Controlling the Message: on bloggers, transparency, and the John Edwards Presidential Campaign
Hoyden About Town has written a post about, among other things, bloggers working for the John Edwards presidential campaign. Her post drew out my own thoughts, and as my comment lengthened, I thought I'd better publish it as a post.
I've left it written as a comment:
What I find more interesting is what was not said in both announcements. Neither Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister nor Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon said they were being paid for these positions.
No one seemed remotely curious at Pandagon. One commenter at Shakespeare's Sister did raise the issue, and Melissa left a comment to confirm that yes, she was being paid. But shouldn't that have been acknowledged in the announcement post, as a matter of fact?
Neither raised the payment issue because this would've undermined each blogger's backing for Edwards.
Additionally, receiving any kind of perk or reimbursement for blogging is a contentious issue amongst bloggers, and for good reason: often a blogger's authenticity can be bent, re-shaped, given the right perk. If revealing the perk or payment is handled clumsily, it can damage credibility and erode any trust a blogger has accrued with her readers.
I think more transparency was needed in both announcements. Because the money issue was covered up through omission, I felt more cynical about the bloggers' motivations for working for the John Edwards campaign.
As sincere as both announcement posts seem, I came away the sense that these bloggers are already deeply engaged in "controlling the message".
4 comments:
Interesting. I just assumed from the get-go that it was a paid position, as I think did most of us. That's kinda what "being offered a position" implies, no?
"I have been asked and accepted a position as the Blogmaster"
Blogmaster for a presidential candidate's official site as an unpaid volunteer? That's definitely a full-time job. Honestly, who on earth would do that?
Pam's announcement on Pandagon about Shakes also said explicitly that it was a paid position:
"I’m glad she’s getting a paycheck after blogging for a good while there without a FT job."
I'd wondered about this, as well, given the unreserved enthusiasm I saw in comment threads. I'm sure it's a great career opportunity and in that I'm happy for them, but it makes me say "hmmm." I wonder if, when the campaign is over, they'll go back to their regular venues?
I'm glad they seem to be taking a hiatus from their personal sites in the meantime. I'd hate to see viral marketing going on.
Add me to the "I assumed it was a paid gig" group. We're a full year out from the primaries -- anybody joining a campaign full-time at this point is going to be a paid operative.
Shakes is not taking a hiatus from her site, and even posted something to her blog about Edwards today.
I don't think she should completely leave blogging, the way Jesse of Pandagon did when he went to work on Strickland's campaign, but it seems to me that she might want to rethink blogging about Edwards on her personal blog now that she works for him.
huh. just assumed it was paid. more power to anyone who gets paid to blog! but i'd say that, enjoy it while it lasts. the thing i've already noticed is that the money swims around the election cycle. it'll *poof* go away when done. i naturally assumed Amanda would be able to parlay this into an even better paying, more well-placed political gig, or something like it.
as for blogging on their own sites, i'd guess that they should just do the disclaimer thing each time they write. the thing is, maybe i'm naive, but i can't picture anyone voting for edwards just because Amanda endorsed him.
Post a Comment