Everyone knows that if you want to apply for a job rule #1 is to avoid typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes on your cover letter.
The plan Alan Khazei described Tuesday here on BMG to bring jobs to Massachusetts and the nation wouldn’t even make it to the Hiring Committee by that standard. One expects more of an impressive candidate for U.S. Senate than a collection of words — sentence gives it too much credit — like this in an official campaign policy statement:
For far too long people have been falsely led to believe that progressive values and policies that promote business growth are counterintuitive, my priority in the Senate will be putting people back to work, lowering the unemployment rate, and helping new businesses get off the ground.
I suspect that what the candidate, or whoever wrote this piece, is trying to say is not that the values and policies are counterintuitive, but that they are perceived to be at odds with each other. What connection this has with Khazei’s priorities in the Senate, however, is anyone’s guess from this jumble.
So much for word choice, grammar and meaning. Let’s move on to the mechanics.
at least he knows how to fill out a standard form.
In a previous post that included a copy of a letter to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technology, Chairman Karen Spilka’s name was misspelled twice. JimC pointed this out and a correction was made. Since I am neither a good typist nor a good proofreader, it may not be appropriate for me to complain. But I am not running for Senate. I’m simply commenting on a blog.
<
p>Now I have to say that it looked like the Senator’s surname was misspelled on the original letter to the Committee. It would seem unlikely that the letter would have been correct and the post wrong. Does anyone have any further information on that?
So now we’re supposed to have perfect grammar on blogs? You don’t think there was a single grammatical error on one of Rubin or Patrick’s posts on this site?
<
p>Should I go through your book to check for some mistakes? You don’t think I’ll find a few? (It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but I’m sure I could find some.)
<
p>The lame-ness of this diary, Bob, is epic. This diary is a blogging fail.
<
p>If BMG is to stay credible, it’s editors should blog about issues that actually matter. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed in Massachusetts right now, Alan has a plan to help fix that. Why don’t you write about the contents of that post, rather than its (few) grammatical errors? Too afraid his ideas have merit — or too lazy to spend the necessary time to analyze and address them? I guess it’s just easier to complain about a misused word than write a post with real value.
<
p>Alan Khazei and his staff are not writing a resume, Bob, they’re running to win an office. The idea is not to have perfect grammar, but to reach as many voters as possible. In a campaign, there is no one single thing more important than time — not money and not even volunteers. Time is the only thing a campaign can’t get more of. It takes time (a lot of it, actually) to be grammatically perfect — time that can delay a posting from being relevant, or time that can take away from other relevant activities.
<
p>In this diary, Bob, not only have you been childish and petulant, not only have you failed to be the analytical editor the Bay State’s premier political blog deserves, but you managed to show a supreme lack of understanding of the campaign process. Boooo.
Blog posts, chats, quick comments are far different things.
<
p>I think it is a good thing to have high standards, especially for impressive candidates (the term I used to describe Khazei, and the way I think of him).
<
p>He should do better.
Maybe you should go front-page that diary about Martha Coakley flip flopping her position on NECN? Or post meaningful commentary about the merits of Khazei’s job proposal, instead of snide diatribes? Or how about joining up with a campaign and trying to discover what it’s all really about?
<
p>
<
p>Since when was Khazei’s blog post not a blog post? FAIL.
And while we are on campaign mistakes, did any one notice that Cap’s big psot the other nifht was first double copied in the same diary. Apparently trhey copied it into both top and bottom of the diary. I just happen to see it in the first couple of minutes, and decided not to be an A-hole and point it out, knowing that the dairy could be fixed, but my comment would ahve stayed.
<
p>Oh ya Bob. You right, no excuses. But my sense is you never worked on a campaign, especially 25 days out when your days are now pushing 18 hours a day, and everyday IS like 5 regular work days. If you did, I don’t think you would not have written this post.
that sent out a press release with Alan’s name spelled wrong, twice. I will find the globe story when I have some time.
<
p>Not a big deal and mistakes do happen from time to time. If a candidate and a campaign can’t handle the basics of communicating, how will they/
he or she handle the more complicated challenges a Senator will surely face? Sloppy on the simple does not speak well of the difficult.
<
p>I won’t give the campaign a fail, but it isn’t a particularly good sign.
<
p>
You can make all the excuses you want, but an official campaign statement riddled with laughable spelling mistakes and typing errors when things are coming down to the wire is a good example of a campaign that is not working well.
<
p>The campaigns that keep it together when the stress is greatest — see, Obama for America as a recent example — are often the ones that do the best.
How many of those campaigns were around in the age of blogging? What roll did you play? Were you ever the one deciding how best to spend a campaign’s time — and when you were, how successful were your campaigns?
<
p>I’m sorry, but your “I have worked on many campaigns” statement isn’t very credible, given your absurd opinion on campaign strategy here.
<
p>Blogs, even in this day and age, aren’t very high on the list in importance to campaigns — they’re just one way to reach voters. There isn’t the time for blogs to be perfect, least of all for campaigns. You yourself said it in a comment on this very thread!
<
p>
<
p>I’m sorry, but if Khazei spent days making his blog post here perfect, that would have taken far too much of his staff’s time away from actually reaching out to voters. Either it’s okay to be imperfect on blogs, or it isn’t. Either blogs are a quick exercise where speed is more important than perfection, or it isn’t.
<
p>And why is it Khazei who you’re holding to this absurd position, when I know I can find dozens of mistakes in the posts of other candidacies and campaigns?
<
p>Why do you care more about Khazei’s grammar than his job proposal — the actual content of his blog?
<
p>Why did you never write posts to bash Menino’s ability to communicate, given that you’ve decided to rank it as important as Howie Carr?
<
p>My advice to you, Bob, is to front-page a dozen posts right now and try to pretend this one didn’t happen and hope no one notices it tomorrow. It’s your only hope in sparing yourself even more egg on your face.
then just do it. It’s like you are pretending to be unbiased when you are not. It makes your posts difficult to take seriously. But that’s your choice.
Coakley had an actual reversal of policy that has been pointed out by many on this blog, and that did not make the front page, but Khazei has gramatical errors, and he gets a “Campaign Fail” post? I really think that is unfair. To be clear, I am not supporting Khazei and I still think this is over the top.
<
p>IMHO it is becoming apparent that you have chosen a candidate. I think you have every right to chose a candidate, and to advocate for your candidate on here (I am a big fan of choosing a side early in a race and fighting hard for your guy or gal to win). But as an editor, I feel you need to be up front about who you are supporting, because the assumption is that editors are unbias.
There is no assumption of unbiased editors here. Where did you get that impression. We all have lots of biases.
<
p>As to the piece you reference I personally hadn’t read it until just now. Maybe neither David or Charley had either. Having read it, it doesn’t seem to me to say much that is new, it’s just Coakley elaborating what she said before, more or less, so I didn’t promote it. It’s not like there has been any shortage of discussion here about the Stupak amendment.
<
p>Personally, I haven’t decided which Democratic candidate I support.
Did the Coakley campaign respond? Why is she now deciding not to answer the question? Do you think this reflects poorly on how she will serve? Why hasn’t her campaign engaged the BMG community?
<
p>Also, many of us wanted it front paged because of her complete inability to answer a question coherently. Something about a bridge or something.
<
p>I for one am looking for one or all of the editors to jump in.
and prejudice. You’ve displayed the latter.
Can you blame us for thinking something fishy is going on?
<
p>Capuano blasts an opponent for a position and when he then takes on part of that position himself, you yourself write a front page FAIL post.
<
p>Now we have an interview where Coakley seems to be backing off her position on the House vote because she didn’t know that there was a strategic reason for passing the flawed bill:
<
p>
<
p>Then when asked about how she’d vote in the Senate, she now not only refuses to answer the question, but is so flustered that she can’t put together a coherent sentence to explain herself:
<
p>
<
p>And you are saying a post about grammar and spelling is more important?
<
p>It’s not that hard. You can start with an edit of an earlier post:
<
p>
Maybe you should rethink that policy. Bias will hurt you in the long run. See sabutai’s comment below for one example. But more broadly, consider the various reputations that Reuters, the AP, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Drudge and WorldNetDaily enjoy. The reason for their various levels of reputation is left as a thought exercise for the reader.
<
p>If you earn a reputation for shilling for your candidate or needlessly slagging guys you don’t like, it will bite you hard. (NB: This applies even if you aren’t actually biased but happen to appear to be, as you claim is the case here.)
<
p>This isn’t the first time this has come up, and I’m surprised it keeps coming up, frankly.
about the candidates position on whether they’d pass healthcare reform with Stupak abortion access restrictions all week. Why stop now?
<
p>Capuano has said how he’d vote on a final bill but Coakley has not. Don’t stop now press for answers. This is the issue you and David pursued. It is current and a signature issue for BMG beating other political coverage to the punch.
<
p>Your decision to contintue to press for answers would signal your interest in the issue over your interest in one candidate instead of another.
Herein lies the inherent nature of blogging.
Next time somebody posts an appeal to contribute to the BMG PAC, I’m probably going to think of this post, and yes the Editors’ refusal to acknowledge Martha Coakley’s political failure on Stupak. I’m not donating money toward the ongoing battle against campaign website tyops.
Blogging is a lot like being in 8th grade: some days you want to tackle the weighty issues of the day and other days you just want to color.
<
p>That said, I find the editors’ posture in this campaign seriously inconsistent. Historically, I’ve found the site to be well balanced and appropriately focused. This race, however, has revealed a nitpicking prissiness and an overt unwillingness to offer balance that is puzzling. I’m willing to donate to a PAC that forwards solid Democratic principles and candidates, not a PAC that stacks the deck so overtly and then dithers when called on it.
<
p>BMG’s editors’ unwillingness to publicly deal with Martha Coakley’s silence is so not cool. And the bizarre treatment of Khazei on the front page is simply childish. Presumably this site is supposed to grow more mature, not less, with each passing election. No further bucks from me, either.
There’s a good chance I’ll fork over to BMG PAC once I see where my money’s going to go. I like the Editors, but stuff like this does shake my ability to donate on blind faith. Heck, we all have light days (my most recent blogpost was on earworms) but I don’t want to take out my boredom on a campaign I don’t like. It’s starting to be reminiscent of Donna Brazile on CNN during the Democratic primary, claiming to be unbiased.
<
p>In any case, labeling anything a “grammar fail” — regardless of the Internet catchphrase de semaine — is self-parody.
A “grammar Fail” — forgot the wholly incorrect capitalization as well.
But what is your real itch with Khazei?
As someone who just ran a $17,000 campaign for Mayor of Boston I know that it was very important to us to make sure we spell checked and read over what we sent out. It constantly amazed us to have BMG and Universal Hub point out the spelling and grammatical errors of other candidates press releases. In this day of electronic word check, etc. it is barely excusable. I’m sure we made some, but we made a strong effort to be professional in this regard. (of course, I came in last so maybe good grammar does not make a good politician!)
<
p>I must admit I read Khazei’s blog post and wondered about the lapses. Not too impressive when he has over a million dollars in a campaign account. I initially was attracted to him as a candidate but I went out and spoke to him personally and spoke to his staff (and suggested they get on BMG more forcefully) and was not overly impressed with his position and knowledge on charter schools. I still haven’t made up my mind.
<
p>However, whether this deserves front page posting, when a snarky comment at the top of the bottom of his post might have been more in tune with the seriousness of his lapses.
<
p>Will Coakley not filling out a financial form properly be front paged?
Some of the errors appear to be a result of not reading what was written, and relying on spell check instead.
<
p>Wit/With
America/American
Tenants/Tenets
<
p>I agree that on material produced by the campaign there needs to be a standard of excellence. I thought Bob was fairly tolerant before he got to three strikes. I will say that I don’t think that a campaign should be paralyzed for fear of a mistake, but at least read over ONCE what has been written before sending it out. Even if you don’t have the luxury of a proofreader, read what was written, preferably aloud.
I agree with Bob, and had the same reaction when I read the post. One or two, OK, you can still reach base and it’s all forgotten that you had two strikes on you. But there were FIVE strikes here, two were just fouled off. “Tenants” was right over the plate, called out looking.
<
p>But maybe he was trying to endear himself with bloggers, saying “I’m one of you, I don’t have proofreaders and a big staff of handlers and image makers.” But it’s not about making spelling mistakes, Alan, it’s about making fun of lightiris and Christopher’s utter ridiculousness, sparring with CMD, learning from stomv, making fun of Ryan, etc.