There is no obligation to be "objective" as a blogger. To whom is this obligation owed? It isn't online journalism at all. Most aren't making a dime off of it. There is no "blogging community" either. There are people with blogs. Indeed the whole idea of "objective journalism" is flawed, as every writer brings consciously or unconsciously, their own view to the table.

Journalism is different. People pay for it. The obligation grows out of the purchaser/seller arrangement.

This is not to say that you cannot hold yourself to standards of your choice. Just don't expect others to hold themselves to them, because they are your standards and no one elses. This isn't a profession for pay. Its a hobby, pure and simple.

Rob W -- Politicians who give increasing time and attention to political bloggers are not doing so because this is perceived to be a hobby by the bloggers. They are pursuing their interests via the impact blogs can have journalistically and politically. If the blogs simply become sycophantic tools of the Members, then these blogs are going to end up regulated by the FEC.

Political blogs, that make it on to these calls, are becoming an important part of the civil society arena. You are incorrect to think that blogs are some minor sideshow. They are becoming big -- and as such, need to adopt norms that respect the inherent differences between those in government and the media writing about government and policy.

I appreciate your views, but we disagree.

best,

Steve Clemons

There's something not right about equating blogging with journalism. Political bloggers are advocates, not reporters. They are not, however, owned by the party. On the contrary, what I see now is that bloggers are an unwelcome influence on elected Democrats, but one that they take seriously.
If there is a politician who insists on favorable coverage as a condition for being part of a blogger conference call, that is wrong. I'm not sure about requests for secrecy. I don't see a problem there.

I think that bloggers are trying to change the "pre-1776" mindset which has taken over America, causing our traditional respect for liberty to be eroded. Bloggers feel no common cause with the media or with most elected officials, because neither are performing their functions according to the intentions of our Founding Fathers.

One last note: I wish you had actually researched the relationships between the right wing blogs and the GOP and Bush administration before writing this post. It seems that right wing blogs have been used as a conduit for GOP propaganda, sometimes receiving financial support from the party itself. Your analysis lacks a balanced perspective; in fact, the left wing blogs have a great deal of independence, and are not on the take as many right wing blogs are.

A large percentage of this country believes Bush is a war criminal; a majority believe he should be impeached if he lied to get the country into war (which is not in doubt to any informed observers).
Some unbalanced tut-tutting about blogger ethics doesn't seem terribly germane.

I'll have to disagree. I don't make a dime off of my blog. I haven't tried to get on one of those conference calls--but the key here is the professional paradigm. The professional paradigm assumes that the writer is doing it for money. Professions develop codes and ethics in order to keep their quality of product high so as to assure that customers trust the profession as a whole.

Although some bloggers do have ads, most do not. The fact is that there are few professional bloggers out there. Thus they have no customer base to need to keep.

Indeed, the situation is the opposite of journalism. People go to politcal blogs to get a partisan viewpoint that journalists DO NOT provide. Therefore there is no need for an ethical code, because bloggers will LOSE audience if they stray from their audience's viewpoint.

Although some blogs may be non-partisan, my experience is that most of them are and their readers want them to remain that way.

There are ethical norms in political reporting?

There are, but they are mainly ignored. Another reason why there shouldn't be any "blogger ethics."

Are we supposed to believe that your silence during the Alito confirmation was because of your journalistic integrity? Only after the cloture vote was taken did you tell us how sad you were.

Yeah right.

Now you tell us of your concerns about the ethics of Dems and bloggers while the Administration is PAYING people to write propaganda?

Can we not read? Can we not think? And most importantly do you think we forget?

Do you want to increase the minimum wage?
Write your senators and representative and demand they increase the minimum wage.

Browse http://tinyurl.com/bl2fa

Do you want to scrap the current meager Medicare Part D discount and replace it with 80 percent medication coverage under Medicare Part B?

Write your senators and representative.

Browse http://tinyurl.com/7zj69

Next time you fax, email or call a senator or representative, include this in with your demand:

Until the legislation or action I demand gets done I will boycott products from Republican contributors Walmart, Wendy’s, Outback Steak House, Dominos Pizza, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Eckerd, CVS and Walgreens, Curves for women health clubs, GE and Exxon/Mobil.

Hold Republican contributors accountable for their officeholders opposition to progress.

Rob W -- I respect and find interesting what you have written. And if you read my piece carefully, it is the actual interaction of bloggers and politicians that interests me in this post. Bloggers who are not on the calls and do not interact regularly with politicians are not in danger of being co-opted or having to face ethics choices about what they report in these calls, and what not. You are defining your area of concern as hobbyists; I'm defining my area of concern as journalist/bloggers who are in "press conference like" blogger calls.

I think everything you have written about bloggers who are uninvolved in this arena make sense....but what do you think about the explicit arena about which I am writing.

Marky -- you know I respect your views...but I stated clearly that I don't know what Republican circles are doing, though I do expect that the trends that concern me on the Dem blogger calls are similar, and perhaps, worse in Republican circles. I don't know for sure -- but I imagine that you are right.

That doesn't change at all what I think is important -- and that is that Senators and Members need to be cautious about explicit co-optation of the bloggers. They are part NGO, part activist, part journalist -- but if you engage in regular "journalist-like" meetings on the phone, then it's importance to have some norms that establish the interests of both sides. If blogs just become mouthpieces, then there's some real trouble here.

If they develop norms where constructive engagement is promoted -- but both have different objectives because one is reporting the views and perspective of a Senator or House Member -- then all will be well.

But right now, bloggers are upset with how MSM are handling bias -- and yet, we find ourselves in an obsequious stance before some Members. I just wanted to issue a note of concern about this.

This is a think piece for me -- I'm not dug in on it and would like to know more about what the Republican side does. In fact, I would like to be in on those calls.

More later,

Steve Clemons

Ronny...do yourself a favor. You might want to retract what you wrote.

Search "Alito" on the search function of this blog. You report back what I wrote about Alito and when -- and the number of times.

What Kerry did from Davos was pathetically late. I have no interest in helping him seduce idealistic and well-meaning others in a fake effort to undo Alito when nothing occurred in November and December.

So, go read what I wrote.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

Why did blogs become so influential? And I believe they are to some extent. Because if any dem wanted to get a message out, or to get the grassroots to be engaged, they have few options. One is to stand on the capital steps and have news anchors ridicule you, hold a meeting in the basement of the congress and hope cspan covers you, or encourage bloggers to spread their message.

How did your conferece go? I saw it on cspan in the middle of the night and it was actually quite good. Did I hear it on the news? Did I see you being asked on newhour to talk about opinions generated there? No. If there was some write up about it, please refer me to it because I would really like to read it.

But to me, it seemed as if it never happened. If more bloggers had been involved in being there, reporting on it, and yes, giving their opinion whether you approved or not, the message could have gone wider.

how are they to do that? The republicans have thousands of think tanks and publishing houses, along side all those mailing companies to do flyers. And let's not forget that thousands of churchs every Sunday spout the republican mantra.

Blogs are the counter to that. It is the ONLY avenue I have to hearing accurate news. And excuse me, but you only have the inside the beltway view. Not out here in the outskirts of D.C. - outskirts being the rest of america.

The republicans urge you to be always 'fair' while they stab America in the back. the republicans talk about what America wants, and mean what their syncophants have demanded.

this if a fight for America. Do you want to fight for your rights or not? If so, don't stand in the middle of road.

If the blogs simply become sycophantic tools of the Members, then these blogs are going to end up regulated by the FEC.

I think you may have it backwards, Steve, at least to some extent. I haven't been on one of these calls, so I can't talk from personal experience, but bloggers such as Jane Hamsher have gone into conference calls with the intention of cutting through the swathes of cotton-wool surrounding politicians.

The 'egoboo' that might come from being on a call with, say, Ted Kennedy is more than offset these days by the desire to point to source materials and well-expressed arguments.

This isn't a 'new kind of journalism', and isn't meant to be. It's the 'Blogospherical Research Service'. But given the woeful state of mainstream 'journalism' -- at least, journalistic political analysis -- that should not be questioned per se.

If this rumor is true, then bloggers are being put in the position of being "agents" of that Member -- and there are serious legal consequences to that.

Well, you could start by being a little more... journalistic before lobbing grenades in a way that forces every blogger who's participated in a conference call (and every politician who's arranged one) to second-guess what was said, in case something innocuous was interpreted as a quid pro quo.

Finally, I hate to personalise this, but it might help to step back for a second, Steve, and appreciate that you're able to make this argument because you're in a very privileged position. One that you've plainly worked hard to achieve, but one that carries a lot of weight. (Heck, that's why we're reading and replying.) In your position, certain power relationships are often internalised as 'everyday business' to the point that you don't notice them.

Steve,
as time goes by, I've found that I agree with you less and less, but I appreciate the blog more, because the comments here are representative of informed people from both sides. I don't know another place where people from the whole political spectrum are engaged in such (mostly) literate "ultimate political combat".
I really do think I understand what you are doing, and find it worthwhile; it's just that your pace here seems not to match our need to deal with Bush and his plans. Also, I agree with bringing Republicans and Democrats together for discussion, but I think you make a mistake thinking that common ground must be found in the center.

I really think you should consider setting your sights a little lower every once in a while and taking on some lower level Bush flacks. In the short term, I think it would be possible to expose some lower level extreme corruption/incompetence to the public eye, resulting in termination of some appointments.
My take on the Republicans is that they don't care one whit if the "stature" of someone like Rove or Wolfowitz is diminished, because they don't respect the opinions of those outside the party. The Bolton fight was very engaging and instructive, but at the end of the day I don't see how his influence was diminished at all.

If you are interested in helping to get Bush off balance, I think it is imperative to find some fights which can be one in the short term, while keeping an eye on long term goals.

Ahem.. so much for literacy. That was "fights which can be *won*.."

Ahem, SusanJ, and others -- you make some great points. This is a think piece for me. You are right that there are privileged folks who get on the calls and this may be a step beyond the arena of concerns that many have. What interests me is what "responsibilities" we have -- given that we have this access. What norms should we have? I don't buy the line that we should have none.

Some say that there are 2 million folks reading the leading liberal blogs. I imagine that that figure is as high if not higher in conservative-right blogs. Blogs, at the same time, are positioning themselves as main stream media...Markos Zuniga has made the fascinating point that depicting the MSM as different from blog journalism demeans blogs and their importance.

What I am trying to get at here is that there is real power in blogging circles -- and the followers of blogs are growing. If some of the elite bloggers develop routenized access with politicians where discussion of policy matters ensues in organized press like meetings...and that IS happening, then we have to sort out what weight blogs have in this equation. Are they simply carriers of the Member's views. Are they journalists? Should we actively collude in such calls with Members -- as opposed to colluding behind closed doors like other journalists may do?

I don't know the answers to these questions -- but they are LEGITIMATE questions to ask.

Most don't want rules, norms, regulations for this kind of situation....but my sense is that rules will have to evolve here because the political system won't accept in the long run the use of blogs as political appendages. The fact that most of the blogs engaged in this calls are money-making profit centers with readers, members, subscribers -- will raise the question of where these entities fall in the regulated arena of political interaction, electioneering, etc.

There is a lot to work out -- and I am perhaps a bit early in pushing this set of questions -- but they will become important questions.

I'd rather think them through proactively and engage the politicians and top bloggers in this process -- because these calls can be great....and we should have them.

But we have to protect our mutual sets of interests.

best,

Steve Clemons

Steve: Awesome clarity on a vital topic. Thank you.

Marky -- sorry you agree with me less and less. I'm not pursuing centrist objectives for the sake of centrism...i'm pursuing it because in the current environment, there are many frustrated and angry Republicans who want to rebel...and many independents. Center-progressives need to bring those folks over to undo Bush.

I think we harmed Bolton's legitimacy. I think he has less latitude than he would have had if confirmed. Stopping his confirmation was the FIRST foreign policy victory of Democrats allied with some in the closet and a couple of the closet Moderate Republicans.

You know my events, conferences, and writing. These are designed to embarrass the White House's thin decisions. There are also some inside the administration who are constructive players (you and I disagree on this, I know) -- and I want to support them and put wedges between them and Frank Gaffney/David Frum/Charles Krauthammer types.

David Addington is a guy I'd like to take out.

But if you are asking me not to think about the norms and practices of the blogging/journalism industry -- which is changing rapidly -- then we are on different pages.

I do want to move Bush out and move his policies in different directions. I also want Democrats to be better prepared with ideas and content before future races. I'm pretty transparent about this.

Lots of folks give me their preferred take on how I "should" do things -- but I see very few doing. I do a lot in DC I think...from Bolton, to working on reframing the terrorism debate last September....etc. The far left will not be interested in what I do. It will seem corrupt to them because I talk to the other side.

To them, I say -- I understand your views, but we need to stand in different places on that. I need the far left to make the noise they make --- but the real action in changing or hijacking either of these two parties is going to be getting people with some diversity to take back the government.

I'm doing it the way I see fit -- and I welcome others to do what they think needs to be done....

Enough on that, I'm rambling. But I like your views Marky -- I read them -- and I know we are not always on the same page, but I feel I'm getting traction in ways that very few inside D.C. do -- and that's my arena.

Best,

Steve Clemons

Steve,
Interesting point about the Republicans who want to rebel. I would like to know if they are sticking with Bush because they don't want to lose power, or because there are still issues which tie them to the Party.
In my first post, I did come across more strongly than I should have; really I just wanted to invite more discussion of what the right wing blogs are doing. Any talk of rules in a new medium should be based on the behavior of the whole spectrum of participants.

About Bolton: I hope you are right. It's hard to see the evidence of his weakness out here---that's not something the press is going to report on.

By the way, I don't doubt there are players in the White House who want to be constructive; I simply think that at a certain point, personal morality must intervene. That is a matter of conscience which I cannot decide since I don't have the facts about particular players.

Marky -- I have to go meet some bloggers now in Dupont along with Jacki Schechner from CNN who reports on blog activity. I'll write more along the lines of what dissident Republicans are thinking and why -- that's a great idea. On conservative blogs, i don't know...I read some...but I'm not deeply into their DNA. It would be great to have some other comments here about some of these blogs and how they stack up on these issues.

Thanks all...be back shortly.

And sorry to be tough on you, Ronny. I felt extremely strongly about Alito -- more than you obviously know -- but I also don't like being a marionette for John Kerry at the last moment.

More later,

Steve Clemons

Steve,

I basically agree with what you're saying, but I think it's less of a problem than if bloggers were trying to appear as straight reporters as they would be if they worked at newspapers. I was a journalist for 23 years, so I know from where I speak.

I read probably upwards of 50 liberal blogs a week. I try to look at most of them each day if I have time. Some of them self ID as Democrats and others don't. Since I read them all the time, I know their viewpoint and I account for that. I haven't found any of the blogs I read to be a liberal version of the right-wing Bush worshipping blogs.

For the blogs I read regularly, I don't apply the same journalism standard that I would have applied to myself or my staffers when I was in newspapers. That's because I know them well and no one has insulted me as yet. I know I'm going to get a LIBERAL viewpoint and sometimes a liberal DEMOCRATIC viewpoint. As they would say at the X-Files, "the truth is out there."

However, some blogs allow for visiting commentators or have a rather large list of rotating columnists. That's where I get pretty skeptical in what I read if I don't know the person I'm reading. But I'm an adult. Surfing Blog Land isn't the same as picking up a newspaper and reading a so-called objective "news" story written by a reporter who may have an agenda or who is being conned by a source.

I must tell you that I'm much more skeptical of what I read in the big national newspapers and magazines that I am of the blogs. I can give you chapter and verse about how these influential publications have routinely pulled their punches and have propped up the Bush Administration.

I'd much rather read analysis or comment pieces by Kos, Atrios, Josh Marshall, Steve Gilliard, Billmon, Digby, Firedoglake, Bill at Liberal Oasis, Eli Stephens at Left I on the News, Steve and company at Left Coaster, the folks at MyDD, Eric Alterman at Altercation, Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, David Neiwert, and others than I would the typical news story in any of the so-called respectable newspapers or news magazines.

I started reading your blog a few months ago. I'm smart enough and adult enough to figure out whatever biases you have and either agree with them or take them into account as I evaluate your work. If you were to write something too odious for my tastes, I have the right to stop reading you. However, I don't think you'll ever do that, because I have a pretty good sense of who you are, and I enjoy your take on what's going on. That's why I keep coming back. I'm only sorry I wasn't reading your blog earlier. And I confess I don't even know when you started it.

I appreciate your concerns about bloggers appearing on these conference calls. I salute you for being sagacious enough to discern that it could be a problem. But I have to tell you that I spent enough years in newspapers to see reporters and editors occasionally seduced by big-name professional politicians. "Journalists" are no more immuned to that than your average blogger. I need only to point to our current administration and all the media bias we see as proof.

Thanks for addressing this issue. As the blogosphere increases in import and influence, it's something that more people will address.

Steve ( & others..):

I would like to second the opinion above regarding the generally high level of discourse here. It makes reading it worth the time.

Steve, I can't help but to remember your postings of a few months ago ( I believe they were during the 'Bolton Brouhaha'), in which you discussed the fact that the opponents of this administration were going to have to learn to "get down in the gutter" from time to time (or words to that effect).

I agree with those sentiments and over the last few months I think we are all just beginning to get a feeling of traction with this...If blogs play a role in that from time to time, I for one am all for it. As for the "giri", well, the relatively pathetic condition of the NATIONAL democratic party renders that point moot for now. Like, is Joe Biden gonna all of a sudden stop returning Digby's telephone calls? :-)

I'm sure bloggers like that will find a way to get to sleep at night.

There may come a time when its a real, substantive issue, but it just seems like the kind of thing that afflicts a majority party,

Steve: I think you're doing something important with this blog by providing a window onto the relationship between the DC think-tanks and the elected/appointed poltical machine.

But you're also doing something different from Kos or Atrios or Jane Hamsher and ReddHead, all of whom are doing something different from each other.

When you say that the 'far left won't be interested in what you do', I think that's heading a little towards self-martyrdom. Politics is the art of the possible, after all. Understanding the system helps us work out ways to change it; but sometimes, not 'understanding' the system also helps, by allowing the creation of new norms that don't follow the accepted framework of DC politics.

I can understand that such a paradigm shift can appear to be dangerous heterodoxy to those who've learned to work inside the system -- even those who want to make it more transparent to outsiders. But there's a dialectic going on here.

It's a bit like having an esoteric dress code for a country club. We've turned up in t-shirts and jeans, and you're urging us to shop for blazers before we're forced to wear the ill-fitting ones that are stored in the coat-room. But perhaps it's the dress code that's messed up.

I think Steve is reporting here on an important trend. So I think his fears about bloggers being co-opted have some basis in fact. I also think the incredible power of the right-wing echo machine, of which Peter Daou wrote last week, is a big factor as well.

I am incredibly impressed with Steve's honesty here, about who is really is. Some seem to want Steve to be a leader of a movement to destroy Bush and all republicans. That is not his raison d'etre, it's not going to happen (especially if he gets his way with Hadley!). He provides a different perspective, one everyone can learn from. The guy is an Independent, and apparently one of the few real adults in the blogosphere and inside the beltway.

Steve, thanks, and be careful. Blog posting is instantaneous but has repercussions like ripples on the water...

er--for the humor challenged--supposed to be a joke about Hadley in last post--

Nice post, Steve. I would share your general principles. For bloggers to develop a separate power structure that causes social and political change they must remain independent of the existing institutional fabric.

So why are blogs important to cut through blatant lies, purposeful misleading, distortion of facts, and obfuscation of the truth ?

The Bush administration has made it perfectly clear that fantasy world and politics come first.

The co-opted 4th estate are mostly worthless shills with little substance.

I wish Steve Clemons the best on his mission.

But gove

"some serious reporters are scratching their heads wondering whether these calls enhance journalism or are violating some ethical norms in political reporting..."

Steve, I respect your work and your perspective. I'm not even disagreeing with your main point of distance and professionalism being preferable over Mighty Wurlitzer-style advocacy. But Steve, I must ask you, why arent' a lot more serious reporters scratching their heads about the ethical norms begin violated all over TV journalism? Or at the WaPo? Or the Gray Lady? Why aren't they scratching their heads bloody over those venues?

Serious journalists should scratch their heads quite contemplatively over blogs, sure. However, holding bloggers to high standards of journalism isn't realistic in the first place, because bloggers aren't journalists; in the second place, liberal blogs are much more a movement based on visceral angers over most people being shut out of corporate media and government. And those angry people happen to have small, privately owned presses termed "blogs."

There's a power vacuum begging for a counterbalance in this country. Blogs are filling them, and politicians are grabbing onto that coat-tail. Not surprising, as politicians are emotional vampires in normal times. But these aren't normal times.

We're undergoing the most serious constitutional crisis since 1931 in this country, and I wonder which is more important... professional distance and discourse, or effective counterbalance? I don't think we get to have both in the current environment. This house is already divided, sir, and we're coming to a time when you more and more often hear variations of the following: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve, and remember thy oaths."

Steve,
It occurs to me that your attempt to give rebellious Republicans a space in the middle for separating from Bush may have a paradoxical reverse effect.
Events have already clearly demonstrated that however anguished some Republicans are in private, when it comes to key votes, Bush can depend on them. Hagel seems to be one of these.
People such as Hagel apparently have such distaste for the Democratic party that they will never cross over---indeed, there dislike is so great that they will not become Independent, to avoid strengthening the Democrats.
I'm reading between the lines here, so correct me if my premise is wrong.
I imagine you see where I'm going with this, but let me lay out the rest of it.

I believe that many Republicans of Hagel's stripe realize that in good conscience that they cannot continue to support Bush; nevertheless, they delay, waiting for the right moment to make the break. What you do in your work is give them a hope that in the future it will be easier for Republicans to defect, and they will be able to do so without aiding the Democrats.
At the very least, they have an excuse to wait.

I suspect that the break from Bush, if it happens, will be incredibly wrenching and painful for the Republicans. Look how far we have fallen---the virtues of torture are a topic of discussion in polite society, for God's sake!
Bush has committed exactly the crime that Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg--waging a war of aggression. If there is an honest accounting for what Bush has done to his party and country, it could well mean the end of the Republican Party, whatever good it stood for in the past.

I don't think the post-Bush age will have an easy birth. Maybe instead of trying to make it more comfortable to defect, you need to be telling your decent friends to take a deep breath and jump ship---today!

Speaking about blogs....

This, from John Conyers' blog.......

http://www.conyersblog.us/

Blogged by JC on 02.02.06 @ 05:12 PM ET

"Attempting to Defraud the Nation Into War

If there is a report that has come out lately that I think is worthy of a "blog-swarm" but hasn't been yet, it is this one. Some have discussed it already (here, for example) but they are, in my view, missing the biggest bombshell in it.

In sum, a new Downing Street Memo exists -- which my staff was chasing down but was unable to obtain for inclusion in "The Constitution in Crisis." The Memo says the following, according to the Guardian:

"Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of 'flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours'. Mr Bush added: 'If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]'."

What was really going on here? If Saddam shot down a U.S. spy plane, was the President set to claim that he had actually shot down a U.N. plane in an effort to gain world support? Is there any other reasonable explanation than that? If so, it shows that -- at the highest levels on the United States government -- previously undisclosed attempts to deceive the American people, the Congress, and the entire world into war. It is a window into the character of this Administration and elucidates that truth about whether the war was the result of an "intelligence failure" or deliberate deceptions.

Coupled with this new report by Murray Waas, the picture could not be clearer.

If you agree with me about its importance, please spread the word about this report. Let's start with the progressive media. I'll do my part."

(above apostrophied comment posted by John Conyers on his blog)

Interesting point Steve.

We've discussed the Reid answer from the conference call we both particpated in and, as I wrote you earlier, your reporting of his answer was scrupulously accurate IMO.

So much so that I defended the answer you described. To make it clear to others who might not know, Reid was answering my question so I listened to his answer quite carefully and feel confident that Steve described it correctly.

I disagreed with Steve's concern. As my question indicated in the call, and as Reid understood, my concern was the naive Dems who think you can work with the GOP. It is my view you can not. In short, Reid is right and Obama wrong.

Now, onto your main point, are these calls compromising? Not for me. I don't pretend to be a journalist. I am a partisan Dem. My postings on these calls will not be neutral. Anyone expecting that from me is crazy.

They will be truthful though.

I don't see any problemn with these two concepts.

We write opinions based on reported facts. Very rarely, we report some facts. And when we do, they are, by and large, covered favorably for Dems.

If a Dem says something untoward on a call will I report it? Sure. We are not here to cover up for Dems, but that does not mean we don't analyze from our Dem perspectives.

I guess for me the important point is that we be truthful about what we report and how we present what we report. I am not pretending to be a neutral journalist and I am pretty sure everyone recognizes that.

worst president ever (the song)

"http://www.bigfishensemble.com/wp/wp-content/Worst%20President%20Ever.mp3"

The evolution of the blogs is fascinating. I'm selective, as we all are, in the blogs I read because I don't want to get caught up in the clap trap of fuzzy opinions rather than clearheaded analysis. Color me PollyAnna but I believe the desire by the authors of the blogs I read, this one included, have such a strong desire to get the facts heard that they can be abused. We've observed MSM journalists abused (admittedly they allowed it) by talking heads daily but the blogs have a strength that no one else has - each other - and the transparency we demand from each other. I would hope that in the desperate hope to bring facts to the light of day that we recognize our desire can be abused. Recognition of the burgeoning power we can build on is, to the powerful, a great new little tool. I don't want to be anybody's little tool for their power. No. I want my country back.

Steve - Recent conference calls to which I've been invited have been quite enlightening, to say the least. I've never felt the need to suck up to a senator and never will.

As for me taking you on regarding your reporting of Reid, which you site in your post today, well, I pretty much think I'm right on, especially when you take it in the larger frame of things. What I believe you did was get Democrats talking about ethics disagreements between Democrats, instead of engaging the real issue, which I believe was the ethics chasm between the parties. Any time you get Democrats arguing about this kind of minutia it just makes the public yawn. More importantly, it distracts from the real issue, which I believe was drawing the differences between the parties, Harry Reid's essential point to you. That got lost when we started navel gazing in primetime. Worse still, it let the Republicans off the hook. It seems we have to work at reporting, especially people with your access, without inspiring political therapy sessions with pundits.

Hey, but I'm always interested in your take on things and how you perceive the balance between the parties. I also like you making me check myself, which is healthy. Believe me, I'm not looking for partisan pizza to cut up and deliver to the masses. I beat the crap out of Democrats on my blog all the time, especially over Iraq, and access isn't going to change that fact for me.

Taylor Marsh

It is, indeed, the Age of Aquarius.

Steve,

The expression "blog" is is a very general term that covers a lot of very different web-based enterprises. You aspire to the role of journalist, and are a "blogger" only in the sense that you self-publish your journalism on the web, in a daily journal format. Since that is your aim, it is very admirable of you to hold yourself to the ethical standards of professional journalists - or at least the standards those journalists profess.

You also publish a lot of analysis and opinion, but are careful to distinguish your opinions from reports of confirmed fact. Very good.

But I think you may not fully realize how unique you are. Some bloggers, for example, are fiction writers, and their self-published web journals publish nothing but fiction. Some fill their journals with prayers and poems and photos and rambling stream of consciousness emotings.

And many, indeed most, bloggers publish only opinion. They serve purely as gadflies, commenting on the news without gathering it or doing any independent investigation. In fact, if there is a standard profile of a blogger, that is it. They do not socialize with people making news or call them on the phone. Every piece they write has a clear implicit preface: "Here's what I think about ...." Very few bloggers produce material that even aspires to the lofty condition of journalism. Since they, and their readers, are completely clear about what they are up to, I don't think it is quite fair to criticize them for failing to meet the standards that we apply to professional reporters. For example, I sometimes enjoy reading The Rude Pundit, who produces nothing but angry and profane diatribes laced with coarse insults, and scatological and sexual verbal debauches. It is sometimes entertaining, and nobody is under any illusions that the author is making an effort at restrained and objective detachment.

There are other bloggers who make no pretenses of doing anything else but carrying water for certain candidates, or a favored party. If they work as chearleaders and propagandists for the political party of their choice, there is no violation of trust or obligation so long as they do not present themselves as doing anything different. I'm sure you know many people who work in the communications office of a political party, business or NGO. What they are doing is not inherently wrong (even though I personally do not know how people can swim in that crap all day and keep their sanity) since they don't portray themselves as doing anything different.

Where you have a problem is when someone is paid, for example, to be part of the communications operation of some party or candidate, but then hides this fact from his readers or listeners, and hangs out a shingle as an independent journalist.

The only universal rule I would say applies is that people not intentionally deceive others, and represent themselves as being something other than they are. But if someone wishes to use their blog to disseminate press releases from the DNC, for example, then they should say: "the following is a message from the DNC."

Blogging is not a profession; it's a format. Just as photojournalists shouldn't worry about the fact that pornographers also use camaras, you shouldn't get upset about the fact that tinhorn party shills and propagandists also happen to use the web journal format to publish their hack work.

Steve and Marky:

Re.the issue of John Bolton and your wondering Marky if Steve even made a difference(are you kidding?!)

RawStory has a link up to a Reuters article which is Bolton throwing a hissy fit that his fellow ambassadors did not show up "10 sharp!" for the Security Council meeting. Obviously a sign of no respect,etc.....and thanks to Steve and others everyone in the U.N. is aware the man did not pass muster in the Senate.

Any time you get Democrats arguing about this kind of minutia it just makes the public yawn.

Taylor, that may be true. But "the public" is not generally reading the blogs where Democrats argue among themselves. It's mostly other Democrats that are doing that. Maybe we need to stay on message and avoid navel gazing when we hit the streets, but there have to be some places where we first discuss what the message should be before we spread it.

Anyway, I take it that a problem with contemporary American life is that we are all drowning in bullshit. I think we all benefit from more public disagreement and more arguments, among ourselves and with our opponents, and the more sides to the arguments the better.

But that's exactly what happened, Dan. Just to clarify, since I obviously didn't make myself clear enough. The minutia to which I was referring was not the blogosphere, but the Reid - Obama discourse, which went from Reid's goal of separating the parties on ethics issues to navel gazing about the difference between Democrats in a therapy session that ended up on "This Week." That was my issue on the way Steve reported Reid's statement from the start. Democrats were left debating between each other, while Republican were left off the hook, when the real ethics problems were their problem from the start.

Steve

I am no diplomat nor am I political. I am going to speak plainly and I am angry.

I am only politically actively involved at all because these f*cking NeoCon morons are destroying my country and I mean that literally. I didn't give a shit about Clinton or Bush 41 or any of politics for that matter. But this is different and if you don't know that... well... you DO know it and that is why I think your answer about your silence when the rest of the blogs were buzzing about Alito is bullshit. Who the hell cares who was calling for the filibuster? Did it occur to you that had the Dem leadership actually LED instead of being cowed like the cowards they are he would not have had the chance to lead it? And the fact that he only did it after other refused tells me that it had nothing to do with grandstanding but took guts something you seem to lack ever since you came back for your trip abroad as a matter of fact. Your whole blog changed and I sure did notice.

Unless you think I am a complete moron you cannot expect me to believe you about Alito. His confirmation was a defining moment in the demise of our Republic and you sat on your hands and no petulant lame excuses will change what you actually did or in this case did not do.

I was really impressed with you and your work and was all set to support it before you went overseas. Now I see you as just another political opportunist.

Your thinly veiled campaign against the organizing of political blogs to support progressives is not fooling me. My God the NeoCons are blatantly using thousands of tax exempt churches as propaganda and campaign centers! Robertson's 700 Club is used as a propaganda mouthpiece for the NeoCons every night and goes into 7 million homes!

You have a lot of nerve suggesting that it is somehow not right that progressives should not be able to mix news community and support of political issues with MONEY as the NeoCons do in the NeoChristian churches. A lot of nerve.

I do thank you for your taking time to reply. But I am very angry and damn disappointed.

Steve... This is one of the more interesting threads I've read in a while and a good exercise for us all, evidenced by the varied and thoughtful comments posted here.

Someone above suggested that a "blog" is essentially a communication medium, and a "blogger" as one who communicates through that medium. I agree, and would add that, because the blogger determines the nature of his or her blog -- content, tone, purpose -- blogs are and should be as individual as their creators.

If you decide to take a more journalistic approach to your blog, and another blogger chooses a more partisan approach, each of you has that prerogative. Readers will gravitate toward the approach they favor. I may agree or disagree with your approach or with a position you take; however, it would be disingenuous for me to hold you to my standards or those of another blogger. When I go to the Ford dealer, I can fault him for the way he sells Fords, but it would be ridiculous to fault him for not selling Volkswagens -- yet, this is essentially what many blog readers do. It comes with the territory. But, from the standpoint of the blogger, I think it's an important distinction when assessing the validity of criticism that comes your way.

The question for you is what do you want your blog to be. The question for me is what do I want from a blog. Personally, I prefer fact-based arguments to ideological stances, and reasoned logic to emotional rants. Yours is one of the more well-reasoned blogs I've found, and for that reason I visit frequently. You have earned enough credibility that I consider your position even though I might initially disagree with it. Often I learn something or at least come to appreciate another perspective.

Given the current, highly-charged political environment, there is another question we should ask (and perhaps the one ultimately behind your post): what kind of dialog does does America need at this point in time.

Some obviously view blogs as partisan megaphones. From my perspective, there are plenty of those on both right and left. Their obvious biases are no better than the media bias we all complain about, and they add little to constructive discourse. In fact, I think they are destructive in that they fuel partisan frenzy and thus reinforce the divisions that are dividing and weakening the nation. Some of us are so consumed by hatred for the other side that we are blind to our own faults, and so driven to destroy our opponents that we fail recognize that, if successful, we'd destroy roughly half of the country. It is not a stretch to predict that, if Democrats were to win the next Presidential election, Republicans will be calling for impeachment -- just as some Democrats are calling for Bush's, and Clinton actually faced. American democracy is fast becoming dysfunctional.

Bottom line: I encourage you to continue taking the "high ground," as one commenter put it. If the Democrats do something stupid, call them on it just as you would call out the Republicans. Stand up to political pressure just as we expect (or would hope) traditional media reporters to do. Those who want to reinforce their preconceived ideas will go to other blogs. Those who want to learn something will come to yours.

I think the term 'blog' is too wide of a definition here. Blogshares.com is currently tracking 7 million blogs on thousands of subjects.

I think we're speaking of widely read ('national') blogs on political topics with a well known and specific bias. This is not unlike the editorial section of newspapers like The NY Times or The WSJ.

The discussion here is something I've been thinking of for a while. I started a blog on California Politics as a small part of a larger site on living and traveling in California. It has grown to a quarter of my monthly visits and doubles at least quarterly. Of course, having both Cindy Sheehan and the Bre*sts not Bombs group in California helps.

Most of my previous writing has been marketing documents, so objectivity wasn't even a topic of conversation. As my blog grows, I wonder what my responsibilities, if any, are to my readers? I'd assume that if I'm viewed as being misleading I'll probably lose regular readers, so being ethical is in my own best interest.

Access and bias are nothing new to journalism. While I was stationed in Turkey I used to listen to shortwave and compare news reports from the US, the BBC, the rest of Europe, Moscow, China, and pirate stations. There was an amazing difference on the reports depending on the source. I've also heard that Hardball was boycotted by this administration until Chris agreed to give them more leeway.

I'd guess a few blogs like TPM will grow and seek funding in a model similar to newspapers, where many start as free weeklies and grow into large regional publications. There will probably be some consolidation as more successful publications seek to buy readership.

There will always be a lot of blogs, but I think they'll be broken into those viewed as regular reads with substantive reporting and those viewed as entertainment like some of the store rags. The rest will just take up wasted space on the Internet.

Accepting and adhering to standards now will be the only way that specific blogs will continue to be subscribed to. The only difference from other publications is that the cost of publication is cheaper and the distriubution is wider. And obviously in blogs like this anyone that comes along gets to immediately write a letter to the editor.

Kudos for starting this thread and for the discussion it has initiated.
Steve,
Your determination to prevent the blogger conference calls from becoming the new press conferences is admiriable and I think you are succeeding. ( This peace of your work will be red many times over in future classes and lectures about blogging.)
Keep up the good work. We do not need more celebrity journalists, we need truthfull reporting and honest opinions.
ulla riitta

"Your determination to prevent the blogger conference calls from becoming the new press conferences is admiriable..."

At the risk of over simplifying this conversation, I think the telephone conferees may be missing something. If Democratic pols eye the blogs and see a new opportunity to sway the lowing herd, they are sadly mistaken, and, more important, not even paying attention.

Contrary to what these very isolated and arrogant people think, we are pretty smart. We know when we are being used, and should they try to use us, we will be gone. No one can force us to read these blogs any more than we can be forced to use electonic or print media.

Rather than holding a bunch of navel gazing "conferences," tell the politicians to READ the blogs, especially the comments. There is a high level of anger out here and we are in bad need of some leadership. If they can't provide it, we will band together and throw them out. If they were reading, they would know this.

Wow, I read about some scandalous behavior.
Some A-list blogger hired Tom Delay's former chief of staff for news last summer, long after Delay's legal and ethical problems were known.
Oh wait---that was Time Warner. Whew, no problem then.

There was a widespread effort on the blogosphere to encourage readers to become active in blocking the Alito nomination through massive email and phone in campaigns encouraging a filibuster. I note here that Steve defends his failure to participate by decrying Kerry's late and insincere political posturing. Yet Steve completely fails to note Reid's cowardly stance on the issue, that included public statements AGAINST a filibuster. I have seen Steve recently laud Reid's invocation of Rule 21 in a posting, where he neglects to mention that the invocation of Rule 21 was little more than a photo op, because it paid absolutely NOTHING in dividends. We were promised Phase Two no later than Nov.14th, and it has STILL not been produced as promised, nor has Reid, OR Roberts, made a public statement as to WHY. (There is a rumor it is because of the ongoing investigation of Franklin and AIPAC. Considering Reid's relationship with AIPAC, therein may lay the answer). I regretfully have to agree with Ronny and Susan in some respects. It seems Steve is, at times, more enthralled with whose elbow he is rubbing than he is with the ACTIONS of those people, or the welfare of our nation. Steve's actual ACTIVISM in regards to the Alito nomination consisted of little more than lukewarm admonishments against the appointment, and when things heated up on the blogoshpere, Steve was nowhere to be found on the issue. Reid has seemingly been receptive to Steve's overtures, and it has seemingly resulted in Steve giving Reid glowing testiments where, in fact, none are deserved, and has resulted in Steve ignoring Reid's failures and weaknesses in regards to the Alito nomination and the Rule 21 CHARADE he pulled in the Senate. Such journalistic favoritism is neither good journalism, nor good blogging.

Steve -- Small quibble ... I believe the correct way to refer to Kos is "Markos Moulitsas" *not* "Markos Zuniga."

"Moulitsas Zuniga" is a double last name traditional in the Latino world, where the first part is the father's last name, and the second part is the mother's (i.e., grandfather's) last name. When abbreviated to a single last name, as traditional in Anglo society, it is the first of the two names that takes precedence. I think you should update the post for this.

Right on, Ronny. I feel exactly the same way.

Very interesting discussion going on here.

Human nature being what it is, I don't think anyone, journalist, blogger or politician are immune to the kind of inborn bias which comes with access and power.

As far as the readers who post on these blogs -- for example, in the Daily Kos, when Kerry or Feingold get online, the gratitude is immense, and rightfully so. The opposition to this Administration has been shut out of social discourse in a very profound way, part of which is intentional and manufactured by this Administration and its Congress and part of which is caused by our changing society and information overload. So there is an emotional element to having access to people who could conceivably change the things we as citizens are opposed to.

As far as the bloggers themselves (as opposed to those who post on the blogs as readers), ah, I do not envy them. You have brought up some very real pitfalls involved in the melding of bloggers with powerful politicians. But is it any different, really than in the past when leaders of grass roots organizations met personally with politicians and combined their efforts for various issues upon which they agreed?

In any event, I fully agree with you that down the road these issues will become more and more important.

Excellent thread. The Reid vs. Obama question that
set this discussion off also touches on the dynamics that political blogs themselves create.

Do political blogs serve to inform a public starved of 'real news' - and thus help (re)build a political center? Or do they create gravitational poles around which both moderates and extreme partisans enventually congregate, leading to further polarization and decreased incentives to work together? In other words, do blogs amplify or reduce the centrifugal forces in American politics?

I am struck by the reader's comments here saying they don't know what people on the other side of America's dangerously deep political divide think.

Perhaps it isn't surprising at all to hear that many bloggers and blog readers without personal access to the corridors of power - i.e. those who depend on other sources for reportage and fact-finding - tend to gravitate away from the parts of the blogosphere that publicize views that they strongly disagree with. After all, they by and large don't expect to find facts on those sites, just crass partisanship.

But even our own Steve Clemons, blessed shall we say with extraordinary degrees of access, says he isn't "deeply into [the right wing blogosphere's] DNA". I think this should give pause to everyone involved in the progressive political project.

How can progressives expect to 'undo' Bush if they don't have detailed knowledge of how their political opponents organize? How can they expose corruption if they can't - or won't - get under the Republican's skin? How can they hope to drive all sorts of wedges through the Republican party, cutting it in half, prying the remaining moderate voices away from the clutches of Karl Rove and the '700 Club' Taleban - if they don't know what makes those 'moderates' tick?

Whether you do or do not believe that the break with the Bushies is going to be bloody and cataclysmic - the 'will it snap or will it break?' question - this bunch will leave the stage, one way or another. Will the scandals - or rather whatever qualifies as a 'scandal' in the MSM - break the back of the Republican party? Will a global financial meltdown and a crash of both stock and housing markets usher in a period of predomincance of Democratic politics in Washington? Really? Who knows? There seems to be tremendous volatility on both the political and economic fronts. What's clear is that at some stage Americans of all political persuasions will have to pick up the pieces - together.

1. First,Im a liberal from Ca who has followed politics for 30 years.

2. All Democrats need to remember that since Bush won the election he has the right to pick whoever he wants for the Supreme Court. Remember,Clinton and all other Democratic presidents had the same right and we have to accept that painful reality. When Ginsburg was nominated Republicans did not filibuster,they voted for her.

3. Filibuster Harriet Miers? Hell yes, the woman wasnt even smart enough! Alito? No, because our intense suspicion isnt good enough to overcome the fact the man is qualified to sit on the court.

4. We should NOT be attacking our favorite blogs because they did not follow your demands. And Steve is more than right re. Kerry, that was a total political move on his part because he has 08 on the brain,it was embarrassing to watch and weakened the perceived strength of the impact of bloggers.

I don't see my favorite bloggers, like Firedoglake, Digby and other prominent progressive bloggers, EVER becoming mouthpieces for Dems. They (and we readers) will hold Dem's feet to the fire, I have no doubt of that, whatsoever.

If some progressive bloggers feel like they have to become mouthpieces, then they'd have to be pretty pathetic to start with.

There is nothing wrong with dialog between bloggers and our Democratic leadership. I welcome it. At some point in time, the media, the pundits and politicians are going to have to realize that most of us are not of the far left. We are just ordinary people who have deep feelings about our country and who have been left out of the political process up until now. In other words, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.

We are teetering on the precipice of disaster and it's up to us to pull back and remove from office those who are aiding and abetting the current power structure.

"But everything not taken off the record should be on the record -- and none faulted for accurately depicting the content of such a call."

For those bloggers who do not want to be seen as mouthpieces of politicians, there is a simple solution - post a transcript or an audio recording (with the consent of those recorded) of everything said "on the record".

Increasing the transparency of the blogger's sources will allow readers to judge any journalism ethics questions for themselves. Then, if any Member of Congress imposed some sort of "publish or perish" rule, readers would at least have the opportunity to know that before reading what the blogger writes. Also, conference call transcripts would reveal any sycophantic bloggers for what they are.

I think this issue could become something the blogging community self-corrects, but only if it becomes fashionable for bloggers to be as transparent as possible about their sources.

Steve, nice post. Can't say I agree with everything, but your concerns regarding the "closeness" of politicians and the blurring of the lines are very important issues.

Steve,

I understand the impulse to put treat blogs, as a category, something like journalists. But they're not a category -- there's a vast spectrum of people using blogging technology for a wide variety of different things, most of which are decidedly non-political. While it would be nice if something like professional norms were to guide bloggers who write about politics, it seems to me that (1) you'll never get buy-in on this, since the technology is so small-d democratic, and (2) it's too attractive for people with partisan motives to push the margins of these rules. They might do this in an up-front way (I'm thinking of Kos) or more underhandedly (I'm thinking of the Thune operatives who blogged about the Daschle/Thune race). I was going to say that bloggers, as a community, are not sufficiently discrete and coherent enough to adopt or abide by the sort of norms that you seem to have in mind, but the problem is that bloggers really aren't a community at all.

I think this is an instance where we have to trust the marketplace. Some blogs will aspire to the sort of professionalism that we expect of better journalists, because their reptutation will be important to the bloggers who run them. E.g., both you and Josh Marshall put your name on your sites, and back what you say with a credibility that relates to your professional lives off the web. Many of us blog anonymously, for various reasons, and perhaps we have to work harder if we want to be taken seriously. People who read blogs need to be -- and will be -- more aware that people blog for different reasons, and that some people aspire to be (e.g.) agents of Senators. With many of these blogs, what you read is worth what you paid for it.

This is really not all that different from more traditional media. The Washington Times, from what I can tell, does not aspire to the same sort of journalistic standards that the Washington Post (e.g.) does, even they use similar technology to produce a facially similar product. The Washington Times' brand does not impress me, and so I don't bother to read it. And, obviously, we see from time to time that the Washington Post (e.g.) has problems with acting like a politician's agent.

My two cents, and forgive me if others have said it above better. For what it's worth, I can't understand why some people are giving you such a hard time.

One of the critical components of a functioning democracy is a truly independent press.

The press are public servants whose primary job is reporting news in a factbased, vetted, corroborated, and objective manner. Reporting news truthfully and objectively demands that the press ask the critical pertinent questions of our leadership, and report on and hold leadership accountable for deceptions, failure, dereliction duty, and abuses.

The people are betrayed when the press shapeshifts from independent reporting to complicit parrots on the government payroll, or beholden to the government or leadership for access and invites to the fancy dinners and posh conferences.

Cloaking, shielding, ignoring, obfuscating, distorting, propagandizing, and mindlessly applauding the government or leaderships' radical abuses, obscene deceptions, cataclysmic failures, catastrophic derelictions of duty, grotesque mismanagement, systemic cronyism, woeful lack of accounting, and wanton profiteering - intentionally or ignorantly failing to question these offensives - refusing to research or examine, or properly vet the governments or leadership hollow meaningless rhetoric - actually shielding, disappearing, or stuffing relevent information - is a radical and extreme BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUST.

The complicit parrots in the socalled MSM, and any bloggers on the government payroll perpetuating the governments' disinformation, propaganda and slime in lockstep unison with the government disinformation warriors, propaganda and slime covens, and perception managers and diabolizing, discrediting, or dismissing those who do bother to question the governments activities, or those seeking to petition the government for redress of grievances - are enemies of freedom and democracy, betrayers of the public trust, and shameless mouth pieces and partisans for a government run amock, not members of the press, or honorable journalists.

America does not have a function democracy.

America does not have an independent press.

America's government has been commandeered by fascist cabals in the Bush government operating above, beyond, outside, and in total disdain of the rule of law, perverting the core principles that formally defined our unique experiment in democracy, and shapeshifting or re-engineering Amerikka into fascist totalitarian dictatorship, and profiteering wantonly in and from the process.

The Bush government breaks the law repeatedly and insistently, and the socalled MSM is complicit in defending, excusing, or ignoring the government deceptions, abuses, and failures.

Americans must rely on the blogsphere (as untamed and convoluted as it is) and foreign press for truly independent reporting

Deliver us from evil.

I basically agree with ronny's observations at February 3, 2006 12:45 AM and since the Bush administration has made it perfectly clear that creating their fantasy world supercedes everything else once again I wish Steve Clemons the best on his 'mission'.

Wow...I didn't expect this to blow up as it did, but I think that the conversation is healthy. Just for the record, I "like" the blogger conference calls, but they are becoming more and more routine, and the bloggers on these calls have their head in the sand if they don't think at some point we are going to have to somewhat define what the respective roles of blogs and politicos are.

I also want to make clear that I wasn't attacking anyone but rather asking a question about routenized political interactions with blogs.

My thinking was prompted by the writing of Taylor Marsh, a brilliant blogger whose work I enjoy. Taylor critiqued my reporting of a Reid conference call. She had a right to do that -- and I respect what she wrote.

She questioned, in a sense, what "role" I was playing on the blogger call -- and challenged me on my priorities. In other words, she thinks that the internal debate among Dems about ethics reform is less significant than lining up against the Republicans on the Abramoff scandal. She makes a good point, but nonetheless, I wrote what I did because the question posed by Reid's stance interested me.

I didn't attack Taylor or other bloggers for challenging my reporting on Reid or the "role" I felt I had in reporting a blog call.

She and others got me thinking -- and now that I've done a number of these calls -- the issues I raised I raise honestly, and with no disdain for others.

A lot of folks are attacking me for putting this question on the agenda. This has happened in the past when I raised questions in the press about the corruption of think tanks. Heritage, Cato, and AEI spent considerable time trashing me, when I was not attacking them -- but rather commenting on disturbing 'systemic' trends in the think tank industry.

I feel that it's important to ask ourselves these questions about norms and roles in the political process.

On Alito, POA and others keep challenging me on my silence on Alito. I will only say that I greatly admire Sean-Paul Kelly and others who led the blogs in the last days of that fight. I probably should have written some small piece saying bravo or something of that sort. The reasons I didn't were that I was occupied with personal matters at that time -- and also because I didn't like at all how the filibuster process was handled.

POA -- I do have serious problems with Reid's and Pelosi's leadership. I've written about my problems with Reid before.

I have written about my frustration with Dems who concede defeat before the battle, and Republicans who are declaring victory even when they are losing.

You and I completely disagree about Rule 21. I won't agree with you that it was a dumb stunt. It was a dramatic tactic that changed the national conversation at that time back to WMD issues and the Iraq War, and Libby, etc. -- after the President had tried to change the spotlight to Alito and abortion politics the first business day after Libby's indictment.

What you are saying about Rule 21 not producing the Phase 2 report may be accurate. We asked Reid about that on the call -- I did actually -- and he said that most of the report is done, with one section left, according to Rockefeller. What bothers me, and perhas you too, is that this tactic seemed to occur and then nothing else followed it. We didn't plan for a fillibuster, which was a huge mistake -- and we didn't do other things that would keep the White House off balance.

So, don't get too carried away that there is some collusion between our Democratic leaders and this blog.

But on the Alito effort, Kennedy told us the other day that the blogs helped move them from 38 votes against Alito to 42 -- a net gain in Kennedy's eyes due to blogger weight of 4 votes. I'd applaud that too....

But I'm not going to play games that when the Democratic leadership FAILED to lead on Alito and failed to get it's act together that I'm going to robustly participate in a campaign designed to lose.

That is what they did on Alito -- and I thought it was wrong. So, take that as you will. I wrote about Alito at the end of October, in November, and in December. Where was everyone then? Where was John Kerry? Where was Clinton and the rest? Where were the NGOs?

They piled on at the end to create the "theatre of protest" but that was not a genuine effort at knocking Alito out of the ring -- and we could have won.

best regards to all of you -- even those of you who are knocking me around today,

Steve Clemons

"I didn't expect this to blow up as it did...."

Is there anything that bloggers and blog commentators like to discuss as much as they like to comment about blogging?

btree,
I believe you were referring to a couple of my comments about not knowing what the right wing thinks about issues.
What I'm getting at is that there is an array of right wing publications and email bulletins which are full of "facts" which are not reported in the traditional media at all. This discrepancy is a primary reason for the traction of the "liberal media bias" meme on the right.
Besides getting the news from different sources whose reporting of facts is at variance from what we on the left read, the right wing is full of themes which are either in code, or hidden from the public discourse, by which I mean the kind of babbling nonsense that right wing representatives give on CNN, etc.

Let me give you a couple of specific examples related to Iraq, which was where I wanted to drive the discussion

1) A lot of right of center people will tell me quite happily that one measure of our success is the incipient civil war. This is the idea that having "Arabs kill Arabs" is a good thing, or at least much better than having Arabs kill Americans. Distasteful as such a viewpoint may be, this view of the Iraq fiasco dovetails with similar thinking about the Iran-Iraq war. Whether or not the Bush administration believes that having "Arabs killing Arabs" is a sign of success, the existence of such a strategy is a reasonable inference from the facts, and it energizes the base.

2) The second take is that we are at war with Iraq to put pressure on the Saudis to stop funding terrorism. I think this idea is preposterous, but respectable people, such as George Friedman from Stratfor, hold this interpretation.

My point is that based on my admittedly sporadic watching of cable TV news as well as perusals of online news media, neither of these interpretations of the war are covered.
Perhaps FOX does.

In discussions with the right wing, one rarely gets to a point of agreement on facts, but even after that, there is a hurdle of many hidden assumptions about the aims of our policies.
If we are to avoid having the divide between left and right become greater, these unspoken differences in goals must be addressed---needless to say, there needs to be better arbitration of factual disputes which pertain to political discussions as well. FactCheck.org is not adequate at all. I believe Mediamatters is quite good, but it is clearly partisan.

Fascinating discussion, Steve. Thanks for starting it.

Just a comment on finding out more about the right. I went over to littlegreenfootballs to absorb some right wing opinions for balance.

They threw me out in less than five minutes, and I've spent more of my life as a Republican than a Democrat. If you're not strictly following a strong right wing agenda you're labeled a traitor.

At least free speech is alive and well here, even if an occasional hand grenade is lobbed. I think I still have an old helmet laying around Steve. Probably better than a tie.

I am not worried about institutionalizing integrity on blogs. Cream rises to the top.

Some bloggers are clear about their reasons for blogging, transparent about their point of view, rigorous in correcting mistakes, and they disclose personal facts or biases that may bear on what they are saying. Those are the ones that I like to read. I doubt that it is coincidental that a lot of other people read the same blogs, many of which have been mentioned in the comments to this post, and that many of them were nominated for "Bloggies" recognition.

Bloggers have to self-regulate individually according to how they see themselves--as reporters, advocates, partial observers, or other roles. Their readers can self-select according to what they want to read.

Legally speaking, I don't see how a blogger could possibly be regulated as an "agent" of a politician absent some economic relationship or quid pro quo.

If I hear a politician say something and I want to repeat it purely because I like him, or because I like his political party, there is no conceivable basis for restricting my right to do so. That is flat-out free speech.

I understand where these calls for "blogger ethics" come from, but frankly, if someone isn't getting paid to express their opinions then I don't think I have much of a place telling them how to do so. Now, if a blogger gets paid to run ads from the DNC, and simultaneously they're shilling for the DNC message, that could be an entirely different situation.

The bottom line is this. If there is a distinction between what is pure "free speech" and what is subject to regulation as "political speech," that distinction is going to be premised on money or the existence of a legal agency relationship. There is never going to be a law that says "if you think critically about what a politician says, then you're fine, but if you're just going to be a Bushbot and repeat whatever they tell you, then you're subject to regulation." The law simply doesn't turn on amorphous distinctions like whether you're being a sufficiently critical listener. So I think the focus on that is misplaced, at least with regard to there being potential legal consequences.

Steve, is your post musings on bloggers in general or your place in the blogging world? If it's about bloggers in general, eh, some people get co-opted, some don't. Shrug. It happens.

If you're worried about your own blogging and being tempted by power and privalege, I'd say you were right on time. This isn't about norms and standards, some blogger ethics panel. This is about you and what you want to do. Seems to me its as liberating and scary and "important" as you want it to be.

Very cool.

that's "privilege". I can't spell worth a damn.

marky, I certainly agree with your point on the problem of hidden assumptions and premises. But if the premises or hidden assumptions or 'codes' on which the right rests their arguments are well known, as I think they are, at least to those who are sufficiently 'media-literate' and who do not get their news and commentary from the traditional media alone, then why do progressives and even operatives close to the power centers have so little to show for in terms of driving wedges between the moderates and the mullahs?

Also, would you rather like to see Democrats make public statements with regards to those premises and assumptions and explicitly distance themselves from them - and polarize the situation by potentially driving Republican moderates further into the hands of the mullahs - or would you rather like to see - far more - public pressure being put on moderate Republicans so as to force them to distance themselves from the extremists?

Btw, I also want to highlight your meta-analysis regarding both the scope and pace (!) of the campaigns initiated by the blogosphere, and how these two parameters impact on the effectiveness of those campaigns. I think this a very interesting point that I don't see discussed as often as it should be. I think Steve's efforts re. Bolton and the extremely successful campaign against Social Security privatization are examples of getting both the scope and pace right.

Btree,
I think Democrats are saying plenty already. I have two things in mind.

First, I would like to see more Republicans who support the war be forced to explain their support in something more than a collection of platitudes. I'm sure you can still hear about the schools being painted, or purple fingers, if you watch FOX and read WND; surely there must be someone on the right who can give a clear, unequivocal defense of the war that is based on facts we can all agree on.

Second, those on the left side should be more familiar with the right wing narrative for the war. Frankly, I don't know this well enough---I don't agree with you that well-read lefties have a good handle on the right of center Iraq narrative. Actually, I don't think there IS a single narrative which is convincing the right wing that the war is going well or is at least worth the struggle. This is where point two ties in with point one: I believe----admittedly based on scant evidence---that the right wing is currently composed of factions which support the war for differing, or even conflicting, reasons.
My hypothesis is that if there were more open discussion of the basis on which righties support the war, those on the right might be as surprised as those on the left to find out what those rationales are.

In my opinion, the diffracted support for Bush on the right is an artifact of the disinformation campaign which supported the war. Besides using ordinary propaganda, I am convinced that the Bush administration purposely gave a scattershot of reasons for the war, some of which contradicted each other. This has allowed people to pick and choose why they support our efforts in Iraq.
I say to everybody: lay your cards on the table.
I know why I oppose the war in Iraq. I believe it is a typical colonial adventure (no moral judgment necessarily implied) which means a high likelihood of protracted bloody conflict. This is the core of my primary objection; beyond that, I think the war is destabilizing and encourages other countries to obtain nuclear weapons, and it is training a new and more dangerous crop of terrorists, as Afghanistan did in the 80's.

Btw, I really feel like I'm going out on a limb here, but I just don't see enough discussion of how the left and right can talk about Iraq based on information held in common and an honest discussion of values.
If others feel as I do, perhaps we can get more discussion. TWN is an excellent place, as is belgraviadispatch.com, which has a lot of nitty-gritty discussion of diplomacy and troop details.

"Bloggers have to self-regulate individually according to how they see themselves--as reporters, advocates, partial observers, or other roles. Their readers can self-select according to what they want to read."

This is exactly right. Why do people insist on treating us like children who need to be protected?

Maybe I sound like a libertarian, but I cringe every time I hear the term "blogger ethics." Self-regulating and self selecting make the most sense. As Mark Twain said, "Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong."

I also think that the idea of imposing a set of ethical standards on most bloggers would be a waste of time. A more cantankerous, contrary and independent group of people would be hard to find. Create a set of standards for them, and many will flout them on principle alone.

marky, I suppose my comment was more generally directed at the difficulties of achieving political consensus due to the oppositional metaphor systems that are used by progressives and conservatives to frame the debate. cf. Lakoff's Moral Politics.

That said, I agree with your analysis with respect to Iraq: a thousand specious arguments, a cloud of lies. 'All you bigots out there, pick your favourite prejudice and hide behind the machine Karl built for us.' (But that's the neocons at work, not conservative philosophy.)

The run-up to the war is so yesterday? Tell that to the families of 2,270+ dead and 20,750+ wounded soldiers. Force them to take a stand. Have them 'explain' themselves.

Interestingly, Froomkin has a piece out today along similar lines: how to cut through the BS, the constant evasion, stonewalling, concealment, along with a nice rundown of what goes for 'questions' from talk radio and the right wing news media. His suggestion: a change of pace, specifically a change of the format of hour-long television interviews to focus exclusively on one overriding issue, thus cutting through the lack of follow-ups and "mini-filibusters".

s/ through conservative "mini-filibusters"

Steve, the general issue you raise is important, BUT ONLY in the specific context of 'journalistic' bloggers who explicitly take an objective, nonpartisan, or ... reportorial position.

Many are partisan, or are explicitly defined as opinion pages.

So: whether columnists expressing opinions, pundits interpreting political events and electoral dynamics, or self-appointed spinmeisters presuming to twist the news and warp the public responses to it ...

... many bloggers don't have to abide by the objective rules of journalism. And reportorial/journalism-oriented bloggers CAN NOT be held to account for the actions of those who don't.

Thing is, mainstream print journalism has never really been held to this standard. Has Friedman, or Brooks, or Krauthammer, or others paid a price for publishing 'opinions' that are in point of fact, a) not true; b) verbatim repeats of Karl Rove's talking points; or c) outright spin?

I think not.

And I can guarantee you that reporters and print columnists alike have traded access for integrity. David Brooks has certainly gone on Lehrer Report and uttered words factually untrue, spun his little heart out, and put a desperately good face on some ugly, ugly events.

If there exists any ethics or standards in the socalled MSM or American journalism - where is it. Where is the regulatory body or learned opinions of experts demanding rigorous review and the enforcement (at least ethically) of "objective rules of journalism"?"

There are no ethics, or standards, or objective rules in American journalism and the socalled MSM. Amost every single socalled MSM media voice
media outlet (print, E, or video) are complicit parrots regurgitating the Bush government partyline in lockstep unison.

There is no thorough investigation or examination of by the socalled MSM of -
the Bush governments cataclysmic failures and dereliction of duty prior to 9/11, -

of the many gaping holes and fast unraveling Bush government fictions and myths and partisan narrative relating to the causes and connects of the horrors of 9/11, -

of the Bush government spiriting 140 Saudi nationals including bin Laden family members around and eventually out of the country in the dark hours and days after 9/11, when all Americans were grounded, and without adequate interrogation, examination or even questioning of these rather pertinent "good friends of the Bush government -

of the Ptech machinations, and what Indira Singh accurately frames the "Bush Crime Family cabals" connections and interpenetration with Saudi princes, oil oligarch, intelligence goons, and financiers responsible for abundantly funding and nurturing the 9/11 mass murderers and all the jihadist mass murder gangs including al Quaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemma Islamya, blah, blah, blah, -

of the original and recent DSM revelations proving the Bush governments intent to attack and occupy Iraq regardless of the lack of justification, or any question of costs, timeframes, necessity, or ultimate objective -

of the wanton profligate profiteering ongoing in Iraq of cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to the Bush government, -

of the Bush governments' malicious and ruthless information warfare campaign pimping - I mean mass marketing a relentless and still festering litany of deceptions, exaggerations, hype, corruption and contamination of the intelligence product, sexed up, dodgey, uncorroborated, single sourced, unvetted, and patently FALSE justifications for the Bush governments plunder, slaughter, wanton profiteering, and war of choice in Iraq, -

of the criminal negligence of incompetent chickenhawks posers in the pentagon for failing to prepare, plan, or account for a fierce insurgency (which many people were warning about) -

of the criminal negligence of the incompentent chickenhawks pretenders in the pentagon for failing to adequately supply and armor our troops or to honor those fallen, or injured -

of the grotesque mismanagement, and woefully failed ad hoc responses to unforseen, and unprepared for events in the field involving the occupation, and the socalled reconstruction -

of the total cataclysmic failure to adequately account for the wanton abuse and misuse of the people's tax dollars in the prosecution of the war, occupation and socalled reconstruciton process funnelled to cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to the Bush government who were awarded nobid openended contracts without review, recourse, or remedy,

of the many thousands of innocent Iraqis slaughtered and maimed in the Bush governments' deceptive, bloody, costly noendinsight, horrorshow and war of choice in Iraq, -

of the duplicitous shielding of the House of Saud whose state religion (the malignancy of wahabism) and laundered petro dollars continue abundantly funding and nurturing all the jihadist mass murder gangs, and America's sworn enemies,

of the failue to adequately stem the WMD proliferation of Iran and NK who actually have nukes, bugs and chem, and acutally do, and will have operation links with al Quaida and other jihadist mass murder gangs, -

I could go on for hours with well documented Bush government abuses, failures, deceptions, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, dereliction of duty, criminal negligence, systemic cronyism, malicious perversion of America's core principles, grotesque mismanagement, woeful lack of accounting, wanton profiteering and fascit cabals and cronies in the Bush government breaking the law "repeatedly and insistantly - but what's the point.

The complicit parrots and lockstep partisans on the Bush government payroll in the socalled MSM refuse to recognize, examine, investigate, question, challenge, or report on any of these obscene offences, and wild abuses and misuses of power.

America does not have a function press or ethical or objective journalist in the socalled MSM.

All four ruling media oligarchs are part and parcel of the Bush government's fascist totalitarian dictatorship's information warfare operations, and complicit parrots and lockstep partisans and on the Bush government payroll.

There is no real journalism in America outside of the wild untamed terrains of the blogshere.

The true voices of journalism are ruthlessly slimed as conspiracy theorists, anti-American spawn of the devil, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and so simply dismissed without even recognizing or examining the questions posed, or factbasedrealities presented.

So - hi ho, hi ho, its' off to Pax Americana neverendingwar and fascist totalitarian dictatorship we go.

A reading from the gospel according to Fox. Amen.

You're crying wolf, Mr. Clemons. You've found yourself in the midst of all these reasonable and unreasonable voices on the internet yet in the meantime you've been actively involved in redefining US foreign policy. You've made excellent use of many different sources within your network but at the same time access has a price when it isn't accompanied by a vision. Without Bernstein, Bob Woodward would only have become a voiceless insider not knowing how to frame an issue. I wish you well with the Faustian pact you've made: Grover N.

Btw, Lakoff on Iraq narratives. The Nation as a Person metaphor plus two fairy tales: The Self-Defense Story and the Rescue Story.

A sick reminder of where things stodd on the eve of the war. And I quote:

Millions of people around the world can see that the metaphors and fairy tales don't fit the current situation, that Gulf War II does not qualify as a just war -- a "legal" war. But if you accept all these metaphors, as Americans have been led to do by the administration, the press, and the lack of an effective Democratic opposition, then Gulf War II would indeed seem like a just war.

But surely most Americans have been exposed to the facts -- the lack of a credible link between Saddam and al Quaeda and the idea that large numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians (estimates are around 500,000) will be killed or maimed by our bombs. Why don't they reach the rational conclusion?

One of the fundamental findings of cognitive science is that people think in terms of frames and metaphors -- conceptual structures like those we have been describing. The frames are in the synapses of our brains -- physically present in the form of neural circuitry. When the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored.

It is a common folk theory of progressives that "The facts will set you free!" If only you can get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope. Human brains just don't work that way. Framing matters. Frames once entrenched are hard to dispel.

Bloggers aren't journalists, even if they are involved in blogger calls. Blogging is opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I agree with whomever it was who said that bloggers, even those on conference calls, are under no obligation to be objective and even-handed.

People who like you blog will post on it or at least read it. Those who don't will find a blog they do want to read and/or post on.

And whoever it was who said Taylor Marsh was brilliant - please. You must be kidding. NO ONE posts on her blog, it's like she's talking to only herself. I can't imagine why she even keeps the blog going.

"There have tended to be just enough checks and balances in media to offset serious corruption -- until the age of Fox News, Judith Miller, journalists turned celebrities, and others where clearly the lines of co-optation have become evident."

Oh, please, already. Look: if you're going to run a line like that, then somebody has to whack you upside the head with Eason Jordan's deal with Saddam. Right out loud.

For Christ's sake.

Billy -- good point on Jordan.

best, Steve Clemons