 |
|
« Grenwich Mean Time Moonbat Alert | Main | Glad We Cleared That Up » January 14, 2005
"Blogger on the Roof"
Posted by Bill Commenting on Kos's previous status as a paid operative for the Howard Dean campaign, Pennywit mentions that my efforts are more naturally independent: Let me offer a permutation to that distinction. There is a distinction between an activist like Kos, who devotes himself to a cause or party and forcefully advocates for it, and a commentator like Bill of INDC Journal, who is less doctrinaire and more concerned with expressing his personal opinion. I'd say a few things: 1. My commentary is often partisan and I certainly devoted myself to getting Bush elected last year, but Pennywit is correct about the different motivation for punditry. Mine just springs from my analysis and background. 2. No political organization has ever paid me for anything, and I would certainly disclose such a relationship if one came across my plate. No one has offered (Taps fingers, looks at watch, softly whistles with a come hither stare). 3. I wouldn't be opposed to accepting money from an organization, with full disclosure (and I mean "full"), if their goals intersected with my opinions and I thought that I could make the partisan case with sound, objective facts. This would, of course, fundamentally change the nature of my site (Less Llama-on-llama action, for one thing). Why are the rules different for bloggers as opposed to journalists and media commentators? Because we're not paid professionals, we're amateur pundits - the compact is with your own integrity and your audience. And the minute that a blogger takes a paycheck and discloses, and the audience sticks around, he immediately morphs into a paid political activist, thus no conflict of interest. I'm not particularly incensed about Kos taking money for his opinions, because as Pennywit mentions, we've always known that he's a paid operative that works outside of the rules of traditional journalism, and his relationship was largely disclosed. Perhaps my lack of animation is also spurred by the fact that I don't pay attention to that quarter of the leftie 'sphere; the people that would/should probably be more disturbed by it are the Kos-readers that supported other candidates in the primaries and felt betrayed by his unspoken allegiance to the Vermont screamer, a candidate that would have been shellacked by George Bush. But frankly, if you're relying on Kos to feed your head with honest, even marginally unspun analysis, then I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. A leftie would do better with Matthew Yglesias or Pennywit, for my money. Posted by Bill at January 14, 2005 10:26 AM | TrackBack (4) CommentsWhat's surprising to me is the fact that the DNC felt they needed to pay these people in the first place. If, as he claims, Kos was leading the same cheers before the checks starting coming in, why pay? Why buy the moonbat when the bile is free? PW also discovered that Oliver was being funneled cash, or at least Ho-Ho's, for his effort, we're not hearing much of that, though. Posted by: T Marcell T Marcell - It wasn't the DNC, it was one Dem campaign vs. all the others in the primaries. Posted by: Bill from INDC Right, mix up there, however, the DNC was funding Oliver via Media Matters, no? Posted by: T Marcell In teh case of Kos, to mobilize the base towards one leftie vs. another. As far as Willis, etc., being employed by Media Matters/Soros (not DNC), I have no freakin' clue. Posted by: Bill from INDC I work for Media Matters for America. I've disclosed that on every page on my site since the day I was hired. I've never worked for the DNC. And no, I don't like ho-hos. Posted by: owillis Back in Sept. Jeff wrote a piece delightfully titled,"the pot calling the kettle fat and drunk on squeeze butter"-"This sentiment brought to you by Oliver Willis: paid Media Matters employee and Kerry shill—and the best friend irony’s ever had." Posted by: T Marcell Obviously, Kos' main problem remains as it always has - an extreme case of brazen hypocrisy. Posted by: Roberts Dear Mr. Indc, I represent a major political candidate who is interested in running for President of the United States in 2008. While I'm not at liberty to disclose this person's name, it might rhyme with "Spillary Blinton". Anyway, I'm prepared to offer you as much as $200,000 to whore yourself to our campaign. If you're interested, please post a picture of a llama having sex with Glenn Reynolds.
Not Harold Ickes Posted by: JayC Well, my vast intellect might be at your disposal for $200k, but first I need to figure out who you could possibly be talking about ... Posted by: Bill from INDC |
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.indcjournal.com/nav-commenters.gif)
