Furthermore, my article neither states nor implies that anyone, candidates or bloggers, is "corrupt" because of ties between the two. I don't believe that. Candidates have the right to pay for Internet advice, blogging, etc., and bloggers have a right to be paid for that work -- or to do it on a volunteer basis, if they so choose.
I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.
That's very nice. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how much Susan Haigh of the AP received for her work covering the election. BTW, her stuffed parrot caricature will be available at the party Wednesday in Norwalk.
or as Brad DeLong notes at Mydd:
Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?
Aldon, you sure don't strike me as a 'revolutionary'.
The New York Times names names, and Aldon made the list (as did Tim Tagaris, Jerome Armstrong and David Sirota):
Over the past few years, bloggers have won millions of fans by speaking truth to power - even the powers in their own parties - and presenting a fresh, outsider perspective. They are the pamphleteers of the 21st century, revolutionary "citizen journalists" motivated by personal idealism and an unwavering confidence that they can reform American politics.
Ned Lamont was one smart cookie to get these guys.
However, in an Op-Ed in Sunday's edition, writers K. Daniel Glover and Mike Essl can't seem to make up their minds if its a good idea that liberal bloggers get paid by political candidates. Guys, would David Brooks write for free? Imagine, please, Tom Friedman devoting a weekend to do volunteer political work. I don't THINK so.
They do mention that their list includes -
... some of the most INFLUENTIAL (my caps) bloggers who went to work for campaigns this year, what they were paid according to campaign disclosure documents, and praiseworthy posts about their employers or critical ones of their employers' opponents.
Go to the link,
and it shows a graphic with the bloggers, the candidates they supported, and amounts received.
"This intersection isn't going away," Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, an elite blogger hired by campaigns, wrote earlier this year, "and I hope more and more bloggers are able to work to influence how campaigns are run."
IF they had been hired as bloggers, these guys were upfront about it. However, perhaps you in the mainstream media have a serious reason to worry and are now dragging up names - and I don't think some of them actually 'blogged' for the campaigns. Nervous?
This diarist over at Kos calls it a "hit piece". A must read - Xaxnar is a much better writer then me.
Aside from a brief mention of "many bloggers on the right" the piece focuses almost exclusively on the left. It's a hit piece, pure and simple, full of straw men arguments and a lack of context. The short version is that Glover and Essl are pretty much saying that lefty bloggers have abandoned their ideals to sell out, and are now to be disregarded because they say what they say because they're getting paid to do it and are now among the 'insiders'.
Under the circumstances, it would be hard to imagine that the New York Times would even consider employing an op-ed writer who doesn't fully disclose that they might have a conflict of interest.
MLN is powered by 