I’ve been watching with amusement as a genuinely interesting question – the overlap between one’s actions in ‘meatspace’ and one’s role as a blogger – deteriorates into a somewhat sordid pissing contest and score-settling both between the anti-Dean Right and the Dean folks (including Kos and Jerome) and within the pool of ex-Dean staff and supporters.
I will shake my head at the incredible lack of balance among almost all of the folks involved.
And, because I enjoy bonfires, I’ll toss some gasoline on the broader discussion which I hope will serve as a bit of a backfire to the arrival of POUM and the complete implosion of this discussion into score-settling.
There is an issue with the role of bloggers in tacitly promoting things which are part and parcel of their real lives – of spinning what they write and present as ‘free commentary’ to suit the financial or political winds that may advantage them. But if we lift our heads and look around, we’ll see that these are part of a set of much bigger trends.The amateur nature of blogging up to now has been a significant part of its delight; we may well look back on this as the Golden Age, before Duncan Black and Oliver Willis rode partisan commentary to advocacy jobs, before Lauck and Van Beek slammed Daschle in their blogs while taking cash from Thune’s campaign, and before Kos got hired to make sure he didn’t defect to Clark.
But the downfall – if it happens – isn’t something that’s unique to blogging, no not at all.
Here are two articles that I hope will place the issues in a somewhat larger context. First, from this Sunday’s L.A. Times Magazine:
Swagland. It’s not a mythical over-the-rainbow realm, an Eastern European country, a theme park. You might call it a state of mind, a wondrous alternate universe concocted by publicists, funded by corporations eager for media coverage of their wares and frequented by journalists who have cast off concerns about conflicts of interest and embraced a new creed of conspicuous consumption.
In Swagland, the streets are paved with freebies, from promotional T-shirts, CDs and DVDs, to designer clothing, jewelry and perfume, to spa treatments, Broadway show tickets and suites in five-star hotels, to cellphones, laptops and luxury sports cars on loan. Travel writers accept free trips to exotic foreign lands. Automotive reviewers take junkets to Switzerland or the sun-dappled hills of Italy to drive the latest high-end roadsters. Entertainment hacks hobnob with stars and directors at the Four Seasons in Los Angeles. High-tech audio and video reviewers max out their home-entertainment centers with LCD HDTV screens, surround-sound systems and five-digit turntables, which they keep for months at a timeāfor research purposes. Surfing journalists travel to remote South Pacific atolls and stay with supermodels on “floating Four Seasons” luxury cruisers where the champagne never stops flowing.
…
Some journalists steal swag outright from photo shoot sets or magazine fashion closets. “I’ve had editors call me up and say, ‘I have two fur coats here in a bag. I’m at 38th and 7th Avenue, right on the corner. If you can bring me X amount of dollars in cash, they’re yours,’ ” Valenti says. “I said to one editor, ‘What exactly are you going to say to the company?’ She said, ‘I’ll just send back the bag empty and blame it on the messenger.’ “
…
For publicists who practice giveaway marketing, however, such hand-wringing is futile, even a little comical. As far as they’re concerned, the battle’s already been won. The glittering utopia of Swagland is governed by one supreme precept, and Kelly Cutrone, founder of the firm People’s Revolution, sums it up: “Here’s the deal: Everything’s a commercial.”
And in the New York Times Magazine back in early December:
The thinking is that in a media universe that keeps fracturing into ever-finer segments, consumers are harder and harder to reach; some can use TiVo to block out ads or the TV’s remote control to click away from them, and the rest are simply too saturated with brand messages to absorb another pitch. So corporations frustrated at the apparent limits of “traditional” marketing are increasingly open to word-of-mouth marketing. One result is a growing number of marketers organizing veritable armies of hired “trendsetters” or “influencers” or “street teams” to execute “seeding programs,” “viral marketing,” “guerrilla marketing.” What were once fringe tactics are now increasingly mainstream; there is even a Word of Mouth Marketing Association.
Marketers bicker among themselves about how these approaches differ, but to those of us on the receiving end, the distinctions might seem a little academic. They are all attempts, in one way or another, to break the fourth wall that used to separate the theater of commerce, persuasion and salesmanship from our actual day-to-day life. To take what may be the most infamous example, Sony Ericsson in 2002 hired 60 actors in 10 cities to accost strangers and ask them: Would you mind taking my picture? Those who obliged were handed, of course, a Sony Ericsson camera-phone to take the shot, at which point the actor would remark on what a cool gadget it was. And thus an act of civility was converted into a branding event.
This idea — the commercialization of chitchat — resembles a scenario from a paranoid science-fiction novel about a future in which corporations have become so powerful that they can bribe whole armies of flunkies to infiltrate the family barbecue. That level of corporate influence sounds sure to spark outrage — another episode in the long history of mainstream distrust of commercial coercion and marketing trickery. Fear of unchecked corporate reach is what made people believe in the power of subliminal advertising and turn Vance Packard’s book “The Hidden Persuaders” into a best seller in the 1950’s; it is what gave birth to the consumer-rights movement of the 1970’s; and it is what alarms people about neuroscientists supposedly locating the “buy button” in our brains today. Quite naturally, many of us are wary of being manipulated by a big, scary, Orwellian “them.”
It’s stupid and blind to lay these issues at the moral failings of an individual – if such failings really come into play – or the moral blindness of the Left, the Right, or the Administration.
It’s just that we live in a world where the watchword is simple: “Everything’s a commercial”
As bloggers, we’re going to have to figure out how to deal with that.
It will be hard, but the basic idea is quite simple: disclosure. Demand it of the blogs you read…provide in the blogs you write. Once we have an expectation of disclosure, the same give and take process that works reasonably well debugging the MSM will expose blogger foibles just as readily.
We shouldn’t set as our gold standard ‘free commentary’ any more than we should set as our gold standard ‘objective journalism’. Every paper, and every blogger, will have a certain take on what is worth commentary, and what is not, and how to give equal time to “the other side” — or not, if it is an advocacy piece one is writing.
What I’m saying is, I’d rather read two blogs or papers, each with a declared point of view, than one blog or paper that claims to be objective. In my experience, the closer writing gets to “objectivity”, the less able the writer is to lay out a coherent narrative or story. The story is what makes people read all the way to the end, and more importantly, _it’s what helps the mind retain the ideas and information in the piece_. The mind likes stories, and has to work much harder to simply recall a balanced collage of objective facts that don’t fit together well.
The reader can always get balance by seeking out the other side…whereas, a reader not interested in the other side will simply gloss over the parts of an “objective” piece they disagree with.
Specifically with Blogs, we already have the problem of authenticity. The blogosphere has already started training itself to question whether a blogger posting from, say, the Antarctic bivouac of some terrorist err freedom-fighter penguins about to “ice” a polar bear enclave, _really_ is blogging from there…. So, how much more work is it to simply educate ourselves that there is no such thing as ‘free commentary’?
I often find myself wondering about a blogger who has a job and a family nevertheless posts multiple times a day, even on holidays. Sure that blogger has a right to be heard, and frequent posting per se doesn’t mean they’re “on the take” or otherwise ethically compromised. But, maybe they are a bit obsessive and as a reader one should factor that in. This is easily done, once one accepts there is no such thing as ‘free commentary’; once done, that blogger’s dedication can be more readily appreciated. My point is, one should as a general rule train oneself to speculate (fairly of course) on the motives of all bloggers, not just ones that pass some threshold of conduct.
Conversely, if someone lays out formal, ethical rules for bloggers, as I fear may happen anyhow, that’s just one more thing for people to comment-flame about, instead of debating the real issues.
Thankfully, the idea of regulating the Blogosphere will I think strike even the most command-and-control oriented bloggers as hopeless.
Now if only it would occur to certain powers that be that regulating our political speech acts in the guise of campaign finance reform is equally absurd.
“into a somewhat sordid pissing contest and score-settling both between the anti-Dean Right and the Dean folks”
“score-settling” ?
Thats a rather backhanded slap at those of us in a contest of ideas, it smacks of the fake equality accusation, the perverted suggestion that all viewpoints are equal.
In most idelogical areas and issues in conflict, it very much a contest between good and evil.
Hitler got 90% of the vote that gave him total power, should we condemn all of those germans?
It was the national socialist ideas, evil in themselves under the administration of any creature.
The socialist idea is evil in itself, the mindset asserts that government is to be the tool for social change, “social justice”.
And it is the idea that a goverment should mould society by using govt goons with guns that is the core evil of the left, its the axis, the pivot, at the center of the mass murder of some 174 Million people, the beggary of whole continents and the sufferage of litterly billions under the utopian planers iron boot.
Its a contest, with real issues of life and death at the center, between those that know American goverment power is only to be used to protect your rights, and those whoes aim is to use force of governmnet to take it away.
The left are the butchers of the Ukraine, the butchers of Tienamen square, fake memeo Dan, and those shrugging past Mass graves of children in Iraq. or Bagdad McDermit standing on them for a photo OP with the aim that the killing fields of Iraq remain secret.
Or John Kerry, fresh back from his jetset trash America tour. where his job was to give hope aid and confort to our enemy so that more of our troops and the innocent of Iraq would die,
EXACTLY, like he did before, for the Vietcong butchers who mass murdered their own people by %5 death Quota, that he spoke glowing words of praise for.
Evil incarnate
These are not morally inert issues like fighting over the planned route for a new freeway, but real issues of life and death, the life and death of our troops, and the hope of freedom for some 50 Million people, paid for in blood, lots of it ours.
There is more to this than marketing fluff.
LOL, A.L., I get the feeling someone above didn’t get the reference to POUM.
It’s always a good idea to explain any acronym one uses in a blog post. I had and have no idea what POUM means, myself.
POUM
Partido Obrero e Unificacion Marxista (Party of Marxist Unification, literally Worker’s Party of Marxist Unification)?
POUM was George Orwell’s preferred party in Spain, left-anarchist. The Stalinite official Communists suppressed them.