It’s election time (yet again) and here come the candidates hoping to get the attention and support of BMGers. No problem with that. BMG is a blog spot where individuals express their views for others to see and comment on…At BMG you don’t need to use your real street name, just your own opinions. That’s all to the good.
Here’s the problem. When a candidate posts on BMG under their own name, I assume the candidate WROTE the posting…at least the name they used surely wants us to believe that they wrote it. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case…the postings have been done by committee staffers or consultants as part of a broad social media/web strategy to be implemented by the committee. Candidates, especially in high viz races, would not have the time to sit at a desk composing long policy tomes or campaign event info for posting…that’s what consultants and their staffs get paid to do.
SO MAY I SUGGEST: Indicate on each BMG posting by a specific candidate that the post was either staff or candidate or consultant generated. OR allow the username to be more appropriately: “Candidate X Committee” rather than letting them post under candidate’s name and giving a false impression to readers.
I love Elizabeth Warren, but she did not write her own BMG posts anymore than the latest crop of gubernatorial,congressional and other candidates are doing. TRANSPARENCY IN CAMPAIGNING IS BETTER.
Once in office responses to constituent letters are also drafted by staff, but signed with the official’s name. I don’t see posting under the candidate’s name as any less honest than that practice which applies to snail-mail as well.
If a candidate posts on BMG and expresses opinions, written by them under their own name that is their authentic voice. If a candidate hires someone to write postings and put them up on BMG under the candidates name, it may reflect the candidates opinions as the staffer knows them, but it is not the candidates authentic voice. It is a ghost written posting improperly designated to the candidate.
If the candidate’s committee wants to post something about their boss, fine, no problem if it is designated as the committee. (And NOT written in the familiar and folksy first person.)
…how that is any different from what officials do all the time via snail mail. If you wrote a letter about an issue to Senator Warren, you will in all likelyhood get a letter in response, and assuming the office isn’t completely lazy it will even specifically address the issue you wrote about. It was drafted by a legislative correspondent, proofread and approved by a legislative assistant and then “signed” (probably with autopen) with EW’s name. If you are on campaign mailing lists you probably get fundraising letters signed with the candidate’s name all the time, yet I doubt especially incumbents write their own appeals. In the world of oral communication there are speechwriters and press secretaries as well. Are you suggesting there should be a higher standard for BMG and if so why?
When people get in office, it is expected that the staff does correspondence, case work, assistance with speeches and writing legislation. But during the election period, I do not think it outrageous to request that when a candidate claims to have authored a post, they should actually author the post…If there staff does it for them, fine, just make sure to put it in the third not first person.
Plus you don’t know for sure the candidates are not writing their posts.
We could even encourage the candidate to supply mp3 with that little snippet, that could be attached to a little badge on the post.
The marvels of technology.
and pseudonyms who do not disclose, than I am about who helped to write a signed statement.
The buck stops with the candidate in any case.
(And I’m not super concerned about the sock puppets either – they are easy to spot.)
just wondering.
When sock-puppets are done superbly well, nobody knows. When they’re done moderately well, the editors can probably tell.
Most plain users simply can’t tell, unless and until the organization or person running the sock-puppets blunders.
For example, in one blog I frequent, a particularly outspoken climate change denier wrote all about the weather he experienced in a specific city at a specific time. Two weeks later, the same apparent user carefully described a meeting he had in a far-away city at the same time. That’s a blunder.
Another frequent failure mode is when a user signed in as one persona will mistakenly post as another. This sometimes happens when a user will be logged in as two persona simultaneously, one each browser window, and then mistakenly focuses the wrong window. So somebody who is running both “Fred” and “Bob” will add a comment as “Bob” where he says “As I wrote previously, …” and then pastes in a comment that was submitted by “Fred”.
The web is full of sock-puppets, and I would actually be surprised if we didn’t have a few here.
The first blunder happens when a particular sock-puppet is being run by a committee or a team. This often happens during hot political times when a campaign organization wants a particular persona to have a high profile on a particular site, and therefore wants the persona to show activity virtually around the clock. That is accomplished by having the persona run in shifts by a team, usually with some back-channel scripts and messaging statements.
A sock puppet is not just a pseudonym (such as “trickle up”). Sock puppets pretend to be someone else.
They do not just conceal, they deceive.
As for me, my information has not changed much in the seven years I have been posting here. I daresay there are a few who have figured out my given name.
Most BMGers, no matter what they chose as usernames, are not asking me for my vote as they are not running for office…I don’t care if they call themselves Howdy Doody…but when a candidate comes here soliciting my support and my vote, I would like to know that their tomes are really their own. I have no problem with staff and consultants doing what they get paid for if it is properly labeled as such.
Yes, Markey and Warren are our Senators but their terms will be shaped as much — if not more — by their staffs than by them. It might seem as if you’ve voted for Markey or Warren but you’ve really voted for Team Markey or Team Warren. Or to take another example, one reason the McCain campaign did so badly in 2008 was that our favorite maverick was unable to assemble a very good staff.
Or in the current Congress: You may not have heard of David Krone or Mick Krieger but you can be assured lots of members of Congress have.
To expect that candidates for office in this busy, modern age are simple, authentic individuals pouring their deeply held convictions into their postings on Word Press is almost to imagine that we still inhabit the earlier, more agrarian period of our Republic’s founding. There are too many things to do for any of them to do everything.
kbusch: I actually do NOT expect busy, busy candidates to write their own posts on political websites! What I’m objecting to is when they pretend to be writing their own posts! I just want “truth in pontificating” here.
Also, If a candidate (as you say) needs to be “shaped as much-if not more- by their staffs”…I want a different candidate. I like candidates who think for themselves, have their own ideas and principles set solidly in place…their coat holders and staff and consultants can echo the candidate’s views and not the other way around.
I suggest you move back to 1810 instead and then you can have exactly what you want.
sorry, didn’t mean to downgrade that comment
It’s also odd to disagree and downrate. Maybe your answers were a few exclamations marks shy of your target level of vehemence?
I’ll apply your policy — to you!
I am not asking you to vote for me…THAT’s the difference. I know many candidates right here in the 21st century who can express their own views in writing in a concise way….and i know some who could never do that and need someone else to do it for them. I know some candidates who have definite opinions on many issues and can express same…and I know some who have no strong opinions on any issues and need a consultant or pollster to give them some. I prefer the former…but, unless postings are accurately labeled, how will I know the difference?
This seems like an emotional issue masquerading as a moral imperative — just like your cranky use of downratings.
I edit a lot of stuff various friends of mine write. I am often told that my re-writing better expresses their ideas than their original did. As should be obvious, writing is not my day job. There are lots of people better at that than I am. I’d expect any good candidate to hire one of them.
Any good candidate wants to do good in the world. A prerequisite is actually winning the election and so a test of that is how well the candidate picks people and delegates to them. Bad leaders are terrible at delegating. And to imagine one is best at everything involved in a modern political campaign is just plain foolish. So I’d say, instead, we would be disappointed if posts that appeared here didn’t reflect heavy staff involvement. I they didn’t, the candidate is a bozo.
But if I read you correctly, you think it utterly abhorrent for the candidate not to be a bozo.
*
You may also be underestimating the strenuous amount of fundraising that must be done by all candidates for public office. Have you any idea how much time actual candidates spend on the phone with donors? It’s astounding.
Should every campaign email written under the name of a candidate have the same disclosure? Or every press release that quotes the candidates (but written by the press person) have a disclosure? Silly. We are all big boys and girls around here and can figure out on our own who wrote what and who approved it.
What I worry about is paid consultants who shill for a candidate/politician without disclosing. I suspect that happened with Tim Murray, any thoughts on that?
I have received many emails from many candidates committees. They are pretty clearly marked from the committee with logos and have paid for by/approved by designation. Similar to a radio or tv spot…the candidate must approve the content. Press releases also are from the committee and have “contact” name and phone number…rarely the candidates own name…and direct quotes from a candidate are clearly defined.
But, BMG is a BLOG. A place where individuals, not groups or groups of ghostwriters post opinions and comments… Many BMGers support one candidate or another and make their case for supporting them…that’s what a BLOG is for…BMGers support candidates without pretending to actually be the candidate. JMHO…and I’m stickin’ to it.
…both email and postal mail which put the candidate’s name where the signature goes and are written with references to the candidate in the first person. I suspect many BMGers do as well. They are clearly different in format from a press release or an ad. I actually prefer the personal sounding posts to the press release in a context such as BMG. This is the biggest much ado about nothing.