website statistics

Archive for the 'Tough Crowd' Category

Soren Dayton, John Sasso and the Twitter Election

Once, this new thing called blogosphere reshaped the 2004 presidential campaign. And then, this new thing called YouTube influenced several contests in the 2006 midterms. So what’s next? Could Twitter change the outcome of the 2008 White House race?

Probably not just yet, but one thing is clear: What’s said on Twitter does not stay on Twitter. My former Hotline colleague Jonathan Martin reports:

An aide to John McCain was suspended from the campaign today for blasting out an inflammatory video that raises questions about Barack Obama’s patriotism.

Soren Dayton, who works in McCain’s political department, sent out the YouTube link of “Is Obama Wright?” on twitter at 12:31 today with the tag, “Good video on Obama and Wright.” It has since been taken down.

Twitter is an online device that allows users to send out short messages and links en masse through computers or PDAs.

An aside: The explanation of Twitter is cute; I remember not so long ago when they did that for blogs.

It should be clarified: the video is still on YouTube but Soren’s Twitter account — which I’ve followed since I first signed up — is gone. I like Soren and would like to think that he could post to his personal account whatever he’d like. The video highlights some Obama statements I think are objectionable and some where I think the outrage is overwrought; none of it strikes me as patently beyond the pale.

Then again, I remember well the controversy over John Edwards’ brief employment of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, bloggers like Soren, who embarrassed the campaign with their outlandish rhetoric. The issue is not whether the video Soren linked was less inflammatory than what they had written; that can be debated. The issue is that their public commentary (even if 140 characters or fewer) ran contrary to the standards of the campaign. In Edwards’ case, they were likely implied, not explicit standards. But as Martin notes,

McCain and his campaign have repeatedly said that they would stay away from personal attacks on Obama, but the temptation has increased as Wright’s words have dominated the race in recent days.

Last week, they included an op-ed that hammered Wright and Obama in their morning clip package emailed to reporters. The same day, a campaign aide they regretted doing so.

Informed that Dayton was circulating the video, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said he had been suspended and “reprimanded by campaign leadership.”

“We have been very clear on the type of campaign we intend to run and this staffer acted in violation of our policy,” she said.

One difference may be that Marcotte/McEwan had already proved controversial, with conservative bloggers making considerable noise about their independent blogging. Dayton had not yet caused that sort of embarrassment, and I frankly find it unlikely that it would have.

So did the McCain campaign overreact? Probably. Was this unfair to Soren? Maybe. But I’ve spent the last couple days saying that the Obama campaign has been too slow to cover its bases on Jeremiah Wright and Black Theology, so I must note that here the McCain campaign was quick to get in front of a potentially damaging story. Perhaps Republicans should see this as a blessing in disguise.

With 20 years distance, it seems ridiculous that the Dukakis campaign dismissed campaign manager John Sasso for distributing oppo research on then-rival (and onetime 2008 hopeful) Joe Biden. If it’s any consolation to Soren, he shouldn’t forget that Sasso was eventually hired back.

Update: All that said, I’m still joining Trevino’s Support Soren Dayton group on Facebook, and recommend that you do so, if you’re so inclined. Soren is very smart and a good guy for McCain to have. I especially hope they reinstate him so he can post for the campaign on RedState. Their stand is clear; it would be a mistake to turn this suspension into a sacking.

Click No Evil

Don’t be evil.

I’m sure that on more than one occasion over the past decade, Larry Page and Sergey Brin have wished they’d never committed their company to such a nebulous goal. After all, who gets to decide what’s “evil”? Sure, Google has an extensive corporate conduct policy which aims to do just that. But the real problem is, you’ve just invited everyone to start looking for ways in which you might be, in their eyes, “evil.”

Page and Brin probably never imagined that Harper’s Magazine — once influential on policy and culture but now self-marginalized on the far left — would one day deem them evil for leaving their computers on all night. But maybe they should have, because a new feature in the magazine’s latest edition does pretty much that.

The tech blogosphere paid this article some attention over the holiday weekend, but none of those tracked by Techmeme bothered to scrutinize the article. But Ian Spencer, a friend and fellow former editor of the Oregon Commentator, has.

What follows is a letter he sent to Harper’s. As we figure it will never grace the pages of Harper’s letters page — let alone Google’s search results — he has allowed me to print here:

In light of Ginger Strand’s “Keyword: Evil” article in March 2008 I find it interesting that harpers.org contains code directing a user’s web browser to communicate with Google’s servers every time they visit a page on your site. This service is called Google Analytics, and it enables Harper’s management to easily view site traffic patterns. The supposed costs of “the cloud” must carry less weight than the benefits of website visitor statistics, at least for Harper’s. And if Ms. Strand and Harper’s would like to reduce Google’s electricity usage, they could always tell Google (and other search spiders) to not index their web pages.

There were also a few inaccurate and deceptive statements in the piece. For example, Google’s servers use standard techniques like caching and indexing to reduce the overhead of a single query to just a few megabytes worth of data, not “petabytes” as claimed by Ms. Strand. And the ominous-sounding “tens of billions of CPU cycles” used to process said data is by no means excessive. After all, a computer processor faster than one gigahertz goes through more than ten billion cycles every ten seconds. If you’ve read “Keyword: Evil” on harpers.org you’ve probably used more electricity than Google’s server does when you search for “journalistic integrity.”

But I expect inaccuracies when reading about computers in a non-technical magazine. Far more troubling is the notion that Google is evil simply because they use a lot of electricity. There are plenty of important issues to criticize them on: they have horrible privacy policies and censor users in China, for example. But attacking them for providing an energy-consuming service which Harper’s itself uses was, well, unexpected.

I would just like to add: “Keyword: Evil”? Really? No wonder Harper’s is so antagonistic toward today’s Internet — they’re still on AOL dial-up.

An Op-Ed We Just Might Blog

Memeorandum is not my homepage, although it might as well be — if you want to know what’s going on in the political blogosphere right now, it beats the pants off Technorati or Google’s BlogSearch. Normally here I’d say something about its impressive signal-to-noise ratio, but the fact is, there’s no noise. (On sister site Techmeme once, I saw a weeks-old story linked once. Once.)

It’s good enough that I tend to think that just by eyeballing it you can tell how big a particular story is. If that’s the case, then the Michael O’Hanlon/Kenneth Pollack op-ed in today’s New York Times may be the most talked-about newspaper article this year, at least:

Michael O'Hanlon-Kenneth Pollack opinion piece in the NYT, "A War We Just Might Win"

Unlike many, perhaps most, stories listed by Memeorandum this one attracted attention from both the pro-war/conservative/righty bloggers as well as the anti-war/progressive/lefty bloggers. If you’ve read the op-ed, it’s not hard to see why. O’Hanlon and Pollack both supported the Iraq war at the outset — the latter expressly advocating it in an influential book — but changed their minds as the war continued and the rebuilding project went awry. Nowadays the right is grateful for any sign that the war might be winnable, especially if it comes from Democratic-aligned intellectuals, especially if it runs on the New York Times’ left-leaning op-ed page. Meanwhile, the left has at least as much invested in ending the very same war that the right wishes to continue, in discrediting Pollack and O’Hanlon’s work, by pointing out inconsistencies and oversights, not to mention disputing their anti-war credentials.

It is not, however, an even split.

So who wins this battle of wills? Well, if you trust Memeorandum creator Gabe Rivera’s secret sauce, and you trust my count (I’ve included the complete breakdown after the jump, if you’re feeling argumentative), and we focus on this iteration of the page (there were others), several more large blogs of the right hopped on this story than blogs of the left tried to burst it like a bubble: 37 to 18, with 10 online newspaper items and non-aligned bloggers making up the oft-overlooked third leg of the blogospheric debate. Still, take this with a grain of salt — The Huffington Post has more traffic than many of these blogs put together, while righty traffic leader Instapundit linked it approvingly, but as usual offered too little commentary to make the cut. And in the course of writing this, I have seen more than a few perfectly major blogs not linked here — but I still think it’s a pretty good representation.

If there’s nothing else to be said here, it’s a fitting story to capture (political) blogosphere-wide attention — the rightosphere came to be after 9/11 and to support war on terrorism, of which Iraq is consdidered a piece, while the leftosphere was built around opposition to the invasion, and frustration with moderate liberals who supported it — like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon.

Continue reading ‘An Op-Ed We Just Might Blog’

I Am My Blogger’s Keeper

At MyDD’s Breaking Blue miniblog, contributor Texas Nate is alarmed that the Wikipedia entry for the late Steve Gilliard had been nominated for deletion.

I didn’t agree with Gilliard much, and I don’t know Texas Nate at all, but I agree this development is worrisome. As I pointed out last week, it’s not the first time entries for bloggers have been so nominated — and as that effort was beaten back then, so should it be now.

As a Wikipedian in good standing, I added my two cents, reproduced below:

Argument to keep Steve Gilliard's entry at Wikipedia

The article certainly needs work — indeed, it was only begun upon the announcement of his passing on Sunday — but more to accord with Wikipedia style polices rather than meet NPOV guidelines.

When the big book on the liberal netroots is written, Gilliard will be more than a footnote. Wikipedia has the ability to record that now, and I believe it should.

Update: Good news — after a string of “keeps,” the silliness is over:

Easy call here. The only arguments for deletion are thinly veiled personal attacks. The New York Times only does obits if you are notable. Also, the claim that one must be notable enough to be in a paper encyclopedia is patently absurd. Agreed, notability should be considered, but in Mr. Gilliard’s case there is absolutely no question about that.

Hillary in Blogistan: On Blogads, The Netroots and Peter Daou

Hillary Clinton did not wait long after her weekend presidential campaign announcement to step foot in the blogosphere: By Monday her technically fledgling but long-assumed campaign had taken major steps toward engaging web users, starting with her three-night series of half-hour webcasts, which concluded just last evening. Moreover, her camp had sought specifically to engage the dedicated online activists who call themselves the netroots, by promoting the webcasts through the industry standard Blogads service.

Her detractors among those online activists did not wait long, either. At MyDD, one of the leading anti-Hillary sites on the left, Matt Stoller criticized her team for purchasing ads on some conservative blogs:

Why do people like HRC, no matter how often it becomes clear that wingnuts hate us, seek approval from wingnuts?

Before long, another animadversion came from former Nevada [and current online] talk show host (and recent Stoller employee) Taylor Marsh, who was upset to find she had been left out:

It’s not like her team doesn’t know I exist. I find it a little annoying that Clinton’s team thinks that people like me don’t merit advertisement, simply because our numbers don’t reach the one-hundred thousand mark.

We’ll address the specifics of these charges, but in order to do so, first let’s try to describe the buy itself:

Hillary Clinton's first BlogadThe Clinton team can’t or won’t say what they spent on the buy, but on Monday, Blog P.I. went digging through the extensive a la carte ordering page at Blogads to find out where they had made their buys and make a reasonably educated guess about how much they had spent.

While I am quite sure I did not locate every ad on every blog, the initial buy was worth at least $17,026 across at least 45 blogs. The buy comprised political blogs almost exclusively, liberal blogs overwhelmingly, and primarily those with a national reach. Nearly every liberal blog above 50,000 impressions per week picked up a blogad, though a few did not (as we’ll see below) and at least a few regional and small-traffic blogs also were included. The campaign bought some Premium ads (which are guaranteed to be the top ads visible) on liberal sites but generally stuck with the Standard ads, and went with the bargain buys on each of the conservative blogs included. And how many conservative blogs was that? I counted just four: Hugh Hewitt, Power Line, Captain’s Quarters and Wizbang Politics (i.e. not the front page), each worth between 550,000 and 150,000 impressions per week for a total $1,150.

Yesterday Blog P.I. contacted Clinton’s principal blog adviser, Peter Daou, for elaboration. As he explained, the first round was for the webcasts, the second round (which began last night) was for inviting supporters and potential supporters to submit guest blog posts. According to Daou, future buys will focus on particular issues Sen. Clinton wants to highlight, and in states and regions where she will be traveling. The strategy is not fixed, and more to the point, neither are the number of sites. “A blog being excluded has absolutely no implication, except we’ll get there next time,” Daou said. “We’ll try to get as many bloggers as possible.” For anyone who remembers Daou’s last gig, the blog roundup published by Salon which still bears his name, Daou often went out of his way to reach down and pull obscure blogs up into the mix. To be sure, he’s not spending his own money, and cheap as Blogads can be, even Hillary Clinton does not have unlimited funds. But to the extent he can, it’s reasonable to expect that Daou will keep doing so.

·      ·      ·

And on Wednesday night, hours after the final webcast, the ad strategy did indeed shift: At the same time the buy expanded on liberal blogs, it disappeared from the conservative sites. To the Clinton team, it made sense to get attention from the right when the focus was on the webcast, but now that the ads are inviting people to submit guest posts to her site, inviting the “winguts” would indeed be a waste of time. Had they not made this distinction here, Stoller’s gripe surely would have been right.

But here’s the interesting thing: Blogads buys are one-week minimum commitments, though advertisers can change the specific ad as many times as they want — or remove it entirely. This is just what they’ve done: In order to stick to the plan, they have no choice but to pay Power Line and the rest not to run the ad, at least for a few more days (surely someone will compare this to farm subsidies, but no one has; one might say they’re just not into her).

For example, here is a screen shot taken last night, confirming two ads running on Power Line:

Power Line Blogad profile

But here is the Power Line sidebar as of last night:

Power Line blogad now disappeared

Not that the ads necessarily earned anyone’s approval: Dean Barnett, Hugh Hewitt’s co-blogger, took exception and* deemed it a misstep on Hillary’s part:

If Hillary is advertising to reach out to our core audience, she should save her money. I get your emails – I know none of you will be supporting Hillary in the Democratic primaries. … Presidential campaigns are often poorly and profligately run. Howard Dean, for instance, burned through a gazillion dollars getting absolutely no bang for his bucks and couldn’t tell you at the end of the day where all the money went.

Barnett surmised that Clinton’s “purchaser didn’t do his homework and decided that it would be a swell expenditure to run ads here and on Powerline” — but Barnett has been around the blogosphere (and was the Weekly Standard’s go-to guy on the leftosphere) long enough to know who Daou is, and to recognize that Daou would know exactly what to find at Power Line.

To this I will add just one more thing. On Tuesday, veteran Democratic operative and now Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told Hotline’s Blogometer:

We’re on some conservative sites because we’re not ceding any territory. We take nothing for granted.

To me this sounds a lot like the fighting spirit bloggers hold dearly — taking the fight to the other side’s camp. But that isn’t Sen. Clinton’s reputation with the netroots.

·      ·      ·

Now to Marsh’s complaint. Her site is currently worth 42,806 views per week, just below the point where buys were near-automatic. She and Daou disagree on whether or not the campaign attempted to buy on her site, but as I do not have sufficient evidence to make a judgment, I’ll stay out of that question. Rather, let’s look at the circumstances:

hillary blogad secondAs I dug through Blogads earlier this week, I found that liberal blogs with considerably more readers than Marsh were also not included in the initial ad buy: Juan Cole, Sadly, No!, BartCop, This Modern World, After Downing Street and Burnt Orange Report among them. They did not complain, but when the ad focus shifted on Thursday night, some of them were brought into the fold. Now they’re even on the low-traffic personal blog of Matthew Gross, who happens to be John Edwards’ blog adviser. And, yes, Taylor Marsh.

Other blogs that arguably reach the same demographic but were excluded include TV Newser, not to mention some of Clinton’s constituents, Curbed and Gothamist. The latter snub is somewhat notable considering she did buy on Gothamist’s DC affiliate, DCist. Heck, why not buy on Cute Overload? That site reaches a lot of people, and certainly fits with her warm and fuzzy approach. Same goes for Treehugger. It’s these lifestyle blogs that seem to lie beyond the campaign’s purview, while the campaign is “rotating,” as Daou put it, ads throughout Advertise Liberally Blogad network. [Update: Charles Kuffner has a point.]

Additionally, Some of Marsh’s complaints are confusing to me. She wrote, for example:

Single proprietor bloggers may not get the traffic of the gigantic community blogs, but we do a lion share of the work out here as well. … Taking me out of the equation for a moment, shouldn’t Clinton at least help out a few of the small female only blogs, reaching out to females everywhere? You’d think that would be important to her.

Yet Feministing and Pam’s House Blend are just the kind of female-only blogs Marsh describes, and they were included. In fact, Pam’s House Blend along with female-led Firedoglake were among the few sites to pick up Premium ad buys. Similar complaints likewise were off-target. At MyDD, Texas Nate hit Clinton’s camp for not buying on a few specific regional blogs. One was Bleeding Iowa which, so far as I can tell, does not support Blogads.

And to editorialize for a moment, there is something unseemly about complaining that an advertiser did not buy ads on one’s site. Daou and the Clinton team are under no obligation to buy ads on anybody’s site. Yes, Marsh is a member of the netroots in good standing — she has worked for the SEIU and MyDD to cover a labor dispute in Las Vegas — but the same is true of dozens of other bloggers whom Clinton missed on the first round. As Daou said to me, it’s impossible to buy on every site. And at least as of this morning, Marsh has made no acknowledgment of her inclusion in the next phase of the Clinton ad buy.

If it’s not exactly extortion, it does betray the kind of myopic egocentrism that establishment Democrats use — sometimes as an excuse, sometimes not — to keep the netroots at bay.

·      ·      ·

It was probably inevitable that there would be pushback when Hillary Clinton sought to engage the blogosphere. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the netroots’ legitimate policy disagreements with her have led to reflexive negative reactions to virtually anything she does.

Hillary Clinton's third and final first-week campaign webcastHere is an example, taken from MyDD this week: In a post titled “Playing the Electability Card,” Chris Bowers interprets a memo by Clinton pollster Mark Penn (as summarized by Newsday) — comparing his candidate favorably to her rivals — as playing the “electability card,” thereby denigrating the Democratic party as a whole and reinforcing Republican stereotypes. Problem is, there’s no Penn quote that clearly says this; the more plausible interpretation is that Hillary has more experience standing up to the kind of GOP attacks Bowers fears could be effective. Most perplexingly, the only Democrat whose “electability” is questioned in the Newsday article is Hillary — and in the second paragraph, no less. Although Penn’s claim that other campaigns are “stalled or falling” is dubious, there’s nothing scandalous about him putting Hillary Clinton in the best possible light. That is his job, after all.

Hillary Clinton’s longstanding position on the Iraq war puts her squarely at odds with the netroots, whose creation and cohesion owes more to the Iraq invasion and subsequent deterioration than any other issue. Short of a full apology, there’s nothing she can do. Even then, Edwards did that a long time ago, and Obama never supported it in the first place (though he never had to actually cast a vote on it).

Clinton’s online campaign must be one largely of damage control — managing expectations and placating bloggers who long ago made up their mind against her. Yet while Marsh and others (such as radio talker Ed Schultz) complain that she is not reaching out to progressives, through the webcast, blogads and forthcoming guest blogs, that’s exactly what she’s trying to do. Whether Clinton can soften the netroots opposition to her is an open question, but considering the uphill battle, it was probably wise to get started on it first thing.

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.

Yea, Though I Walk Through The Valleywag of the Shadow of Death…

Readers of Blog P.I. probably don’t venture very far into the tech blogosphere (a.k.a. the first blogosphere) but one of its higher profile, more controversial sites, is Valleywag. It’s another title owned by Nick Denton’s Gawker Media, where since February of this year, editor Nick Douglas (formerly of publicity stunt-turned-blog Blogebrity) has chronicled the embarrassing hygienic deficiencies of Google’s top brass, suspicious promotional practices of Google’s founders, and… some other stuff about Google, as I recall. But I kid. It’s a fun blog — Wonkette for the IT department. Or, it was until today.

Sometime over the weekend, Denton dismissed Douglas from the site, implemented a new layout, new typesetting, and apparently a new focus (more money, less sex). Here’s what it looked like yesterday:

Old Valleywag Layout

And what it looks like today:

New Valleywag Layout

Moreover, Denton has installed as interim blogger none other than himself. Which could work — he was a tech journalist prior to being an entrepreneur, and was an early, uh, blogebrity himself (if you remember Glenn Reynolds linking favorably to Denton’s hawkish post-9/11 proclamations, pat yourself on the back).

However, here at Blog P.I. we make no bones about getting a kick out of comment sections that turn on the site’s bloggers, and the reaction to Denton’s first post is truly something to behold. Some of the better responses:

Come on. Valleywag can spill the beans on every other “change in employment,” but you try to pass this crap off when Nick Douglas leaves? What gives. You say, “letting him go” which typically means fired. You can do better than that.
Funny, the design was one of the few in the Gawker empire that I liked. Now I’m not sure which of your generic, overlapping sites I’m on. I guess I’ll just have to deal.
How many photoshop filters had to throw up before you got that logo treatment? It may be the single most ugly thing I have ever seen in my life, and I just saw the “Naked Jen” flickr set from Dave Winer.
Oh, and IBM just called from 1955, they want their Courier font back.
The new site design sucks balls. As for Nick leaving, it COULD be a breath of fresh air (I grew tired of reading The Michael Arrington and Jason Calcanis Show), but you’re already on thin ice due to the less than forthcoming nature of the announcement.
well, it was a nice ride. ass design + letting go of your most valuable asset + renewed focus on crap people care even less about = removal from my daily web surfing routine. best of luck to both of you Nicks!
Before Spiers stopped talking to me, she once offered advice about the prospect of working for Denton or Calacanis: (I’m paraphrasing here) “It’s the old lesser of two evils thing, but at least with Jason you’re gonna get someone who is completely honest and won’t stab you in the back.”
I think this post needs more context. Who is this Nick Denton person and why should we care?

And elsewhere, tech bloggers are none too pleased, either. Here’s Zooomr evangelist Thomas Hawk:

Denton refuses to spill the beans. Was Douglas fired? Did he quit? Douglas is a pretty young guy so I doubt the old “he’s taking time off to spend more time with his family,” line works. Denton should know better than to offer us a weak, “Nick Douglas, the kid we plucked from college to launch Valleywag, will be a great journalist. And we will look stupid for letting him go.” … So you are saying he was fired? Or was he not fired? Very, very weak for a gossip blog Denton.

Ethernet inventor Richard Bennett looks at it from a different angle:

It’s probably a step closer to relevance, but still has a long way to go. … The editor was some pimply-faced teenager from Pennsylvania who had no clue about Silicon Valley life (and still doesn’t), the mix of stories is too sophomoric and Google-centric, the comment policy is bizarre, and the design was too hard to read. The new design is even worse, using a faint monospaced font, the comment policy remains the same, Denton is the temporary editor, and the story mix remains to be demonstrated.

And he’s not alone — Matthew Ingram updated a critical post to praise Denton’s later report on mega-sites Fark and Digg ditching John Battelle’s Federated Media for a new ad network run by Maxim (yes, that Maxim). It’s a new direction, for sure. Whereas Gawker, Defamer and Deadspin reign as the definitive gossip sites for NYC media, Hollywood and professional sports respectively, Valleywag wouldn’t be considered a rival to, say, frequent Douglas target Michael Arrington of the hugely popular TechCrunch. It looks like Denton wishes to compete with Arrington, rather than merely antagonize him. And Denton certainly has the connections to make that work. But Douglas’ Valleywag was something different. Denton’s Valleywag, not so much.

Meanwhile, lit fic crit Edward Champion keeps things short and sour:

Nick Douglas has apparently been shitcanned from Valleywag and all I got was this crummy T-shirt (and one of the worst blog designs I think I’ve ever seen).

As I always say about this time: Tough crowd. But that’s the blogosphere for you, and if anyone’s developed an epidermal layer strong enough to withstand this onslaught, it’s Denton. And if there’s anything serious to be said here, it’s that the blogosphere expects accountability and openness from its counterparts in cyberspace as well as its subjects/targets in meatspace. That’s one thing you would think Nick Denton would have figured out by now.

P.S. For what it’s worth (and I realize it may not be much) I was among the first to notice Blogebrity when the site launched as a preview of an alleged blog equivalent of People Magazine speculate about what it was way back when it launched in May 2005. I would also add that I was among the first to report the truth — it was an entrant in the first Contagious Media contest — although I believe I was the only political blogger to pay it any attention at all. History repeats itself.

Update: Via 10 Zen Monkeys, I learn that I didn’t read far down enough to find the actual best comments to Denton’s first post:

JasonCalacanis: Someone tell little Nicky that I have a job for him running NickDenton.net: all Denton all the time. NickDouglas: Jason, calling me “little Nicky” is an AWESOME way to make me consider a professional relationship with you.

If there’s an Adam Sandler joke to be made here, I don’t know what it is.

Second Update: Wisely, Valleywag has dropped the use of Courier in the regular copy.

And again via 10 Zen Monkeys, the truth comes out: Douglas was indeed fired, apparently for trying to lure News Corp. (!) into suing Nick Denton. Can’t say that sounds unreasonable.

But as I added to the comments at the end of the linked post, I recall when Denton launched Defamer in early 2004, Mickey Kaus quipped:

Why not go all the way and call it Defendant!

Can’t say that doesn’t sound like Denton’s ethos caught up with him.