Blog P.I.

On Friday morning Dem blogger/consultant Jerome Armstrong of MyDD fame and Mark Warner campaign infamy posted to his site — in theory he gave up blogging until after ‘06, but in practice he’s continued posting on a semi-regular basis — a response to GOP blogger/consultant Pat Hynes’ apparent disclosure problems. Perhaps not surprisingly, Armstrong seems to have Hynes’ back. But what he really wanted to address was himself, viz. allegations that he was a surreptitious stock tout and a weirdo astrologer to boot, plus the ethical considerations re: blogging consultants. Too bad he doesn’t have much to say.

As for the astrology itself, his hint that such dabbling was a byproduct of leaving behind Christian fundamentalism has the ring of truth, and he shows at least some humor by saying, “I have to laugh at myself along with the crowd.” Perhaps we should let this one go.

On the SEC front, he does no more damage to himself, and he may be lucky that his agreement with the SEC forbids him to — because he does himself no favors explaining why he deleted astrological references from MyDD:

Writing the articles under a pen name, associated to me the lack of seriousness with which I approached the matter of looking at politics through the astrological spectrum with, but to others I guess they thought I was hiding the matter. Obviously they don’t go away, but I had them deleted from the site to make the issue clear about their relative weight in my political thinking.

In other words, and to scramble a well-worn saying, they were accurate but fake. And if we’re to believe Armstrong’s blogospheric knowledge is worth the hard- and soft-raised dollars of his high-profile political clients, it’s hard to believe he thinks he could get away with deleting embarrassing posts — it’s a rookie mistake, but a veteran’s misbehavior.

And we should still ask: Just how thoughtful is Armstrong about his work, or, how good is he at thinking about it? Let’s look at his persistently inadequate take on the ethics of blogging while working on campaigns. I understand it’s frustrating to be asked these questions when brick and mortar consultants don’t always get the same scrutiny — Mark Penn being the latest — but that doesn’t mean blogger/consultants should be let off the hook. It would seem that Armstrong disagrees:

[I]t’s ironic, given how little transparency there is over other mediums of communications (newspaper, radio, television), how much disclosure is demanded in this medium. I’ve often remarked that the only standard for blogging is FEC regulations, but not surprisingly, more seems necessary to most (or at least among the vocal ones). … I hardly think that setting standards [for blogs] above what is done in other media outlets is something that’s of vital importance–if it were then the FEC would make it so.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Not even close. Like it or not, blogs start out with less credibility than the establishment press and pundit class. That surely isn’t fair in every case. But perception matters, perhaps unfortunately. Because bloggers are not as well known or as respected, they have the added burden of proving that they are respectable first. Surely, plenty of what’s been alleged about Armstrong is either arguably irrelevant or inarguably speculation. But by defending Hynes, Armstrong looks even worse, associating himself with Hynes’ inadequate response to his work for McCain, his Cato-to-AARP Social Security defection [on second thought, I should say unexplained defection], and other questionable PR work in New Hampshire, where he lives. Maybe it’s unfair to scrutinize bloggers-turned-consultants through the lens of these two, but it isn’t unfair to scrutinize Armstrong and Hynes.

It’s easy to see why Armstrong might be bitter, but it also seems to have clouded his judgment. If you dig into the comment section on his post, it quickly becomes apparent that his readers have a much clearer view of the ethics of blogging consultants. To start with, Jeffrey Feldman (of Frameshop) asks a lot of very smart questions, most of which do not have obvious answers. One of the best comments belongs to Scott Shields, formerly a MyDD front-pager, now working for Sen. Bob Menendez’s NJ SEN campaign:

Personally, when I joined the Menendez campaign, I made the announcement, stopped blogging on the front page here, put a very obvious ‘Menendez for Senate’ link in my sig file, noted my job in my user profile, and left it at that. I try to make it obvious in every diary I post that I’m on the Menendez for Senate staff and so far, I haven’t caught any flack.

And here’s blog veteran/NYT wedding announcements subject/lawyer Adam Bonin:

What makes things different here is that identity is not nearly as firmly constructed here as it is elsewhere — thanks to things like YearlyKos many of us have finally met, but we really don’t “know” who the other people here are. And because identity is a little shaky and we don’t have resumes and personal impressions ot rely upon, credibility is the key currency in the realm, and it’s only built by the quality of your content. That credibility can be pissed away in a heartbeat if it’s determined you’re a paid shill.

If I was a Democratic candidate for federal office, I’m not so sure I’d be eager to hire Jerome Armstrong. But Feldman, Shields and Bonin might well be getting phone calls. Or maybe emails.

P.S. Maybe some full disclosure is in order: I am currently employed in the PR industry; this URL is owned by my employer, New Media Strategies*. I have no plans to write about NMS’s clients in this space, and if I ever do it will be accompanied by a disclaimer. Sometimes it’s tricky to know exactly where the line is crossed — but in Hynes’ case, it shouldn’t have been a tough call.

Also, while at The Blogometer I reported on some of the scurrilous rumors about Armstrong, which I later said that I regretted. But I also asked some good questions about his ad buys for a different client. And Jerome has been, on occasion, an exceedingly intemperate email correspondent. I don’t think that’s influenced this post, but you’ll have to draw your own conclusions.

* This is NOT the same company as Hynes’ new venture, New Media Strategics. I’ve already had to explain the difference once already, and I’m afraid I’ll be explaining this for awhile. This didn’t influence my thinking either, but again, you’ll have to decide for yourself.

Update: La Shawn Barber offers good advice.