police here at Blue Mass Group have taken it too far, throwing out accusations because someone writes something favorable about an elected official who perhaps they do not like. False accusations like this are a way to smear a blogger and to taint their writings, to invite doubt to their credibility.
So can we please discuss when it is appropriate to throw out accusations. It seems to me that people should do some research (like an FEC report) before launching baseless charges.
Signed,
Beachmom
Not paid for a single blog post I have ever written.
Are all we have as formal policy. I think you answered the question posed by the commenter perfectly well. You might consider posting under your real name, if you are concerned about a lack of transparency.
that when I go back to work (I am currently a stay at home Mom), I would prefer a Google search not to bring up my name at all. I live in a very red area, so my political affiliation would be controversial.
So that it explains that while you are a Kerry supporter (by all means, explain why: I am too!), and tend to post items about him here and at DailyKos or wherever, it also clarifies that you don’t work for him. That might help provide additional transparency and useful information, while preserving your anonymity in other areas.
I noticed your post on Kos. (I believe it made the recommended list, so congratulations!)
<
p>As I recall, you’ve occasionally ventured outside topics relevant to Kerry, but your focus does seem to be unusually monomaniacal. That’s not a crime. It’s not unethical. On some level it is even useful: we would benefit if we had a team of enthusiasts, one to cover every member of our Congressional delegation and every constitutional officer.
<
p>We don’t though. Neither Governor Patrick nor Senator Kennedy has attracted a BMG member as diligent as you. That’s odd, too, in that one doesn’t think of Kerry as having a vibrant base of activists behind him.
<
p>Given that your role is unique, it should be unsurprising that you get the same question repeatedly.
<
p>There’s nothing wrong with being seven feet tall, but people of that stature must know every joke in the book about tall people.
himself written excellent diaries on Daily Kos, which typically get enormous positive response. I think he was the first Senator to attempt to use the internet in an activist way to push Senate action. In 2005, he posted a diary on the reasons that Alito should be filibustered. That diary was copied in at least a few places and it suggested a list of Senators to lobby – and lobbied they were. Kennedy followed a few days later coordinating with a diary of his own. It seems to me on Daily Kos that he is one of the only politicians who understands the culture enough to respond to some of the questions asked.
<
p>In addition, Senator Kerry used his email list to get people involved, to lobby others on legislative goals, and to raise money for Democrats across the country. He raised over $14 million for others in 2006. That people have responded to his requests for action and for contributions does suggest that he does have a vibrant base of activists. Dean gets credit for being the first to raise significant money on the internet, but Kerry made much fuller use of his email – which was copied by the Obama team.
<
p>There are few top politicians who have the activist roots that Kerry has, having been an anti-war activist and an environmental activist before he entered politics. The ironic thing is that many of the people who have been perceived to be leaders of activists do not seem to have the natural ability to do so that John Kerry has. (Edwards and Feingold – as different as two people can be – are two examples)
<
p>I know in my case, the reason I support Kerry more than any other politicians is because I saw in 2004 and since that, though he will make mistakes, he is brilliant and a man of integrity, who rarely gets the credit he is due.
… comment. He makes absolutely no assertions about having a ‘view of Senator Kerry’. The only thing I read that comes even close is that he makes a comment about BMGers with regard to Kerry.
<
p>Are you referring to something else he wrote or are you merely misreading what he wrote here?
“That’s odd, too, in that one doesn’t think of Kerry as having a vibrant base of activists behind him. “
<
p>So, I was making the case that while I admit there are others with more blogosphere support, Kerry has a base of supporters.
During the primary challenge, I actually brought up a lot of the same points about Kerry. O’Reilly’s criticism of Kerry’s Senate role seemed vacuous to me. In Kerry’s Roadblock Republican effort, his support for Lamont, and his voting record after 2005, there was much to be proud.
<
p>I just happen to know that none of the activists in my town ever express any enthusiasm about him — and for some, the AUMF vote, marriage equality, or both was sufficient for them to want to “send him a message”. Beyond “Get well, soon,” I don’t think they’d want to send our senior Senator a message.
<
p>Perhaps I’m competing here for Mr Nuance 2008. I think Kerry has done many very good, laudable things. He communicates better than he did in 2004 and earlier. He’s a much better Senator than he gets credit for. I have a number of disappointments with him so he inspires no passion.
I have noted before that self-described progressives do often seem to have a coolness toward Kennedy, perhaps as a result of the issues you noted. I have also noted that Kerry is not super-popular out here in moderate/centrist land.
<
p>But he keeps getting elected, so somebody must like the guy, right?
When I think Neuvoliberal, I think major Gore supporter. When I think TomP, I think major Edwards supporter. Icebergslim and Geekesque and Al Rogers and Adam B: major Obama supporters.
<
p>They all wrote almost exclusively about their favorite Democrat on DailyKos. Some of them “shilled” more than others, but it was clear that if they put up a diary, it was probably about news about their “guy” or “gal” (Alegre was the Hillary supporter but she kind of went off the deep end in March). It would never occur to me to ask them if they were paid. Paid staffers always had a disclosure (like Peter Daou).
<
p>I guess on BMG there are no major supporters of elected officials, but it doesn’t have to be that way. It would be fun if everyone had a “beat”, so we could catch up on all the news of everyone.
<
p>Finally, Kerry does have grassroots support, including in the netroots. The stereotype from ’04 was that Dean was the grassroots guy. Kerry had grassroots support, too, but it wasn’t as loud, as most of the blogs that arrived on the scene at that time were Dean or Clark supported blogs. The idea that somebody had “no support” but mysteriously ran the table during the primaries is illogical. And after the ’04 election, there were people like me who just felt he needed some defense given how quickly he was thrown under the bus by the media and DC Establishment, as well as Dean and Clark supporting bloggers still mad about the primaries. So that is where I am coming from.
Kerry has always been on the border of my tribe:
I’ve pointed to a number of things Karenc lists above. I think progressives’ evaluation of Kerry is much more negative than it should be, but Kerry has yet to achieve the place in my heart reserved for Wellstone, Boxer, and Feingold. In that I’m not alone, and that’s maybe another reason why a close following of Kerry seems unusual on this blog. Again: unusual is no crime and, in your case, I think it adds value.
<
p>I’m impressed you know all these Kossacks. I think I’ve only ever put up one diary there.
<
p>Finally, getting back to those 7 feet tall guys: The most successful way, probably to survive being 7 feet tall, is find a way to enjoy those stupid jokes rather than to futilely attempt to muzzle them.
<
p>Ho! Ho! Ho! You think my writing’s that good that I should be paid for it! Does your company have any openings for a copyeditor? I’d love to paid for this.
<
p>Paid for this? For this? They’d pay me not to write about them if they could? ROFLMAO
<
p>Pay me? No. I can’t seem to get my PayPal account to work. Advice?
I guess the Senators you mentioned have committed “sins” as well. Boxer backed Lieberman in the primary, Wellstone voted against DOMA, and Feingold voted for Roberts. So nobody is perfect.
<
p>I guess I am really puzzled by your Central American point. Um, CIA drugtrafficking, anyone? (separate from Iran/Contra)
<
p>http://thememoryhole.org/kerry/
It’s a gamble, but you look brilliant if it happens to pay off.
<
p>It’s a cheap trick.
<
p>For a long time, Jon Keller had to say every six minutes that his son worked for the Mass. GOP – and even THAT wasn’t enough for some at BMG.
<
p>I’ve had the same charge thrown at me for 7-odd years – since I comment and write about the wind farm in a favorable light, Jim Gordon must be paying me. It’s never been true, but it’s repeated so often that some believe it even now.
<
p>You’re aware of the correct standard – disclose when needed, and politely demur when others are mistaken. Rinse, repeat.
<
p>All I can offer by way of consolation is that if an opponent is reduced to making such a charge instead of responding in a substantive way, your words were good enough to get under their skin!
I didn’t mean to accuse you of anything, much less make a spurious smear, I was only asking you to confirm that you were not working for Kerry, which is what you did. I’m sorry for any offense and I assure you it was unintentional.
<
p>One of my biggest dislikes of Daily Kos is the cults of personality that form there, where a diary by some one is even moderately well known immediately shoots to the top of the rec list, even if it rather inane, and receives thousands of comments about how wonderful it is to have the famous so-and-so stooping to post on their lowly blog. Similarly, the rec list is usually populated with writings of a handful of diarists, regardless of the merit of the individual writing, and anyone else needs to write something truly shocking to break though the clique.
<
p>BMG, by contrast, is open and egalitarian. Even when our representatives in the State House or Washington post here, they don’t get disproportionally more attention than their writings deserve. Anyone can get their work recommended or front-paged, if it is meritorious, and we allow and encourage commentators of all political stripes.
<
p>I like John Kerry, I voted for him twice this year and once four years ago, I went and saw him speak in Cambridge, however, I am skeptical of all politicians and will sing unabashed praises of no one. For this reason, I grow suspicious when I see someone uncritically praising a politician, especially when there is no election coming up. Again I want to apologize for the insult, and I hope you understand the perspective I’m coming from.
Thing is, I am not uncritical of John Kerry. He’s still wrong on gay marriage, he should not have voted for the IWR, he should have spoken out more strongly against torture during the ’04 campaign, why can’t he back Cape Winds now already and I don’t know why he wouldn’t back raising Hedge Fund Manager’s taxes to the wage rate like the rest of us pay. Those are just a few of my grievances with him (well, he apologized for the IWR, and lost an election, so he’s doing his penance on that one) which I address once in a while. He could have run a better campaign in ’04, although I do think he was given way too bad a rap for it, given how he went from down to 11 points to a near tie purely on his debate performances, and some sharp rhetoric in the fall. Bush was sweatin’ that one until the end.
<
p>But my view is that Kerry is oftentimes under reported on (in the media and on the main blogs), and is also subjected to pretty bad press, much of which is undeserved. If that were to change than I would be less compelled to do a nice tribute diary to his rise to the Chairmanship of the SFRC. But I doubt it will. The Secretary of State gossip was cruel, and meanwhile he went to the global climate change conference unofficially as Obama’s rep., yet nobody mentioned it on TV, in the main blogs, while it only received marginal coverage in the press. So I see a hole that needs to be filled, and that’s why I write.
<
p>He is human and screws up like the rest of us. But I actually think (gasp) he cares about the people and the country, and wants to do good.
people get rec’d over and over again. But even making the Recent List gets you 2 hours of eyeball time on a heavily visited site, so it’s worth it to try. I hit the jackpot once in a while but I sink a lot of times, too.
<
p>I go to state sites as well, where there is a different feel: BMG, Raising Kaine (soon to be shuttering), Tondees Tavern. But there will always be problems with every site that you can nit pick.
“I thought these attacks were simply a tactic used by the Ed O’Reilly campaign, “
<
p>You don’t like it when people ask if you are affiliated with Kerry because of the content of your posts. With reason — you’ve explained yourself enough times.
<
p>Then you assume that anybody who questions you is affiliated with someone else. So if anybody doesn’t agree with your posts, then they must be affiliated with O’Reilly’s campaign, which is now defunct.
<
p>I don’t like when the questioners are doing to you. I also don’t like to see you doing the same exact thing to them.
<
p>As for the rest, I tend to agree with KBusch.
did engage in that. In fact, that was their first line of attack. To discredit the Kerry supporter before a debate of the issues commenced. It was an effective tactic, by the way, and drove many Kerry supporters away, who did not feel like dealing with the ad hominem attacks. And, perhaps I am remembering wrongly, but I think Ed himself accused me or other Kerry supporters of being paid (it may have been on DailyKos), so I don’t think I am way off the mark to say it was an O’Reilly campaign tactic.
<
p>But it ends up, that this worked rather well for Ed on BMG, due to people here being suspicious already of anyone who would advocate for Kerry (and maybe of any political candidate if it were too gushing and it was perceived that the candidate had some cash to pay bloggers). What I had considered to be an “Ed O’Reilly” phenomenon (either by him or just his independent supporters) was part of a normal culture on BMG, in general. I will add that the tactic did NOT work on DailyKos. He stopped posting there.
…and it’s so well understood, I don’t even have to name names, as BMGer’s composed a list in their head while reading!
<
p>You DID, didn’t you?
Until you give up your moderation role on RMG or your seat on the Mass. GOP State Committee, your dissing of progressive blogs is a little, well, disingenuous.
<
p>I’d love to see a discussion of Ted Kennedy over on RMG which didn’t involve insulting him or his entirely family. Or a post saying John Kerry isn’t the worst senator in history. Or even one saying liberals and gays aren’t tools of Satan.
BeachMom observed that her enthusiasm for Kerry seemed suspect on BMG. I replied he wasn’t one of the favored subjects. Is that denigrating BMG?
<
p>And what does that have to do with RMG (where I am not, nor have I been, a moderator – ask EaBo or Patrick – that’s their job). BTW – we rarely GUSH or PRAISE Democrats there, which is what Mom and I were speaking of. Perhaps you have them confused with some other blog.
There’s not a day goes by that I don’t think “gosh, I wish Peter Porcupine would stop gushing about Democrats.”
<
p>On less sarcastic note: no, you didn’t “reply he wasn’t one of the favored subjects” — you said there are people you aren’t allowed to gush about here. The comparison with RMG is perfectly apt.
<
p>To be more blunt: beachmom, posters like PP are why many of us are wary of sockpuppets. While she does occasionally reveal her affiliations, she much more frequently posts about campaigns and issues without revealing them. Her argument has always been that reading her blog would make them clear. I disagree. The moderators here don’t. Your milage may vary.
BUT, there’s a difference between being a Republican and working on people’s campaigns. Also between being a conservative leaning poster and a GOP State Committee member.
As has countless others have noted, and this interchange proves, you are one of the most disingenuous people in the blogosphere. When even Howie Carr calls you out for sleaziness, you should probably question whether you’re on the side of good…
You have a long history of this sort of shenanigans, so I figured you’d try to huff and puff your way out.
<
p>As Outraged Liberal once said, there’s nothing like the irony of Peter Porcupine engaging in a discussion of blogger ethics.
are nearly prescient and I’m wary of adding more. I will say I’ve had suspicions about your connections with the Kerry campaign for several reasons, most importantly the fact that you write almost solely about a politician that hasn’t exactly been a hero, so to speak, in the progressive netroots community and the fact that you’re anonymous.
<
p>As KBusch says, that doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong, but the progressive netroots tend to be a cynical bunch – we’ve all seen people who have blogged about politicians they’re working for in some capacity and we don’t like it. Like it or not, you’ve exhibited a lot of the signs of that kind of blogger.
<
p>The fact that you’ve been at this for so long and haven’t been outed means that you’re probably exactly who you say you are – a supremely loyal fan of Kerry’s – but it doesn’t mean you’re going to suddenly be freed from all the suspicions. If you wanted to avoid some of those suspicions, there’s two logical ways to do it: be less anonymous (a post introducing who you are would eliminate the suspicions for good, one way or the other) or write about more topics of concern – whatever issues you find most important and without explaining how Senator Kerry is doing something about it.
<
p>I still suspect that you’ve been heavily involved in Kerry’s campaigns in the past. There’s absolutely, positively nothing wrong with that. In fact, I’d be supremely disappointed in a blogger who followed a certain candidate if they didn’t volunteer for that person on the ground. I just think you should be more open about your involvement in his campaigns or staff. But none of that means you’ve done anything wrong, so long as you haven’t been getting paid, or you’re a relative, close friend, etc.
I don’t live in Mass. so I follow John Kerry as a national Democrat. That is why my contributions here seem so Kerry centric. I have moved around, but grew up in New England. It isn’t that weird for me to want to follow what is up in Mass. but only contribute in the area where I am most knowledgeable.
<
p>I think your stereotyping of the netroots is quite dangerous. You make it too monolithic. We are not akin to right wing talk radio, where everyone thinks the same within a top down organization. The truth is the left netroots are quite diverse. Not only that, I think the Obama supporters who are fairly new to politics and started participating in the blogs in ’07 are less ideological than the original liberal blogosphere was. In short, the state of the netroots and the blogs is always in flux. And John Kerry is very popular NOW in places like DailyKos. But it took time after his loss, and the fact most on that site backed Dean or Clark during the primaries.
<
p>I only discovered blogs in October 2004. So I was not present during the Dean phenomenon. I liked Dean as DNC chairman, but not as a presidential candidate. I was not an activist until 2006, when I lived in Virginia, and volunteered for the Webb campaign. So, no, I have actually never worked or volunteered on a Kerry campaign. It did not occur to me until after that awful day in November 2004, that I should participate in the process instead of just voting. I think of Kerry’s campaign as being akin to the Goldwater defeat in ’64 for Republicans. It awakened a lot of us to the fact that we couldn’t just sit around and think things would change without getting involved. Kerry had the right ideas in 2004, and post 2004, he was courageous in pushing the agenda (while being mocked in the NYT and WP by other DC Democrats), especially the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Obama took Kerry’s agenda, tweaked it, and now as POTUS will implement it. I think it is regrettable that so few understand that this is what happened, so that is part of the reason why I write about Kerry. He deserves some credit for our victory this November.
<
p>There is nothing suspicious about what I do. It is all in your head. Anyone with a modem who is inspired by something can write. It does not have to be a conspiracy.
I don’t think the people you’re responding to are saying that there is anything suspicious about what you do. Sabutai and Ryan are very knowledgeable BMG regulars who comment on just about everything. We’re more talking about social context.
<
p>I’d amend Ryan’s comment about the blogosphere being “cynical”. I’d say “skeptical” is more accurate.
it was Ryan who repeatedly used the word “suspicions.”
Sorry
skeptical is a much better word. It actually means what I meant to say, unlike cynical. (/laughs at himself)
actually is helpful.
<
p>I hope you continue blogging about what you care about. You’re probably one of the more prominent Kerry bloggers across the nation, simply because of your sheer will on the subject. You’ve convinced this former skeptic, but I do hope you have patience with others as you meet them in the future – especially since the blogs are always a revolving door of new and old readers coming and going. A little disclaimer would help, like this, “Senator Kerry’s story and national run inspired me and I’ve been blogging about him from around the country ever since; I do not and have not worked for the Senator in any capacity.“
The fact that you see Kerry as a national figure, not necessarily as a man who is expected to represent and be solicitous of a certain state, probably causes the majority of disagreements you have with other folks at BMG such as myself. As a figure of some national presence from the Democratic Party, I’ve little grudge against him. Were Kerry the Senator from, say, Illinois or New Mexico, I’d be okay with him. It’s only as MY senator that I have serious problems.