First thoughts on “Greater Boston”

It was with a heavy heart that I watched my homies from BTP getting mercilessly destroyed on Kos, Crooks & Liars, and elsewhere. I felt like someone was making fun of my sister or something: “hey, I can make fun of my sister, but not you!.” Looks pretty cut and dry: John screwed this one up royally. He’ll learn from it, and live to see another day. I didn’t see the show mentioned, but I will say this: besides Dan, there has always seemed to be sort of a sneering attitude about blogs among panelists on the show–you know, the “pajamas in their mother’s basement” meme everybody uses. Emily Rooney can barely disguise her contempt for them (she strikes me as the type who would have trouble working a TV remote–from 20 years ago), and the rest just chortle away whenever someone gets in a dig at a blogger as Not One of Them. It’s just a general attitude. Besides Dan, of course. I love the show, don’t get me wrong. And I usually enjoy what John Carroll has to say about things, of course. But I can just predict the discussion on Friday–there’ll be an admission they were wrong, but they’ll cling to a general point that some bloggers don’t disclose their relationship with parties, pat themselves on the back about being right about that, and then get some more digs in at “bloggers” with the old standbyes. They will surely chortle at the over-the-top “blogswarm” that made too much of BTP’s small error, and they’ll have great fun. I do love the show, though–seriously.

Nobody comes off well here. Slighted bloggers overreact, too quick to form a lynch mob. You moved our comments! Ethics! Standards! Please, unwind your uptight selves. Take a walk outside. Look at the night sky, and consider your significance. Keep this in perspective. Maybe just maybe, John deserves to live. His pieces are pithy and quick–too quick in this case. They always seemed half a joke anyway, more to make a funny score than real reporting. In this case careless indeed though, and he got well whacked. Exposes that nobody does enough prep for the show. Maybe cause they figure only 20 (or was it 19?) people are watching. But John’s an upright guy I think and will admit his mistake. He’ll apologize then we can move on. Everybody screws up. He has plenty of other useful and amusing thoughts, worth listening to.The blogging version of accountability is the transparency, and the feedback provided by ahem, comments. (Recall my ancient complaint–anyone? anyone?, that a blog without comments is not a blog.)Obviously none of the BTP regulars besides Dan spends hours and hours staring at computers all week like noble bloggers do, so are out of touch hypocrites!I’m an old fan of the show but lately they come across as the same bunch of old farts week after week. I used to not miss a week but now it’s more of a yawn. Sciacca is no Mark J, who was a big loss. The show has gotten lazy and tired. This may be a good time to shake up the format. Bring some new blood in–keep (fallible) John and Dan. Callie doesn’t have much to say I’m afraid. Get some regular bloggers in addition to Dan, or any other alternative media people in there. Think of other ways to loosen the format up. Move the chairs around. Something. And don’t you dare move this comment! Or it’ll show just what of standards you have!

People’s integrity was impinged on a story that would have been averted were it not for an amature mistake. I agree with the above in that “John screwed this one up royally.” While I admire Dan’s respect for his colleague, I’m not so sure he deserves the benefit of the doubt because I feel the amateur nature of the mistake coupled with the fact that this went to attacking specific people’s character makes this particularly egregious. I could understand a mistake like this on a story that didn’t have so much potential fallout, but when people’s integrity are at issue one damn well better make sure of facts if one asserts the mantle of professional journalist, never mind a teacher of potential journalists.I hope to see more acknowledgment on Friday that the Greater Boston panel gets that what was wrong here was not just the factual error but the damage caused by John’s mistake. I think the fallout might not be that bad given that Jerome’s regular readers already know what the read deal here was. But I can’t help and wonder how many potential new blog readers will now avoid the medium altogether. Bloggers live and die by their reputation and that is why this kind of attack, when unwarranted, is so potentially damaging.I must say that I was disappointed in Emily Rooney’s correction on Monday in that she acknowledges the factual error, but made no apology for the maligning that it lead to. It is as if the big dig managers apologized for the ceiling engineering error but made now mention of the poor woman that died. Not that this is as serious, but the situation is analogous.Not mentioning the character assassination that resulted from the error is indicative that they don’t know what was wrong about what was done. It was more than mere technical wrongdoing.

My favorite readers are the ones who claim that BMG is “unreadable,” yet clearly read everything that gets posted there, like Mr./Ms. “Anonymous.” And as far as my deleting posts: I defy you or anyone else to produce a single instance of my deleting a post because the author didn’t agree with me. You can’t, because it has never happened. If that were my practice, I would have deleted just about every post on the gay marriage debate, since 90% of BMG’s readers disagreed with my position. So criticize if you like, but don’t make shit up.Also, Dan, (1) “notably unflustered” about undisclosed blogging for dollars? See, the thing is, I spoke against astroturfing in the interview — but those parts of the interview weren’t used. (2) I’m surprised that you’re so willing to excuse Carroll for screwing up the Jerome Armstrong thing. Calling someone a fraud is serious business. Even if you think on first glance that it’s the defrauder himself making a confession, wouldn’t standard journalistic practice (I’m just a blogger here, so I’m admittedly on thin ice when it comes to “journalism”) be at least to make sure that the “confession” was real and not part of some elaborate satirical hoax? I mean, people don’t go around publicly confessing to fraud every day.

Dan,In your comment about John’s percieved lack of the need for verification. The question in my mind is this: Given the fact that at a minimum the post he read could be read as sarcasm and that the story he was about to do would allege corruption, potentially harming the subject, should John have known better than to merely give it the cursory glance. (I find it hard to swallow that a more than cursory glance would not have at least put doubts in John’s mind about a literal reading of the post)When you are about to knowingly do potential harm I would hope that there would be a default rule of going over it again just to make sure.

John made a mistake. “Greater Boston” has issued a correction. Unfortunately, I do think it’s a characteristic of some bloggers — and, David, you’re heading in that direction — to be entirely unable to let go and take “yes” for an answer.

“It is as if the big dig managers apologized for the ceiling engineering error but made now mention of the woman that died.”Is it?Is it REALLY?Three words: Get. A. Grip.

Dan, you seem to be making the same mistake John Carroll did in acting as if the New York Times Op-Ed was completely accurate fact, and running with it from there. Op-Eds are not free from misrepresentation or inaccuracies, and Jerome Armstrong, at the top of the Times Chart (and quoted in the article) has pointed out in an update to the satirical blog entry you cite significant inaccuracies in the table that accompanied the Op-Ed. Armstrong took a hiatus from blogging while working for Brown and Warner, except to promote his book (co-authored with Moulitsas), Crashing the Gates.There is no attempt to distinguish which of these bloggers, if any, have actually done something unethical, in failing to reveal their campaign connections. It does happen: John Thune employed two undercover bloggers to aid him in his successful bid to unseat Tom Daschle in 2004. But are any of these bloggers guilty of taking money and then doing some astroturfing for particular candidates? If they are, I’d like to know about. Patrick Hynes, the only one cited for criticism, was working the Republican side of the fence. All the others in the chart, with one minor exception, are Democratic bloggers; given that K. Daniel Glover works for the National Review, I doubt that imbalance is accidental.What I have seen on blogs is a high level of disclosure. I read a number of blog posts by Tim Tagaris during the recent campaign, both on the official Ned Lamont campaign blog (his job), and also in posts at other blogs (also his job, and all his posts had the proper disclaimer noting his connection to the Lamont campaign). The quote in the chart from Peter Daou is significant in that he wrote it in the post where he announced that he was accepting a position with Senator Clinton. Another blogger, Jesse Taylor, stopped writing for and transferred the ownership of his blog, Pandagon, when he was hired by Ted Strickland to run the Strickland for Governor blog.I strongly suggest that before “Beat the Press” discusses bloggers again this Friday, the program does some original research of its own to find out just what it is bloggers are doing. I suspect they will find that bloggers, on the whole, are admirable, above-board, ethical people. And when they do, I trust they will make this their primary point, not the few exceptions. Or you could even “beat” the questionable Times Op-Ed, highlighted so prominently last Friday. If BtP hadn’t placed its trust in the Times, you folks wouldn’t be facing an unpleasant several minutes this week.

Dan,You point out one factual error Joe makes. But I wonder what you think about this:Joe notes “irony” in somebody in the comments demanding a correction in a post that is, in fact, a correction. However, other commenters note that comments were taken out of a previous post and MOVED into the correction post when it was created.Isn’t it ironic how many factual errors people who talk about blogger credibility make?I appreciate you brought up the previous criticism of Joe. I hope you bring up this second one, so that he can correct the record once again.

I have another point, Dan.The reporter in question also accused bloggers of doing the same thing that happened with the White House and Armstrong Williams.What happened in that case was illegal — a case of “covert propaganda” according to the Government Accountability Office.This is the first CRIME that he implies bloggers committed.The second CRIME is due to the Jerome Armstrong stuff they have apologized for. Certainly posing as different people and filing fraudulent reports to the FEC would be a crime.So you have a reporter making accusations that multiple crimes were committed by bloggers. And then you wonder why they’re upset by saying, well, they should be MORE upset about blogger ethics?They were accused of crimes. OF COURSE they’re going to be upset. You should too. It should bother you that people were wrongly dragged through the mud.And you know what? When you say “some” of them are on the take and don’t say who, that’s unfair.That would like that “some” reporters are on the take, naming only Armstrong Williams, and then using that to discredit ALL reporters.Can you at least name one liberal blogger who didn’t disclose? There’s one conservative blogger mentioned in the NY Times piece as not disclosing until other bloggers called him out and held him accountable.But when you said “some” didn’t disclose (which is plural), were you aware of more than one? Which 2+ were you aware of not disclosing when you hit publish?Or did you rush to judgement, as well?Remember something: you have power. You have power to destroy the credibility of others. Bloggers were wrongly accused of crimes. You should be defending them, not your colleagues.

Dear “Anonymous,” You’re wrong, AGAIN. Do I have to do EVERYTHING for you? From the Globe, 2/23/05: “at an October 2002 campaign debate, [Romney] said: ‘Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union.’ Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: ‘But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage.'”And again: “‘Faced with a choice of civil unions or gay marriage, I’ll take civil unions anytime,’ Romney said. ‘But that doesn’t make me a supporter of civil unions. . . . My statement in South Carolina is absolutely accurate.'”If someone tells me that I have a choice between being shot in the head and shot in the leg, I’ll pick the leg every time. Doesn’t mean I’m in favor of being shot in the leg. That’s how I read Romney’s statements, and I’m happy to believe him (for once). So I stand by what I said earlier: I don’t think he’s ever backed civil unions. And I don’t particularly care which limited rights he was willing to countenance for gay couples, so I didn’t bother to look it up, since it wasn’t germane to the argument.So: silly and santimonious? Take a look in the mirror, my anonymous friend. (Hmm – do anonymous people have reflections?)

How was he supposed to verify that they were real people, anyway? Look them up in the phone book? Email them and demand to see them in person, right now? John Carroll and Emily Rooney and Dan Kennedy I know are real people, but are Mr Lynne and David real people, or perhaps they are both “Jerome Armstrong” person, whom I’ve never seen in person. They could also be people pretending to be real people, like my MySpace friends Paul Pierce, James Dean, and Jesus. The possibility of readers being manipulated by blogger’s alter-ego sock puppets is unique to blogs and undermines their credibility. Also, I think writers being paid by campaigns to keep opining about politics is unique to blogs and also undermines their credibility.

“The bloggers seem to be notably unflustered about Carroll’s larger point, which is that some of them (not BMG) are on the take from political campaigns, and some of them don’t bother to disclose that.”You’re kidding, right? The liberal blogophere has been up in arms about the John Carroll piece for precisely this reason (well, second only to the delicious irony of a *journalism* professor messing up such basic things as reading comprehension and fact-checking). The point is this: the liberal bloggers who have joined campaigns either recused themselves from blogging or posted disclaimers while doing so. Conservative bloggers, OTOH, such as the notorious Thune supporters, have *not* disclosed their affiliations. See: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/10/0431/8706and (for the definitive smackdown):http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116587697644679749

My name is John Carroll and I’m here to report that anonymous has been taking money from Mit Romney to promote his agenda on various blogs without dislcosing it.Having said that I wonder if it would be responsible for another journalist to repeat that after having read it here. hmmm.

How was he supposed to verify that they were real people, anyway?Um … Google the names in question. You’d quickly find (especially if you did a Google image search) thousands of citations of the guys’ names, including appearances on CNN, CSPAN, and other national networks. That would take maybe two minutes, probably less, before you saw your mistake.And, no Dan, the general point isn’t a valid one. In fact, while the Jerome thing is bad (slanderous, really), the big problem bloggers have is with the overall point. Liberal bloggers are NOT on the take. The whole presumption of the piece–that the fees those liberal bloggers took were a form of payola to get them to write positively about the candidates–was completely untrue. The liberal bloggers took funds to act as communications workers/consultants for the campaigns, no different from a columnist taking a leave or quitting his/her job to act as a press aide for a candidate, and probably less shady than a pundit like Paul Begala advising a campaign. The Carroll piece was completely wrong in a general sense beyond the Armstrong screw-up.It’s that mistake that Beat the Press needs to come to grips with and own up to. They have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the story, and when you have no expertise, it’s incumbent on you to do the basic research on the subject before trying to discuss it. They failed in that basic function of journalism.

I echo what Zil said.I think the entire story… even without the mistake of taking obvious satire as real fact… is just wrong, wrong, wrong. It is based on a hit piece by Danny Glover which was full of distortions and out and out inaccuracies. And all of this has been discussed extensively in the blogs that are the subjects of accusations in that article, and in many others, if you would bother to look rather than pontificate on that which you know little about.

You miss the point(s) entirely.To begin with, excusing Carroll for being fooled by the satire, as if it were a minor but understandable mistake: umm, it would’ve been obvious to him if he’d done no more than merely read the comments on that very post. That he didn’t even do that much shows more than unacceptable sloppiness, it shows that he wanted to believe in this so much that he didn’t want to find that it wasn’t true.Now, what’s the “larger point”? Does he actually have any evidence at all that secret pay is common in the mainstream political blog world? It’s never happened on the major liberal blogs he and the NY Times are trying to implicate (dailykos, mydd, etc – never). In fact they’ve only turned up one real example. They miss a few sleazy conservative bloggers but other than some ham-handed attempts at anonymous commenting, even that’s pretty rare (Thune bloggers in the campaign against Daschle).Now, I can think of five prominent cases of print journalists/columnists who were being paid to bias their view and did not disclose it. So it seems to me this problem is bigger on the print side than the blog side.The common factor in both cases is that the overall community doesn’t tolerate it. That’s more true on the blog side than on the print side.And that brings is to the real “larger point”, which you’ve totally missed. These pundits talk about accountability as if it’s a blog problem, while they themselves are telling a false story, demonstrating it with false “facts” and no actual evidence whatsoever, and what sort of accountability is there for them? None from the print & TV journalists. All the “accountability” is coming from the blogs.You should be embarassed. Or at least have the decency to drop it rather than continuing to dig the hole.

This is what I hope gets addressed in Friday’s BTP:- Carroll’s botched reporting re: Armstrong (which should be handled with a quick “I blew it” apology and retraction)- A real analysis of Glover’s NY Times op-ed – which bloggers are disclosing their ties and which are not- a discussion of “accountability” in opinion journalism, from op-eds to roundtables to blogs (why is Jerome Armstrong different from Paul Begala or James Carville or Dan Payne or …?)- and if credibility is the bottom line, why does any opinion show feature Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer any more (just to name a couple), having been constantly wrong about almost everything for the past 4 years at least?What I expect to hear, though, is Emily Rooney and John Carroll lamenting about how cruel the commentary on the internet has been to them this week. I would tell them “that’s accountability, deal with it”.

Steve’s right… the odds of the bloggers getting a fair shake in a mainstream media broadcast are very low indeed.Sure, they will correct the one error that made them look like complete idiots. But I doubt they will address the other errors that they have made… nor will they admit, as they should, that virtually everything they said about bloggers was wrong!

David,anon10:13 hereDamn, but you’re arrogant. In reality, Mitt did support civil unions as an alternative to Goodrich. If you’d done any digging at all, you would have found that. Your accepting him at face value is precisely why BMG is irrelevant.Maybe when you see Deval you can engage him in an intellectual discussion of the benefits of slavery. I’m sure he’ll take it just as well as the gay people you drove off of BMG with your “let the people vote” obsession.

I certainly hope that Dan takes the above input regarding “the larger issue” to heart before Friday, because that is the most important part of this. I would also like to think that the GB folks will read these comments as well. Emily in particular, and John as her side-kick, have long been hostile to issue-blogging, doubtless because they realize that it is a threat to their relevancy. I used to be a regular GB viewer but have found better sources for timely insights and analysis–on line. However, this is a golden opportunity for the BtP panel to open their minds, learn how the blog world operates, learn about the actual ethics of the prominent liberal bloggers, and perhaps think creatively about how they can make Greater Boston relevant again–and maybe even bring back a few viewers who have wandered off. Like myself. But at least I’ll be watching Friday. 🙂

“…doubtless because they realize that it is a threat to their relevancy.”Yes, doubtless! Assume as negative a motivation as possible, for that is the most likely.If they don’t address my list of demands, then they have failed in their duty as journalists!And, the point isn’t to get the “right words” out of someone–it’s to get at the “substance”.This is so true. Let’s be done with the pretense then shall we, and get these tools off to the re-education camp where they belong.Confess your crimes! And it is not enough to merely recite them–you must mean it. Repentance must come from within, and we will be the judges of your sincerity. Acknowledge your irrelevance and cluelessness. Puppets of the imperialist MSM hegemon, bow to us, the keepers of the New Order! Grovel before our righteous presence, running dogs, that we, at our whim, may spare you!

One wonders if Neil (posting at 6:25 PM) agrees with Mr. Kennedy that Mr. Carroll’s “larger point … is that some of them [bloggers] (not BMG) are on the take from political campaigns, and some of them don’t bother to disclose that.”For, if Mr. Kennedy is correct, then the accuracy of Mr. Carroll’s larger point should be the focus of the panel discussion. There have been many assertions in the blogosphere (including several comments in this thread) that Carroll’s reporting was simply wrong. Or, does Neil believe that a segment entitled “Beat the Press” should, in fact, ignore the controversy about the accuracy of Mr. Carroll’s reporting.

as an average schmoe deeply confused by this internecine kerfuffle, i have a simple request: could someone pls create a WatchBlog site that offers a factual list of bloggers who take $, those who dont, those who have in the past but no longer do so, those who have recused while taking $$ and then returned to blogging, etc. … that way when i read a blog i can check the history of the blogger and her or his contributors and know in what cases $$ has come into play … ? this would be far more useful than a big poopfight. on another matter, i dont see how a blog’s endorsement of a candidate is diff. than that of a newspaper … was joe sciacca’s herald an extension of the healey campaign …? it sure read like one.

In particular, let’s look at the time stamps of the post and the first few comments:Clearing Things Up by Jonathan Singer, Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:19:10 PM GMT”…The reason why may shock you: Chris, Matt and Jonathan do not exist, despite any previous claims. He got me. We’re all the same person. I (Jerome) have been writing under these aliases the entire time I have been working on other campaigns.”Comments(first comment)It figures that an NRO flack would mention all Dem bloggers except McCain and Allen. Just another case of whiny bitches who are pissed because they got their asses handed to them this election. This election shows the reason why state houses are so important.by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:32:21 PM GMT (second comment)Are you serious? Is this a confession of blatant wrongdoing or are you intentionally exaggerating what appears to be a serious transgression of blogging ethics?Roberto in Utahby reder01 on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 06:58:43 PM GMT (reply to second comment)He’s joking. We all exist.And you’re seriously not paying attention if you think that what Glover wrote about amounts to “a serious transgression of blogging ethics.”by Scott Shields on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:17:08 PM GMT So, figuring out that this was a joke post wasn’t all that hard. The truth is right there in the third comment following the post.

Hi Dan. I linked to this thread in the comments to my Penance Friday post that you didn’t like. Good luck with the grading.