techPresident - Web2.0 - Comments

Coverage by Democrats for Democrats

Patrick Ruffini — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:07:26 -0400

But I don't think they have to strive for some kind of objective, mythical balance in their coverage. I thought we all finally agreed to admit that everyone brings their biases to their writing and the solution is to be open and trust readers to be intelligent enough to factor that in.

Here, here. I'm there when it comes to being transparent about biases.

But here's the thing. It would be one thing if liberal OffTheBus correspondents went to Republican events and trashed them. I could deal with that. But they aren't even trying to go off the beaten path. It's coverage for the Democratic cocoon.

OffTheBus supporters like Jay Rosen, you and others have presented it as a bi-partisan or multi-partisan (but not non-partisan) solution to campaign coverage. When we raised this issue the first time, they said we shouldn't worry because it's an open platform. Well, the actual work product so far vindicates those concerns. I don't think that Zack et al. have purposely shut out conservatives, but the presence of three liberals and zero conservatives at the helm (not to mention Arianna's sponsorship) sends a pretty clear signal to would-be conservative contributors.

Regarding the Fox non-debate

Micah L. Sifry — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:05:05 -0400

For what it's worth, I didn't agree with the Democratic boycott of the Fox debate. Democratic candidates and spokespeople still go on Fox all the time, and the way to combat bad speech is with more good speech, not less.

As for Marc Cooper, I think he's going to be pretty even-handed in his coverage of both sides. He's an independent thinker, not a "pundit on the left" who puts "ideology above partisanship."

To be sure, as Patrick points out with his snapshot of what stories Off the Bus is headlining at the moment, it doesn't look all that even-handed. But I don't think they have to strive for some kind of objective, mythical balance in their coverage. I thought we all finally agreed to admit that everyone brings their biases to their writing and the solution is to be open and trust readers to be intelligent enough to factor that in.

We can all agree on this one

cfinnie — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:18:54 -0400

I have to agree with the commenters who said that, while there's no harm in taking questions from your ideological opposite, to subject yourself to getting pounded by somebody who will never even listen to what you have to say is dumb. It's why Democrats urged our candidates not to go on FAUX Noise.

I think it's unfortunate that we can have more civil debates, more real questions, and more real answers. I hate the attack-dog atmosphere in our media and our political sphere.

I also think it's a mistake to equate all Democrats with liberals and all Republicans (as David All did in a recent post when he used the terms interchangeably) with conservatives. I know several Republicans who have quit the party because they feel it's gone too far to the right, and more than a few Democrats who are about to do the same--and for the same reason.

Arianna Huffington was a Republican for years. I was a registered Libertarian. Now we're both Democrats. I can't speak for Arianna, but I don't think the extreme polarization we're seeing in politics is good for our country.

OffTheBus's headlines this morning...

Patrick Ruffini — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:11:25 -0400

OfftheBus is about breaking from the pack mentality and horserace narrative that drives most mainstream (center, left and right) coverage of our interminable presidential election, and about tapping citizen journalists to help tell a broader story about the race. It's way too early to stamp it as a "liberal" stalking horse, IMHO.

Their headlines at this writing:

Marc Cooper: Labor Pains for John Edwards

To Campaign or Not to Campaign - Florida's Latest Controversy (about the Fla. Dem primary)

Prez Candidates Off Key on New Orleans (mentions one Republican, Tancredo, and Big Three Dems)

ActBlue - Putting The "D" Back in Democracy

Zogby Quietly Praises Obama, Richardson

Pushing the Bounds of Etiquette at an Obama Rally

What's in a Word Anyway? (about the Dem field)

Evangelical, and for Obama

From the Obama Grassroots: House Party Saturday

The Old and New Clinton Clash Again

Iowa: Romney Tries Campaigning by Committee (OK... the ONE headline about a Republican)

Iowa: Former Iowa Democratic Party Chair Endorses Obama

Nevada: On Dennis Kucinich's Nevada Visit Last Week

California: No Dirty Tricks -The Movie (from the left leaning Courage Campaign)

Fox News debate?

David All — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:33:16 -0400

Frankly, I would have a lot of respect for a candidate who sat down for an interview with an ideological opposite. I can't quite see why that is so threatening. Maybe it doesn't make much sense during a primary contest, but independents can vote in lots of state primaries, don't forget.

Whatever happened to that Dem Fox News debate? Oh yeah, now I remember.

________________________________________
David All
http://davidallgroup.com
http://techRepublican.com
http://slatecard.com
________________________________________

Opponent-sponsored debates

williambeutler — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:30:36 -0400

Micah, I tend to agree with your general sentiment -- a strong candidate should be comfortable answering questions from a political opponent. But Patrick is merely describing the reality. Campaigns don't go out of their way to collaborate with their critics, and this shouldn't be a surprise.

Moreover, I don't recall that you had any comment on the canceled Democratic debate that was to be on Fox News. (I searched Google, and couldn't find anything either.) If the Dems hadn't bugged out on that one -- according to the demands of online activists, no less -- I think you'd have a stronger case. Now it's tit-for-tat, which gives Republican candidates all the cover they need to send their condolences.

Oh, and I think Marc Cooper is an interesting writer, but just saying he is "hardly a liberal" is incomplete. He is certainly a lefty, albeit an iconoclast. Clinton faced criticism not just from Republicans, but from pundits on the left who put ideology above partisanship.

Blog P.I. - Putting the blogosphere under a magnifying glass.

The Republican debate isn't happening

Tex MacRae — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:53:46 -0400

The Republican debate isn't happening because the Huffington Post and Slate are Yahoo's chief co-sponsors.

Who told you that?

BTW, do you guys like Ron Paul's new fundraising thermometer (kinda like Dean's bat only cooler)? It went live at 5PM ET yesterday and it already shows over $152,000 raised. Not bad. I don't think any other candidate is doing anything like it, are they?

I don't get it

Micah L. Sifry — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:01:02 -0400

Patrick:

Are you saying that presidential candidates should only take questions from people who like them, or people who are ostensibly neutral?

Frankly, I would have a lot of respect for a candidate who sat down for an interview with an ideological opposite. I can't quite see why that is so threatening. Maybe it doesn't make much sense during a primary contest, but independents can vote in lots of state primaries, don't forget.

As for the Yahoo/HuffPo/Slate mashup thing (it's not really a debate by the way), why the fear of Bill Maher? Because he likes Ron Paul? Republicans go on the Daily Show, why not take a few questions from Bill Maher?

Lastly, and on a personal note, I should say that I am close friends with Marc Cooper, the new editor of OfftheBus, and he's hardly a liberal. Not many liberals called on Bill Clinton to resign in 1998, to give you just one example of Marc's independence of thinking.

I know we live in a highly polarized time, but I'd like to think that we judge these kinds of political/journalistic projects by what they do. OfftheBus is about breaking from the pack mentality and horserace narrative that drives most mainstream (center, left and right) coverage of our interminable presidential election, and about tapping citizen journalists to help tell a broader story about the race. It's way too early to stamp it as a "liberal" stalking horse, IMHO.

I second that Patrick

David All — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:53:51 -0400

Good post Patrick, and I agree.

I urged Yahoo! to wake up and smell the conservative roses back in April, and even had some stats to back it up.

No balance. No debate. Period.

________________________________________
David All
http://davidallgroup.com
http://techRepublican.com
http://slatecard.com
________________________________________

A Web 2.0/Silicon Valley Conspiracy?

Luigi Montanez — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:35:42 -0400

I appreciate all the links you provide throughout the post, but where are the links which show that Yahoo didn't invite any conservative sites to participate, or that they flat out didn't accept them? At the end you posit that HuffPo was "muscling conservatives out of the picture". Really? I'd love to see the sources documenting that.

Great post, Patrick

Micah L. Sifry — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:44:57 -0400

I think you sum up the current state of play pretty well. As Andrew and I wrote for the Politico a week ago:

The presidential campaigns just aren’t giving their supporters, or the wider public, very much to do or talk about. Yes, most of the campaigns are embracing the bells and whistles of the social Web.

Every presidential candidate has a blog and a presence on the major social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook. Many of them have created platforms where their supporters can create their own mini-campaign on the candidate’s behalf, with tools for raising money, organizing events and writing their own blog posts.

But if you look for bottom-up dynamism on these sites — the kind that gave the Howard Dean campaign its energy in 2003 — you won’t find it. The official campaign blogs are written by the equivalent of digital press secretaries.

While the blog posts written by grass-roots supporters may show some spontaneity and genuine passion, all the campaigns — even Obama’s, which has the largest base of grass-roots supporters — keep those tightly under wraps.

None of the campaign websites devote consistent space on their home pages to independent efforts on the candidate’s behalf; every inch of their online real estate is devoted to pushing their message, as opposed to trusting others to spread that for them.

It’s obviously still early to draw final conclusions about the Net and the 2008 presidential campaign. But the way things are going right now, it looks as though the whole field — not just the Republicans — has retreated from the high-water mark of bold online politicking set by Dean last cycle.

They’re all playing it safe, using the new tools of the Web at a fraction of their real capacity.

As for what Tex says about the Ron Paul movement, I think he's got a point too. Whether you agree with Paul or not, it's clear that he's putting forward a set of ideas that stand apart from the Republican pack, and that are galvanizing an activist base. From that energy flows action and innovation (though most of what the Paul-ites are doing is making good use of the existing tools of the social web, like Meetup and YouTube and the social network hubs, as opposed to innovating). Maybe the evident lack of energy on and around the sites of the major candidates has more to do with their failure to ignite passionate supporters around a unifying message, than the degree of control the campaigns are exercising through their web-based efforts.

I have mixed thoughts on this.

Freedomfighter — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:07:03 -0400

I have mixed thoughts on this. I hope the bloggers here will chime on this posting. The fact is Dean was boosted as an activist movement and his website reflects that. Activists are more geared to promoting ideas or representing a group of people as opposed to candidate campaigns which focus more on donors and voters in specific time frame. Activists do not require a time frame. Candidate campaigns, however, focus on specific time frames and must target specific groups. The approach is automatically going to be different.

Patrick is right about the political use of the internet seems to have slipped but that is because things have not really geared up yet. See the following link to an animation from American Solutions which will have big event next week.

http://americansolutions.advomation.com/animation/

An example of a donor site is Club for Growth which has all the activity he desires in a website, but it really does not draw a lot of traffic.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org

Activists groups, such as the following, thrive on attention and issues and are not constrained by donors or candidates.

http://www.veteransformedicalmarijuana.org/

http://www.downsizedc.org/

http://www.mpp.org/

… then there is Rush Limbaugh who downplays the internet, but uses it quite well on his site below. He effectively uses the internet. You can find statistics on how many listeners he has but the big question is how many pay to listen to him over the internet?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Innovation

Tex MacRae — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:52 -0400

You're a smart guy, Patrick, but as long as you persist in misunderstanding the nature of internet innovation, we're just going to run right over you "web 2.0" strategists. You're looking up at some stodgy old suited fatcats and their corporate campaign staffs and wondering why they don't innovate? It's absurdly funny and a little pathetic.

People innovate when they see an unfulfilled need. Now, you, as a war supporting neocon, aren't going to like this - but the need that Dean fulfilled was for a candidate willing to speak out against the war. That's what drew people in swarms to Dean. He was the only one willing to even feebly represent that voiceless and ignored constituency which was vilified and marginalized in their own country. Of course, he was a fatally flawed vessel for their hopes and he imploded under the pressure.

Now, we have Ron Paul. Don't you wish someone would make a video like this about Rudy or Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy--JHgYIw

You won't admit it, but you do. I've seen you guys try to coopt the Revolution language that RP supporters made their own. David All signs his emails "Revolution." You write lame posts about "The summer it started to happen" all the while looking up instead of out, where ideas galvanize real people to action. Innovation is the same whether it's done on the web to reclaim freedom or to invent a way to light a dark room. It's a response to an unfulfilled need. When enough people band together to advance their ideas, you have a "revolution." It has nothing to do with stupid Jumpcut websites millionaires graciously allow the peasants to use in their behalf, or pretty icons on a website. Look to Thomas Paine, pamphleteer for freedom or Paul Revere yelling from horseback.

Regardless of the communication medium - and that's what the web is, a means of communication - true revolutionaries have a real message. It's the message that matters, not the medium. When your candidates can deliver a real message enough people care about, people will innovate in their behalf.

In the meantime, go back to looking up. We have a revolution to fight.

Maybe 2008 isn't the cycle for innovating

Luigi Montanez — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:13:41 -0400

I agree with your premise that there just isn't much innovation this cycle, but maybe that's just fine. The rapid innovation and adoption of new technologies that occurred from 2003 to 2006 was staggering. Maybe 2008 is about clamping down best practices, refining strategies, and using the technology out there in the most effective way. Innovation always happens in waves after all.

I noticed that you just couldn't resist the petty cheap shot against Howard Dean in there. I'll try to be the better partisan, so here's to hoping that your side innovates this cycle by becoming a bunch of Republican Preditors.

Leftmost Bit