New rules: no more hair-trigger blogging on our side
It’s all over the place. I’ve done it myself, and should have known better. You see a report that Hillary or Barack or Bill said this, or a Hillary or Barack campaign spokesperson, or “surrogate” or “operative,” said that, and you don’t like the way it sounds, especially with respect to the person you prefer as the Democratic candidate, and you fire off, if you’re a blogger, an outraged post, or if a reader, a nasty comment saying how this is just another example of how disgusting the other candidate is. And so it goes.
We need Progressive Blogosphere rules against hair-trigger posting:
Rule No. 1: If it seems to be saying something really bad about either of the candidates, stop before you blog. It is probably, at minimum, a short set of words pulled way, way, way out of context. Whether it’s Michelle Obama saying, in the heat of battle (and just before saying that, of course, she would support the nominee, whoever it is), she would “have to think about” actively campaigning for Clinton; or Bill Clinton supposedly playing “the race card” with, in defense of his wife’s candidacy despite a stinging loss (and in response to an extremely snarky question), a reference to a previous candidate who won in South Carolina but did not win the nomination (but who happened to be black); or Obama supposedly playing “the gender card” by saying Clinton fights back hard when she “gets down,” stop – and stop again, and at least one more time, and take a breath until you’ve calmed down. Remind yourself that these are both great candidates. Clinton in particular has been the target of 15 years of mostly vicious narratives, such as the one that she’s “ruthless.” I think they are both honorable candidates who are trying to run a primary campaign to be No. 1, but at the same time are trying to do it in a way that does not pull down the party for the general election but focuses on actual differentiation such as it is. That’s not easy, especially where you have a media that is easily bored and is too uneducated in substantive matters to care about policy. It’s natural for the campaigns to get mad at each other, too, when they hear so-and-so said X, and it’s impossible to control hundreds of thousands of ad hoc supporters. The campaign workers should follow these rules, too. Rule 1 again: stop and look before you leap.
Rule 2: Before you say anything about what the other candidate supposedly said, Google it and find the whole statement and the context. Find out if the report is deliberately manufactured to generate controversy by pulling it out of context or by attributing to one of the candidates something that someone supposedly “in” the campaign said that most likely was not approved by the candidate (and may very well be expressly disavowed by the candidate). And remember that one of the foregoing is virtually a 100% likelihood.
In particular, when it's some phrasing on an issue that seems not to be progressive enough, or to fly in the face of our general perceptions about the candidate, check out the candidate's web site statement on the issue first before flying off the handle. That's what the candidate has committed to formally. Memo to Paul Krugman: yeah, we love you, but this means you, too. Obama shares the objective of universal coverage, but his experts tell him he can get there without a so-called "mandate" that presents "Harry & Louise" political concerns in a short campaign. His experts -- whose credentials are every bit as impressive as those of Hillary's experts, and on healthcare policy a lot more impressive than yours -- may or may not be right about that, but the high dudgeon is out of place. I don't expect my candidate to be a healthcare policy guru. I expect him or her to share the objective that everyone will be covered. We can argue about the means when the bill is being readied for presentation to Congress.
Rule 3: Google some more, and see if you can find the sequence from its first appearance anywhere to major media story. Did the reporter get his or her information from Drudge, or from a right-wing blog? There's a good chances you will be able to get a handle on this if you are thorough.
Rule 4: Direct your now-justified anger against the reporter for making up nonsense out of whole cloth, instead of the other candidate who at worst, in possibly the 17th stump speech of the day, may have phrased something in other than the most felicitous manner. Especially if you find the reporter is channeling nonsense from Drudge or a right-wing blog, try to get others in the legitimate blogosphere – i.e., bloggers and readers not in the right-wing blogosphere – to likewise teach a lesson to the offending reporter.
No more hair-trigger blogging!
We need Progressive Blogosphere rules against hair-trigger posting:
Rule No. 1: If it seems to be saying something really bad about either of the candidates, stop before you blog. It is probably, at minimum, a short set of words pulled way, way, way out of context. Whether it’s Michelle Obama saying, in the heat of battle (and just before saying that, of course, she would support the nominee, whoever it is), she would “have to think about” actively campaigning for Clinton; or Bill Clinton supposedly playing “the race card” with, in defense of his wife’s candidacy despite a stinging loss (and in response to an extremely snarky question), a reference to a previous candidate who won in South Carolina but did not win the nomination (but who happened to be black); or Obama supposedly playing “the gender card” by saying Clinton fights back hard when she “gets down,” stop – and stop again, and at least one more time, and take a breath until you’ve calmed down. Remind yourself that these are both great candidates. Clinton in particular has been the target of 15 years of mostly vicious narratives, such as the one that she’s “ruthless.” I think they are both honorable candidates who are trying to run a primary campaign to be No. 1, but at the same time are trying to do it in a way that does not pull down the party for the general election but focuses on actual differentiation such as it is. That’s not easy, especially where you have a media that is easily bored and is too uneducated in substantive matters to care about policy. It’s natural for the campaigns to get mad at each other, too, when they hear so-and-so said X, and it’s impossible to control hundreds of thousands of ad hoc supporters. The campaign workers should follow these rules, too. Rule 1 again: stop and look before you leap.
Rule 2: Before you say anything about what the other candidate supposedly said, Google it and find the whole statement and the context. Find out if the report is deliberately manufactured to generate controversy by pulling it out of context or by attributing to one of the candidates something that someone supposedly “in” the campaign said that most likely was not approved by the candidate (and may very well be expressly disavowed by the candidate). And remember that one of the foregoing is virtually a 100% likelihood.
In particular, when it's some phrasing on an issue that seems not to be progressive enough, or to fly in the face of our general perceptions about the candidate, check out the candidate's web site statement on the issue first before flying off the handle. That's what the candidate has committed to formally. Memo to Paul Krugman: yeah, we love you, but this means you, too. Obama shares the objective of universal coverage, but his experts tell him he can get there without a so-called "mandate" that presents "Harry & Louise" political concerns in a short campaign. His experts -- whose credentials are every bit as impressive as those of Hillary's experts, and on healthcare policy a lot more impressive than yours -- may or may not be right about that, but the high dudgeon is out of place. I don't expect my candidate to be a healthcare policy guru. I expect him or her to share the objective that everyone will be covered. We can argue about the means when the bill is being readied for presentation to Congress.
Rule 3: Google some more, and see if you can find the sequence from its first appearance anywhere to major media story. Did the reporter get his or her information from Drudge, or from a right-wing blog? There's a good chances you will be able to get a handle on this if you are thorough.
Rule 4: Direct your now-justified anger against the reporter for making up nonsense out of whole cloth, instead of the other candidate who at worst, in possibly the 17th stump speech of the day, may have phrased something in other than the most felicitous manner. Especially if you find the reporter is channeling nonsense from Drudge or a right-wing blog, try to get others in the legitimate blogosphere – i.e., bloggers and readers not in the right-wing blogosphere – to likewise teach a lesson to the offending reporter.
No more hair-trigger blogging!
posted by KISSWeb | 10:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home