Senate Candidate Nipped by Blogging
Update: Welcome, WBAL Listeners. Thanks for visiting. I have written a post specifically for you, should you choose to explore more.
I want to switch over to politics for a minute here. I have made an attempt not to blog about politics. However, the story of Maryland Senate candidate Ben Cardin being zapped by the revelation that one of his staffers maintained an internal blog which paints his campaign in a very bad light applies to the topic of new media and blogging that I cover here.
The story came from Wizbang which reveals that one of Cardin’s staffers maintained Persuasionatrix (archived by Wizbang, thanks! The original has been taken down), a blog which offers an enlightening look into the campaign of Cardin. Stories of “old Jewish men” groping and an obsession with Oreo cookies (referring to a story when black Republican opponent Michael Steele was greeted at an event by hecklers tossing Oreo cookies on the stage) makes the Cardin campaign look a bit less than wholesome.
A local reporter emailed me asking, “Doesn’t the Cardin incident point to the dangers of blogging? Will we be seeing more and more such controversies as more people blog?”
The answer to this question lies in questions of my own. Doesn’t all freedom of speech carry some liability with it? Are the “dangers of blogging” dangerous to Cardin or to the public? If the sentiments present in Persuasionatrix are an accurate microcosm of an entire Senatorial campaign, and by proxy the candidate himself, is the public served by having such a window into the campaign before he is elected? Does such transparency, albeit unintentional, help prevent what could turn out to be a public relations nightmare?
The answers in a more general sense go back to what blogging is. It’s conversation. It’s exchange of ideas. It’s grassroots. Persuasionatrix should expect such conversation regarding the content of the blog because the audience, whether intended or not, is the public.
But this also speaks to the idea that corporations, businesses and in this case, a political campaign will want to control information. The Constitution does prohibit the government from “abridging the freedom of speech”, but this is not the government. This is a private organization.
In the age of blogs, is it possible to maintain a strict control of the flow of information? Probably not.
So to answer the question, yes there is an inherent danger in blogging. Companies have grappled with this for a long time. In this case, the blogger was fired from the campaign staff. This is probably appropriate. However, there will never be a complete control of information and the sooner campaigns realize that the public desires and even requires transparency, then the sooner they will realize how to shape the use of blogs. The Cardin Campaign made a mistake in assuming the internals of the campaign would remain internal. That never happens in this day. Instead, the Cardin campaign should have worked to build an environment that fosters transparency. If the pictures we see at Persuasionatrix are accurate, shame on the Cardin campaign for 1) having such an environment and 2) assuming it would nev er be discovered. This is 2006.
I think as time goes on and the power of the blog becomes more realized, we will see more incidents of transparency, sometimes to the detriment of companies and politicians. However, smart companies and politicians will recognize the danger, and instead choose to harness the power and foster an atmosphere of openness.
Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.
Written by Aaron Brazell on September 17, 2006
Popularity: 1% [?]
Aaron Brazell
Steven Fisher
Ray Capece
Carlos Granier-Phelps
Andrew Feinberg
Mike Dougherty
Chris Bachmann
Leslie Poston
Jerald Sheets
Scott Goldblatt
Mykel Nahorniak
Peter Corbett
Jonathan Dingman
Geoff Livingston
Jeremy Toeman
Rachel James
Chris Parandian
Warren Sukernek
Joseph Hauckes
Shana Glickfield
Vinnie Garcia
David Nick
Duncan Riley
Carol Ott
Darren McLaughlin
Mike Oliver
Rico Masterson
Lou P. Nuts
Feel free to send that reporter my way and I’ll straighten him out. :)
My contact. ;)
Oh, all right.
The danger of transparency in politics is that politicians might be forced to start being honest. At least while people are watching.
Feel free to send that reporter my way and I’ll straighten him out. :)
My contact. ;)
Oh, all right.
The danger of transparency in politics is that politicians might be forced to start being honest. At least while people are watching.
I think that blogging is alot like normal conversation except broadcasted to anyone that may come across your blog. If someone wants to make you look bad they can regardless. Just wanted to say thanks for contributing to the Group Writing Project and let you know that you can access my Project at http://www.dipnoi.org/archives/category/salvation/
I think that blogging is alot like normal conversation except broadcasted to anyone that may come across your blog. If someone wants to make you look bad they can regardless. Just wanted to say thanks for contributing to the Group Writing Project and let you know that you can access my Project at http://www.dipnoi.org/archives/category/salvation/
I disagree Aaron, the danger is not in the blogging but in the message. The blogger was dooced because the blogger was being truthful. If any company or campaign for that matter fears what people might find out about them through a blog, it’s time to change that fear and use it as feedback. Change the action do not fire the leak.
I hit submit too quick. After reading the entries in her blog, they could justify the firing for stupidity reasons alone.
I disagree Aaron, the danger is not in the blogging but in the message. The blogger was dooced because the blogger was being truthful. If any company or campaign for that matter fears what people might find out about them through a blog, it’s time to change that fear and use it as feedback. Change the action do not fire the leak.
I hit submit too quick. After reading the entries in her blog, they could justify the firing for stupidity reasons alone.
Why would a person serving the people in a public job be afraid of the truth?
Ok…that was a stupid question.
The incorrect premise you have there, Roy, is that they are serving the public. In fact, I’d be willing to bet they are really serving their own interests. But then, I’m a cynic.
Cynicism and sarcasm have no place in a discussion about politics.
Why would a person serving the people in a public job be afraid of the truth?
Ok…that was a stupid question.
The incorrect premise you have there, Roy, is that they are serving the public. In fact, I’d be willing to bet they are really serving their own interests. But then, I’m a cynic.
Cynicism and sarcasm have no place in a discussion about politics.