In the thread discussing BMG’s endorsement in the Senate race, dcsohl raised an interesting question. He asks about the appropriateness of the endorsement process.
I read it just before I left to volunteer for Mike Capuano. Notice how I cleverly mentioned my own candidate’s name, while carefully avoiding the name of their endorsed candidate. But I digress. I’ve been thinking about it since and decided to write some thoughts down.
My first thought was, “Hey, they’re the Editors; they endorse like editors everywhere – the way they feel like!.” As David indicated at the time, “Process?? We don’t need no stinkin’ process!.
At the time I thought it was a perfectly reasonable approach. I even gave David a 6 way back when. It’s the same attitude that I have with my rare endorsement in the Democratic Dispatch. At a newspaper the editors make the decision and attempt to influence readers. It’s a reasonable approach if you think of BlueMassGroup as the on-line equivalent of a newspaper.
But, I would postulate that it is not the case. Whether it was the Editors intention or not we have become a community. If you create something, you don’t necessarily own it. Do you remember “New Coke?” It was a bust and gradually disappeared. I heard an analysis at the time. It went like this. “Coca Cola Corporation thought they ‘owned’ Coke. The bottlers thought they ‘owned’ Coke. It turned out that they were both wrong. The American public ‘owns’ Coke.”
If it is a community, and I do say if, what would that mean for an endorsement process? Someone mentioned that the Editors make a clear distinction that it is their endorsement and not that of the group. Does that change things? It does go back to the question of how much do endorsements matter? While, I freely admit that an endorsement by someone I know and trust influences me, I do not recall ever being influenced by a newspaper endorsement.
As I write this, I think that what might be driving my thoughts is the implication that “BlueMassGroup” made the endorsement. I consider myself to be an active part of BMG and I have a differing opinion; many other people who are active on BMG have different opinions. Maybe this is why there has been more attention to this issue that in the past.
Is this more navel gazing? I was curious if any MSM picked up on the endorsement and how it was characterized? I did a quick google and I saw that Michael Forbes Wilcox had picked it up an very clearly made the distinction that it was an “editors endorsement.”
While I’ve been writing this, Bob has been covering the President’s position on Afghanistan. I’ve been navel gazing.
Disjointed as some of my thoughts may be, I’m curious as to other’s reactions.
Kate
It thought it was made pretty clear during the discussion of the BMG PAC that the Editors owned the BMG site and would control the PAC. David said:
<
p>
<
p>Now while that post helped my decide not to contribute any of my limited funds to this PAC, the process cited above is a perfectly valid governance structure which I celebrated later with this little parody of Leonard Cohen’s famous ditty.
<
p>
<
p>In short, I am grateful that this site was created by our Editors, I do consider myself a part of the community and read the Editors “official” endorsements carefully, and weigh them equally with the opinions of the other informed smart and savvy contributors to this site. Even Peter’s.
The endorsement was very prominently displayed on the candidate’s website. The polls and the commentary seem to indicate that Capuano has the bulk of the BMG following, so the editors’ endorsement doesn’t seem to reflect the membership.
<
p>I think this endorsement shows why the BMG PAC is a bad idea – not bad in the sense of evil, but bad in the sense of “why bother?” Seems like a better idea to send money and work for the candidates you love, rather than leave your money n the hands of the editors’ whims.
The polls and the commentary seem to indicate that Mike Capuano has the support of those who respond to polls and comment on BMG. That is very different from “the BMG following”.
<
p>Bob pointed this out in this comment from yesterday:
<
p>BMG is a community, as Kate points out. It, like virtually every online community, is a community with a handful of speakers and a multitude of listeners. It is also a community hosted by three individuals who take on enormous personal and financial burden by creating and maintaining it. I may disagree with their endorsement, but I fully support the appropriateness of their decision.
<
p>I also, by the way, share your feelings about the BMG PAC and therefore have not contributed to it.
Three of the thousands of people on this blog decided to endorse Alan Khazei. That’s fine. MFW and Ryan have been meticulous in saying that the editors endorsed Khazei, rather than “BMG”. It’s a shame in their Twitter account, the editors were less careful and accurate, saying that “BMG” had endorsed Khazei. I am sure that will be corrected soon.
<
p>If candidates and/or campaigns make the decision to misrepresent this endorsement, however, that is mainly on them, and I am sure the editors would attempt to correct those candidates’ attempts to misrepresent the situation.
I think that much of this could be cleared up by some semantic clarity in endorsements.
<
p>The editors can endorse whomever they want in the name of the PAC, but absent a vote of the members (which, IMHO, could defeat BMG’s purpose as a community blog), the site should stay neutral during contested primaries.
<
p>People can contribute – or not – to the PAC, based upon personal inclinations. An endorsement on behalf of the site, however is pure spin, and counterproductive spin insofar as the larger community here is concerned.
<
p>A personal observation: Khazei’s candidacy (like Pagliuca’s) is no more than a well-funded vanity campaign, drawing enough anti-Coakley votes to probably ensure her victory. As in the Boston Mayoral cycle, the core Yoonesque constituency currently supporting Khazei repels many rank and file voters, limiting outreach and turnout.
Last night in Ward 19 (JP-Roslindale), Capuano got 19 votes to 3 for Coakley and 1 for Khazei. Mike got the support of people who supported Menino, Flaherty and Yoon in the mayor’s race. The same was true for our neighbors in Ward 11. Among his many good traits, Mike has managed to bring back together those of us who were on different sides a month ago, a nice present for this holiday season, and something that people really felt good about last night. (Note: He does represent most of 19 and all of 11)
<
p>Nice also to see the Yvonne Abraham and Joanna Weiss pieces in the Globe today. Someone has mentioned the lack of women on the Globe ed board, well, two female columnists spoke out today and they did so for Mike Capuano. Interesting.
Endorses another congressman. The congressman then has the governor’s wife (in lieu of the governor) endorse said candidate, the LG then endorses said candidate, as his “daddy” tells him to, the new mayor-elect then falls into lockstep as his “daddies” tell him to. This why the machine needs to be broken down.
This is why Scott Brown should be our next Senator. Everyone likes him.
…can I have a say in your Capuano endorsement? If I write an endorsement, should I seek input from BMGer’s as to who I should endorse?
<
p>By virtue of starting the site, B,C,D are at the top of the BMG hierarchy, but by the virtue of this medium, it’s more like a hump than a top-down hierarchy in which the opinions of the editors can be drowned out by the rest of the community.
<
p>I could see this being an issue if “the editors” started to wield their “influence” in arbitrary ways. But for the most part (we are all human) they have encouraged and participated in diverse discussions, often playing the devil’s advocate to flesh out issues. And given the tough treatment they’ve given Khazei over his jobs claims, they have demonstrated their evenhandedness and when/if that changes…BMG loses it’s appeal and B,C, D fail.
<
p>As for the PAC issue, when you give your money to a PAC, you lose control of that money. If they want the PAC to raise lots money and have the kind of influence they want, they will have to insure donors feel their money is being well spent and should have a diverse board (or advisory board) that will help make political investments.
<
p>Yes, we are a community. But does the community have the “right” to impact the decisions of individuals (or the mini collective called “the editors”)? Now after writing that, I’m going over to RMG and bash Ayn Rand.
For someone who doesn’t make the distinction among the Editors, the contributors and the followers of this site, any endorsement from BMG probably doesn’t mean much anyway.
<
p>Unless it’s for your candidate. đŸ˜‰
I kept rewriting the words I wanted to say. I was trying to use your comparison, but it never came out right. So I’ll try just being short and sweet.
<
p>While we are a community, we are a community built around a group of people who created this blog to say something. We, as the consumers, have the right to reject what they say (just as we did with “New Coke”).
<
p>While that does say what I’m thinking, it still doesn’t. This was something very interesting to think about. Thanks Kate.
As I was writing this, I was trying to articulate what I was thinking. BTW, I agree with the PAC and how to spend money, but the blog itself is somehow different to me. I’m glad you found it interesting. Kate
…that we’re all welcome to take a flying fuck if we disagree with the the rules, structure, etc. Which is to say, WE may think this a community. Bob appears to look at us as easily replaceable unpaid contributors.
It would be nice if the editors considered in good faith the opinions of the regular contributers, but I wouldn’t formalize it too much. Ultimately it’s their call.
numbers (4000) to make their endorsement stand for more than the words on the page. They’ve earned it.
<
p>I’d just like them to label it unambiguously so, BMG EDITORS’ endorsemnt out of respect for what may be three-quarters of the readership who disagree with their pick.
maybe there should be an account called the contributors?
Splitting BMG into those who contribute money and those who do not is a prescription for destroying what BMG is now.
<
p>The reason why reputable publishers separate the editorial and news departments from the advertising department is to avoid just this conflict.
<
p>I think the editors are doing just fine. If some of us want to contribute to the BMG PAC, that’s fine — and I sincerely hope that the editors continue to exercise great energy in scrupulously separating the two entities.
people who contribute to conversation and posts not money
“Never mind” đŸ™‚