website statistics

Archive for the 'Candidate Bloggers' Category

I Am a Stephen Colbert Expert (And So Can You!)

So I’m quoted in the Yeas and Nays column of today’s Washington Examiner, commenting on the blogospheric reaction to Stephen Colbert’s presidential campaign announcement… or should I say “campaign” announcement. Here was my takeaway:

“Blogs are attracted to shiny objects, and Colbert is nothing if not a shiny object,” Beutler said. “Even serious-minded bloggers can’t resist.”

I wish I had said “bloggers are attracted,” considering that blogs themselves are inanimate objects (heck, they’re not even objects) and incapable of being attracted to things without the help of a blogger… but I think the point gets across. Meantime, kudos to Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin for running my specific numbers:

[A]fter Colbert announced Oct. 16, he was mentioned on 0.09 percent of all blog posts (not just political blogs). Hillary Clinton had the same level of mentions during the same period, and Rudy Giuliani was mentioned on 0.08 percent of blogs. In terms of raw numbers, Beutler said, “In the three-day period surrounding his announcement (day of, morning after, and one more day) 748 different blog posts mentioned the phrases ‘Stephen Colbert’ and ‘president.’ If you run the same search for ‘Hillary Clinton’ without ‘president’ — since we assume any post about her is also about her candidacy — we get 727 posts. [So] even though our search string for Hillary was less stringent he actually scored more mentions than she did.”

The figures above are probably more in-depth than the average reader of gossip columns can handle, but then again this is Washington, where even the gossip is a bit wonkish (Drew Carey visits Reason Magazine!).

But for the purposes of Blog P.I., it’s not quite enough. The numbers above actually come from two different sources — the percentages come from the Icerocket Trend Tool and the raw numbers from Google Blogsearch — so no mathematical formula should feature both numbers. Keeping in mind that all of these tools are flawed, it’s my belief that when they show the same pattern, you’re onto something. And this is it:

Stephen Colbert, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani compared

Here are the Google figures for Colbert, Hillary and Rudy. And the figures for comparing Colbert’s announcement to the (more) legitimate candidates come from this February post.

I think that takes care of everything. What does this say about Colbert? Certainly, he is as relevant — and his satire as cutting — as when his late-night show spun off from Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” nearly two years ago. That’s pretty impressive, considering the essential gimmickiness of the program.

But will he remain as relevant past 2008, with President Bush out of office? That is, of course, assuming he doesn’t follow President Bush into office.

P.S. Not just the Facebook group that’s more popular than the Obama one that inspired it, but Stephen Colbert has more support (at least according to Rasmussen’s robots) than Ron Paul? Is Colbert Nation really fiercer than the “Google Ron Paul” set? I have my doubts, but the poll is amusing.

(FWIW: I’m with Fred.)

Bloggers for Sale?

National Journal’s K. Daniel Glover, who never gets too old for this, co-wrote an op-ed for the New York Times today on bloggers who work for campaigns (based on his own reporting, which I later extrapolated into an unwieldy series of charts), and the reaction from the blogosphere could probably be best described as extreme hostility.

On first read, I didn’t quite see what the problem was, but after reading through all the posts available at Memeorandum, I can see what they’re getting at — though the reaction is, to no great surprise, overly negative. The most controversial passage seems to be this one:

Few of these bloggers shut down their “independent” sites after signing on with campaigns, and while most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs, some — like Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits — did so only after being criticized by fellow bloggers.

Among the fiercest detractors are friends of bloggers who worked for campaigns and who did cease their independent blogging, but are not exempted from the mild criticism offered in the story. A good example is Amanda Marcotte, who took over Pandagon from Jesse Taylor when he signed up with Gov.-elect Ted Strickland:

Daniel Glover and Mike Essl are hinting around that a lot of bloggers have undisclosed conflicts of interest and forget to include an extremely important disclaimer about some of the bloggers on their handy little chart here. You know, the part where they clearly state that bloggers like Peter Daou and our own Jesse Taylor have no conflict of interest at all. Because they quit their blogs before starting their campaign jobs so there was no conflict of interest.

Here’s Scott Shields, in the comments at MyDD:

It’s pretty clear … that I was on payroll with the Menendez campaign. I haven’t looked at all of the other examples, but I’d be willing to bet that it was pretty much the same story all around — that full disclosure was offered. What, I wonder, is Glover’s point? That bloggers are “for sale”? … I consider myself an activist first and an ideologically-driven citizen journalist second. That’s just how I’ve defined my role. It’s something I think I’ve been pretty clear about. If I believe in a candidate, I’m willing to work for that candidate. If I don’t, then I’d take a pass. At no point would I ever fail to disclose my work for that candidate. [Note: The original quote here was Jonathan Singer’s which is quoted below. This has been replaced with a quote from Shields’ comment. My apologies to both.]

Conservatives who weighed in had a similar reaction, though they took it less personally. Alabama Liberation Front responded with snark:

I can be bought. I just want to make that clear. If everybody else is going to discard their bloggerly principles and go a-whorin’ after political money, I don’t want to be the last blogger virgin, sitting around drinking lemonade and waiting for the phone to ring.

And a contributor to Done With Mirrors was skeptical about the apparent premise of the op-ed:

Of course I would have a problem with a politician directly paying a journalist employed as such, disclosed or not. (I don’t want politicians paying off staff writers for major newspapers, for example.) But what these bloggers are being paid for isn’t journalism, not in my book. It isn’t even “citizenjournalism,” about which term and which concept, as they are used in the blogosphere generally, I harbor deep skepticism.

All together now: Tough crowd.

The only blogger explicitly criticized is Hynes, a Republican, yet most of the outcry comes from the left. Why? Guilt by association. That’s why I think that the article might not have received such harsh criticism had it not been paired with a chart placing bloggers’ quotes about their employers next to information about what they were paid.

But the chart was a production of the New York Times, with the numbers borrowed from Glover’s original piece and the quotes attributed to each blogger taken from… well, it doesn’t say. The chart seems to imply that there’s something shocking about the fact that a blogger paid to work for a campaign would have positive things to say about their candidate. But do these quotes come from the bloggers’ personal websites? From the official campaign blogs? Were they written before or after being hired? These are important things to know before passing judgment on the propriety of the statements quoted — but the insinuation that these comments are insincere is highly misleading.

Should Glover have refused the op-ed on this basis? Maybe, but I am quite sure I would not have. Perhaps another sentence or two noting a few of the subtleties that the bloggers are pointing out now might have quelled some of the outrage — but then again, perhaps not. Take for instance the ever-subtle Atrios, who carps:

I guess the blogger ethics standard is now if you’ve ever run a blog there’s something unseemly about actually working with politicains [sic], even years later.

No, that’s not what the article says. Not even close. Atrios’ response manages to be even more overbroad than the article quoted. I respect and like Jonathan Singer, who wrote the main response at MyDD today, but he too goes overboard (albeit with more wit and humor):

While Glover does note that some of “these bloggers shut down their ‘independent’ sites after signing on with campaigns” or that “most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs”, he fails to mention the fact that a number of the bloggers, like Jerome, largely recused themselves of writing during the course of their employment, farming out writing responsibilities to other bloggers like Chris, Matt and myself. 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. I also used to write under the name of Scott Shields until I got hired under that pseudonym by another campaign. Thought you met Matt, Chris or Jonathan at Yearly Kos or some other event? Most likely you met one of the young fellows I paid to play those roles. They’re just out of work, dime a dozen actors from Los Angeles. Anyone could have played them.

At the very least, this mini-kerfuffle highlights just how difficult it can be to generalize about the blogosphere within the constraints of the short op-ed format. And I should know — earlier in the year I wrote a newspaper op-ed (though for the Washington Examiner, nothing like the New York Times) and I was roundly trashed by some of the same bloggers — although I am envious of “Roger Ailes”‘ “K. Douchebag Glover” nickname; I got nothing quite so clever.

So I can certainly sympathize. Looking back on my piece (which unfortunately is no longer online), I got some things right and some things wrong. But if I could have linked to blog posts backing up my arguments, it would have been less controversial. I would imagine the same is true here. Glover’s experience today certainly reconfirms my conclusion that newspaper op-ed columns, with their limited space and lack of hypertext, are almost invariably a terrible place to comment on the blogosphere.

This seems to be what Glover implies in a comment posted at his own blog, in response to an angry reader:

The Times wanted me to focus on people who had their own blogs and then went to work for campaigns. My original piece also included people who were paid to blog for campaigns or advise them on Internet strategy but who weren’t independent bloggers beforehand. … 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 get that. But that wasn’t in the article. And with bloggers on a hair-trigger response to any criticism whatsoever, the NYT piece should have said exactly that. Glover and Essl didn’t say (or mean) what many bloggers believe they said — but they didn’t not say it, either.

P.S. Don’t miss the comments, where Danny Glover adds a bit more detail about how the article came together — and adds the important fact (you would think) that Essl’s contribution was limited to designing the chart itself.

Into Thin Air?

Air Congress Logo, Danny Glover, Kris Meister

At the risk of turning every other other post at Blog P.I. into an update of what former colleagues are up to, I’ll attempt to turn your attention now to the launch of a new site by Danny Glover (just promoted to editor of Tech Daily, coincidentally) which happens to have been designed by a former colleague from my present job, Kris Meister. They say Washington is a small town, and it’s true, assuming you mean just the NW quadrant.

In any case, the site is called Air Congress, and it’s the logical progression of Danny’s work keeping track of congressional (and other professional) blogs at Beltway Blogroll. He writes in the Air Congress inaugural post:

Much of the content here will come directly from lawmakers themselves — the video clips they post from floor debate, the podcasts they create on various topics and more as today’s high-tech innovations take root in government.

The site also will highlight audio and video content about federal policy from other sources, including the executive branch, trade associations, advocacy groups, government watchdogs, journalists and bloggers. Plus there are plans for original AirCongress content.

The last bit is reassuring, because the biggest risk in Air Congress’ strategy is that the audio-visual content emanating from Capitol Hill is often excruciatingly dull. As someone who subscribes to to every political podcast I can find, from Judd Gregg to Xavier Becerra and Arnold Schwarzenegger to Dave Freudenthal — but rarely listen to any one of them — I think I speak with some authority.

That’s why I figure Air Congress’ best bet for success is not so much in being a collector of legislative podcasts (though if thorougly indexed, that could be useful) but rather in acting as a guide to the best, worst and most noteworthy among them. As Chris Anderson would say, we need a better filter.

To that end, I have a vague sense that such a project would benefit mightily from an open rating and tagging system, elements of which are already in use at YouTube and Daily Kos, respectively. Short of that, only the most dedicated political junkie could pull off such a feat — but then again, there’s every reason to think Danny is just that political junkie.

I Am Jack’s YouTube Account

Where there is new media — or a new comedy show in the mass media — Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) is sure to be found. Now that Kingston is seeking the House GOP conference chairmanship, you can find him making his pitch on YouTube:

He’s in a crowded field, facing fellow Southerners Adam Putnam and Marsha Blackburn plus Southern Californian Dan Lungren, and because these things are won and lost behind closed doors (perhaps even doors slightly ajar, if one speaks softly enough) this online whistle-stop is little more than a stunt.

But so far it’s earned cautious praise from Robert Bluey at Human Events and gleeful derision from Alex Pareene at Wonkette — in other words, it’s working like a charm.

And how long has the congressman been a member of YouTube?

Jack Kingston's YouTube Account

Six months is none too shabby — that’s almost half the billion-dollar startup’s young life. (I’ve never met Kingston aide David All, but he must be worth the $6,500 Kingston let Mike Bouchard pay him in September.) Then again, as Senator-elect James Webb’s Facebook wrangler discovered last month, when it comes to social networking, politicians have to be warier of who links to them than most:

Racist Comment On Jack Kingston's YouTube Account

Whoops! Borat might be able to get away with saying things like that, but for Rep. Kingston, it may be time to change those account settings.

P.S. Here’s Abbi Tatton from CNN’s “Situation Room” yesterday afternoon, on the YouTube video:

It went to all his Republican colleagues. His office said it’s easier to get people’s attention with a video than a piece of paper.

So apparently it’s not just for the blogger crowd. It’s difficult to see why this would have any noticeable effect on his fellow MoCs — to say nothing of his promises to seek out advice from Hollywood conservatives like Ben Stein and David Horowitz — although one thing it certainly does is put the same visual media in front of both members and bloggers. Whatever problems the message has, it must be worth something to try putting the two camps on the same (web) page.

Nice Work If You Can Get It: A Closer Look at Campaign Blogger Remunerations

[Note: This post has been updated; for details, see the end of this post. Thanks to the campaign bloggers who wrote in with updates and corrections.]

Last week Danny Glover, my former colleague at the National Journal Group, went through the FEC reports of candidates for federal office to report just how much their campaigns were paying the bloggers and new media coordinators in their employ.

It was a fascinating and useful article, though it could have used a sidebar or two breaking out the details. Who is the best-paid campaign blogger? Which campaign spent the most? What would these bloggers make if prorated to a yearly salary?

So with the help of Olly Ruff, my capable and mathematically-inclined co-blogger, we’ve done just that. And then some. Before we get started, some disclaimers are in order:

By “prorated salary,” we mean that monthly (approximate) salaries have been prorated to annual salaries; these figures are not meant to indicate the blogger actually made or will make this amount. Jon Henke of QandO, for example, has only been with the Allen campaign for a few months. Likewise, “lump sumps” refer to larger payments made at irregular times. They could be one-off or recurring. These figures are not meant to indicate an annual rate. Unless otherwise noted, numbers are from 2006.

It is also worth remembering that some of these advisers are bloggers, some are more senior advisers, and some are both. Additionally, some advisers may keep other jobs — Daou still does The Daou Report for Salon, but no longer writes commentary there; David All is merely on loan from a similar position with Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA).

Like a poll, this is a snapshot and only a snapshot. We didn’t have the time or resources to go back and look at how long each blogger had actually worked for a given candidate, so the prorated numbers should be taken with a dash of Morton’s. All numbers come from Glover’s piece, and if we haven’t made it clear already, some are approximate.

All right, that should do. Here’s how we’ve broken it down:

After the charts, we’ll share a few notes and observations. Just as you can click on the links above to take you to a specific chart, you can also click here to read those. Let’s go:
    a. By candidate, prorated salary paid (Democrats)

    Candidate Campaign Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure
    Sen. Hillary Clinton NY SEN incumbent Jesse Berney; Peter Daou1 $15,600; $60,000
    (by way of
    FOH/HILLPAC)
    Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI SEN incumbent Laura Packard,
    Aaron Hofman
    $44,400; $26,400
    Rep. Jan Schakowsky IL 09 incumbent Alex Armour $38,400
    Treas. Bob Casey PA SEN Rick Santorum Jon Jones $33,600
    State Sen. Jon Tester MT SEN Conrad Burns Andrew Tweeten $31,200
    Sen. Robert Menendez NJ SEN incumbent Scott Shields $34,860 (up from
    starting $30,744)
    Rep. Ted Strickland OH GOV open Jesse Taylor $24,600
    Atty Larry Grant ID 01 open Julie Fanselow $15,600
    Atty Bill Winter CO 06 Tom Tancredo Aaron Silverstein $10,200
Return to top
    b. By candidate, prorated salary paid (Republicans)

    Candidate Campaign Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure
    Sen. Rick Santorum PA SEN incumbent Mindy Finn; Luke Bernstein $52,800; $51,600
    Rep. Mark Kennedy MN SEN open Michael Brodkorb $55,200
    Sen. George Allen VA SEN incumbent Jon Henke2 $27,600
    Sen. Bill Frist WH’08 (prospective) Stephen Smith $22,400 (by way of VOLPAC)
Return to top
    c. By candidate, prorated salary paid (combined)

    Candidate Campaign Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure
    Sen. Rick Santorum PA SEN incumbent Mindy Finn; Luke Bernstein $52,800; $51,600
    Sen. Hillary Clinton NY SEN incumbent Jesse Berney; Peter Daou $15,600; $60,000
    (by way of
    FOH/HILLPAC)
    Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI SEN incumbent Laura Packard,
    Aaron Hofman
    $44,400; $26,400
    Rep. Mark Kennedy MN SEN open Michael Brodkorb $55,200
    Rep. Jan Schakowsky IL 09 incumbent Alex Armour $38,400
    Sen. Robert Menendez NJ SEN incumbent Scott Shields $34,860 (up from
    starting $30,744)
    Treas. Bob Casey PA SEN Rick Santorum Jon Jones $33,600
    State Sen. Jon Tester MT SEN Conrad Burns Andrew Tweeten $31,200
    Sen. George Allen VA SEN incumbent Jon Henke $27,600
    Rep. Ted Strickland OH GOV open Jesse Taylor $24,600
    Sen. Bill Frist WH’08 prospective Stephen Smith $22,400 (by way of VOLPAC)
    Atty Larry Grant ID 01 open Julie Fanselow $15,600
    Atty Bill Winter CO 06 Tom Tancredo Aaron Silverstein $10,200
Return to top

    d. By candidate, lump sum (Democrats)


    Candidate Campaign Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure
    Rep. Sherrod Brown OH SEN Mike DeWine Jerome Armstrong;
    Tim Tagaris
    $100,000 (2005-2006);
    $17,000 (2005)
    Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb VA SEN George Allen Abraham (Josh) Chernila;
    Lowell Feld
    $7,700; $3,600
    Sen. Jon Corzine NJ GOV ‘05 won Jerome Armstrong;
    Matt Stoller
    $39,000; $31,000
    Ex-Gov. Mark Warner WH’08 withdrawn Jerome Armstrong $65,000
    Sen. Joe Lieberman CT SEN incumbent Dan Gerstein $21,000 (Sept 2006)
    Cable exec Ned Lamont CT SEN Joe Lieberman Tim Tagaris $21,000 (Jul-Sept 2006)
Return to top
    e. By candidate, lump sum (Republicans)

    Candidate Campaign Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure
    Sen. John McCain WH’08 prospective Patrick Hynes $31,500
    Sheriff Mike Bouchard MI SEN
    Debbie Stabenow
    David All $6,468 (Sept 2006)
Return to top
    f. By candidate, lump sum (combined)

    Candidate Campaign Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure
    Rep. Sherrod Brown OH SEN Mike DeWine Jerome Armstrong;
    Tim Tagaris
    $100,000 (2005-2006);
    $17,000 (2005)
    Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb VA SEN George Allen Abraham (Josh) Chernila;
    Lowell Feld
    $77,00; $3,600
    Sen. Jon Corzine NJ GOV ‘05 won Jerome Armstrong;
    Matt Stoller
    $39,000; $31,000
    Ex-Gov. Mark Warner WH’08 withdrawn Jerome Armstrong $65,000
    Sen. John McCain WH’08 prospective Patrick Hynes $31,500
    Sen. Joe Lieberman CT SEN incumbent Dan Gerstein $21,000 (Sept 2006)
    Cable exec Ned Lamont CT SEN Joe Lieberman Tim Tagaris $21,000 (Jul-Sept 2006)
    Sheriff Mike Bouchard MI SEN
    Debbie Stabenow
    David All $6,468 (Sept 2006)
Return to top
    g. By blogger/adviser, prorated salary (Democrats)

    Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure Candidate Campaign
    Peter Daou $60,000
    (by way of
    FOH/HILLPAC)
    Sen. Hillary Clinton NY SEN incumbent
    Laura Packard $44,400 Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI SEN incumbent
    Alex Armour $38,400 Rep. Jan Schakowsky IL 09 incumbent
    Scott Shields $34,860 (up from starting
    $30,744)
    Sen. Robert Menendez incumbent
    Jon Jones $33,600 Treas. Bob Casey PA SEN Rick Santorum
    Andrew Tweeten $31,200 State Sen. Jon Tester MT SEN Conrad Burns
    Aaron Hofman $26,400 Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI SEN incumbent
    Jesse Taylor $24,600 Rep. Ted Strickland OH GOV open
    Jesse Berney $15,600 (by way of HILLPAC) Sen. Hillary Clinton NY SEN incumbent
    Julie Fanselow $15,600 Atty Larry Grant ID 01 open
    Aaron Silverstein $10,200 Atty Bill Winter CO 06 Tom Tancredo
Return to top
    h. By blogger/adviser, prorated salary (Republicans)

    Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure Candidate Campaign
    Michael Brodkorb $55,200 Rep. Mark Kennedy MN SEN open
    Mindy Finn $52,800 Sen. Rick Santorum PA SEN incumbent
    Luke Bernstein $51,600 Sen. Rick Santorum PA SEN incumbent
    Jon Henke $27,600 Sen. George Allen VA SEN incumbent
    Stephen Smith $22,400 (by way of VOLPAC) Sen. Bill Frist WH’08 prospective
Return to top
    i. By blogger/adviser, prorated salary (combined)

    Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure Candidate Campaign
    Peter Daou $60,000
    (by way of
    FOH/HILLPAC)
    Sen. Hillary Clinton NY SEN incumbent
    Michael Brodkorb $55,200 Rep. Mark Kennedy MN SEN open
    Mindy Finn $52,800 Sen. Rick Santorum PA SEN incumbent
    Luke Bernstein $51,600 Sen. Rick Santorum PA SEN incumbent
    Laura Packard $44,400 Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI SEN incumbent
    Alex Armour $38,400 Rep. Jan Schakowsky IL 09 incumbent
    Jon Jones $33,600 Treas. Bob Casey PA SEN Rick Santorum
    Andrew Tweeten $31,200 State Sen. Jon Tester MT SEN Conrad Burns
    Aaron Hofman $26,400 Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI SEN incumbent
    Scott Shields $34,860 (up from starting
    $30,744)
    Sen. Robert Menendez NJ SEN incumbent
    Jon Henke $27,600 Sen. George Allen VA SEN incumbent
    Jesse Taylor $24,600 Rep. Ted Strickland OH GOV (open)
    Stephen Smith $22,400 (by way of VOLPAC) Sen. Bill Frist WH’08 prospective
    Jesse Berney $15,600 (by way of HILLPAC) Sen. Hillary Clinton NY SEN incumbent
    Julie Fanselow $15,600 Atty Larry Grant ID 01 open
    Aaron Silverstein $10,200 Atty Bill Winter CO 06 Tom Tancredo
Return to top
    j. By blogger/adviser, lump sum (Democrats)

    Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure Candidate Campaign
    Jerome Armstrong $204,000 Jon Corzine;
    Sherrod Brown;
    Mark Warner
    NJ GOV ‘05 (won);
    OH SEN Mike DeWine;
    WH’08 (withdrawn)
    Abraham (Josh) Chernila $7,700 James Webb VA SEN George Allen
    Tim Tagaris $38,000 (2005-2006) Sherrod Brown;
    Ned Lamont
    OH SEN Mike DeWine;
    CT SEN Joe Lieberman
    Matt Stoller $31,000 Jon Corzine NJ GOV ‘05 open
    Dan Gerstein $21,000 (Sept 2006) Sen. Joe Lieberman CT SEN incumbent
    Lowell Feld $3,600 James Webb VA SEN George Allen
Return to top
    k. By blogger/adviser, lump sum (Republicans)

    Blogger/Adviser Payment/Expenditure Candidate Campaign
    Patrick Hynes $31,500 Sen. John McCain WH’08 prospective