Salon today has a piece by Joan Walsh that looks at the tension in the blogosphere between the bloggers who see themselves as independent journalists (like yours truly) and those who view themselves as activists or political operatives.
The piece is tied to blog-generated controversies connected to stories run by Salon on Barack Obama and John Edwards.
The short version is this: Salon must be backing Hillary Clinton in the presidential race because of its recent coverage of Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Salon ran three pieces on Obama recently, tough pieces that looked at different elements of Obama’s past and raise questions that are now part of the mainstream debate about Obama (about an early Congressional race and what it says about him, and two that touched on issues of race and identity). Obama’s supporters in the blogosphere saw the pieces as hit jobs and have been responding in what they think is a like manner.
As for the Edwards story — his hiring, then firing, then rehiring a pair of feminist bloggers who have said some controversial things (bloggers say controversial things? Really?) — it was pretty straightforward.
The problem, however, is that the liberal blogosphere, as Walsh calls it, closed ranks.
We weren’t the only people who had solid information that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan had been told they were leaving the Edwards campaign. But if any bloggers knew, they didn’t report it. The bloggers closed ranks around the Edwards campaign, some even claiming that Salon had gotten the story wrong. There were suggestions, in Salon letter threads as well as in blogger-to-blogger whispers — it was loud; we could hear you! — that we’d peddled misinformation, or perhaps been peddled it, to help Hillary Clinton.
The Edwards tempest raises a series of questions about what blogs are and what role they will and should play as the media moves into the 21st century. Are we looking at a new media paradigm that mirrors the 19th century partisan media in which papers were house organs for candidates and political parties, with blogs shilling for candidates? Are blogs going to be independent media and political watchdogs? Can they be both?
My sense is that there is room for both approaches out there. My goal is to use the Channel Surfing blog — along with the Blog of South Brunswick and The Cranbury Press Blog — to bring more immediate commentary on local issues to readers. I have a set of generally liberal (lefty, progressive, populist — pick an adjective) beliefs, but I make it a point to remain unaligned.
Walsh thinks there is room for both, as well, but there needs to be a greater level of transparency. When is a blogger shilling and when is the same blogger acting independently? In the case of the Edwards story, it appeared as if liberal bloggers were more concerned with protecting their own, with closing ranks, as Walsh said.
This closing of ranks was a bit disturbing — and perhaps as important a story as the right wing’s attacks on the bloggers in the first place. The attacks were absurd and designed to do what right-wing attacks are always designed to do: control debate. Edwards now had to defend himself against a bogus charge of anti-Catholic bias.
Standing up to the attacks was important, but the way in which the blogosphere responded may have done as much to damage its general credibility as the sometimes wacky commentary strewn across cyberspace.
Maybe I’m the one who’s naive, but the whole episode made me wonder: What does it mean if liberal bloggers aren’t warriors for the truth, but rather for candidates? What does it mean for media, and what does it mean for politics? Why did either John Edwards or Amanda Marcotte enter their relationship so seemingly unready for what was likely to happen (assuming anyone in the Edwards camp had read Pandagon)? Either Marcotte would blunt her commentary, and lose the constituency Edwards was attempting to court, or else she’d alienate a whole lot of other people, and Edwards would spend the whole campaign defending her. That was clear to me from the start, and I’m not that smart. Why did anyone assume otherwise?
What did Edwards think he was getting? And what about Marcotte? Lefty bloggers congratulate themselves on being less compromised and corrupted than fancy MSM reporters; on creating a new independent realm of punditry and reporting. Do a lot of them really aspire to flack for a candidate, as well? Of course there are liberal bloggers who seem mainly about independent journalism — Glenn Greenwald, now with Salon, comes to mind, as does Joshua Micah Marshall’s Talking Points Memo and Firedoglake’s coverage of Plamegate — and aren’t looking to hook up with candidates. But others seem comfortable blurring the lines between independent commentary and partisan kingmaking. And while it’s true that journalists have historically gone off to work for politicians, they don’t keep their writing job when they go on the other payroll. Plus, their colleagues and competitors in other media organizations don’t see themselves as having a stake in the former journalist’s new political perch, and thus don’t tend to cheer them on, or look away from exposing problems that might emerge with their new employer.
Meanwhile, what do blog readers think they’re getting? Bloggers are all about transparency, and to be fair, Kos, Armstrong, Bowers and others at MyDD have been “transparent” about their work for candidates (and so was Salon about Peter Daou’s political ties, though when he formally joined the Clinton presidential campaign, we had to separate). But what about other bloggers who haven’t hung out a shingle; should readers assume their résumés are with Obama and Vilsack and Richardson? Are they for sale to the highest bidder? Or, to put it in a better light, to the candidate they decide is best for America?
This seems to be the danger. I am a regular contributor to BlueJersey — primarily because I am sympathetic to its generally progressive approach to politics. That said, some of its contributors align themselves too closely to the Democratic Party. I avoid those posts and only comment on policy issues and debates, staying away from local-, county- and state-level discussions of candidates (I have no qualms about discussions of national candidates). It is a difficult line to walk, but I’m comfortable for now with my approach.
My job is to use this blog and my others as an extension of the papers I edit and to share my views as openly as possible. When I find that blogging interferes with my independence as a journalist, then I’ll stop blogging.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
Hank Kalet 