Bounced Bloggers - California State University, Northridgevcspc00g/454/bouncedbloggers-lat.pdf ·...

2
I n late June, “official convention blogger” Eric Schnure posted an ebullient paean to weblogs and the role they will play at the Democratic National Convention. “The truth is,” he wrote on the convention’s website, “more and more people prefer their news and information, fresh and unfiltered, smart and savvy, even with an angle and an attitude.... That’s why we’re so excited bloggers will be coming to Boston and bringing their unique perspective with them.” But, as it turned out, the Democrats weren’t that excited. In mid-July, after notifying a number of weblog writers that they had been granted media credentials to cover the conven- tion (just how many, the convention staff won’t specify), John Kerry’s team revoked the credentials of 20 invitees. The action was immediately denounced by some of the spurned bloggers, who insisted that it was an attempt by the Democrats to filter out those not on board with the party’s program. Schnure offered a hand-wringing apology in a letter to New York University’s Jay Rosen, one of the credentialed bloggers: “Unfortunately, despite hours and hours working to get this right, we goofed. We offered credentials to more blog- gers than we can accommodate. Thus, we acted as quickly as possible to notify people of our error.” He went on to insist that bloggers’ politics had nothing to do with whether or not they received credentials. “I cannot stress enough that our er- ror was one of logistics not leanings.” But is he playing it straight? You be the judge. Because the Democrats won’t release a list of whom they’ve accredited — or de-accredited — it’s hard to draw definitive conclusions. But we’ve pulled some excerpts from the blogs of both those who say they have credentials and those who say their cre- dentials were yanked. See if you can tell which are which. A hint: You can go with your gut most — but not all — of the time. “It was sunny and hot and he took off his blue blazer, laughing and point- ing to the five shirtless teenaged boys in the front row, each with a huge red letter on his chest that together spelled “KERRY.” The crowd adored him. The day was perfect.” Alison Teal writing on Hot Flashes from the Campaign Trail (hotflashes- fromthecampaigntrail.blogspot.com); * Credentialed * Credentials revoked “The debate and rhetoric about current gas prices has been heating up.... And a lot of what is being said, especially by the Democrats and the media, is pure nonsense.” Clay Butcher writing on anwr.org, a website run by Arctic Power, an Alas- ka nonprofit that would like to see the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge open to oil drilling; * Credentialed * Credentials revoked “Bush is al-Qaeda’s choice for American President.” Jude Nagurney Camwell writing on Iddybud (iddybud.blogspot.com); * Credentialed * Credentials revoked From the website The American Street (www.reachm.com/am- street); * Credentialed * Credentials revoked Bounced Bloggers 1 2 3 4 SUNDAY, JULY 25, 2004 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OPINION LOS ANGELES TIMES

Transcript of Bounced Bloggers - California State University, Northridgevcspc00g/454/bouncedbloggers-lat.pdf ·...

Page 1: Bounced Bloggers - California State University, Northridgevcspc00g/454/bouncedbloggers-lat.pdf · 2004-08-25 · Bill Ardolino on INDC-journal.com; *Credentialed ... The Kerry-Edwards

In late June, “official convention blogger” Eric Schnureposted an ebullient paean to weblogs and the role theywill play at the Democratic National Convention. “Thetruth is,” he wrote on the convention’s website, “moreand more people prefer their news and information,

fresh and unfiltered, smart and savvy, even with an angle andan attitude. . . . That’s why we’re so excited bloggers will becoming to Boston and bringing their unique perspective withthem.”

But, as it turned out, the Democrats weren’t that excited.In mid-July, after notifying a number of weblog writers thatthey had been granted media credentials to cover the conven-tion (just how many, the convention staff won’t specify), JohnKerry’s team revoked the credentials of 20 invitees.

The action was immediately denounced by some of thespurned bloggers, who insisted that it was an attempt by theDemocrats to filter out those not on board with the party’s

program. Schnure offered a hand-wringing apology in a letterto New York University’s Jay Rosen, one of the credentialedbloggers: “Unfortunately, despite hours and hours working toget this right, we goofed. We offered credentials to more blog-gers than we can accommodate. Thus, we acted as quickly aspossible to notify people of our error.” He went on to insistthat bloggers’ politics had nothing to do with whether or notthey received credentials. “I cannot stress enough that our er-ror was one of logistics not leanings.”

But is he playing it straight? You be the judge. Because theDemocrats won’t release a list of whom they’ve accredited —or de-accredited — it’s hard to draw definitive conclusions.But we’ve pulled some excerpts from the blogs of both thosewho say they have credentials and those who say their cre-dentials were yanked. See if you can tell which are which.

A hint: You can go with your gut most — but not all — ofthe time.

“It was sunny and hot and he took off his blue blazer, laughing and point-ing to the five shirtless teenaged boys in the front row, each with a huge redletter on his chest that together spelled “KERRY.” The crowd adored him.The day was perfect.”

Alison Teal writing on Hot Flashes from the Campaign Trail (hotflashes-fromthecampaigntrail.blogspot.com);

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

“The debate and rhetoric about current gas prices has been heating up. . . .And a lot of what is being said, especially by the Democrats and the media, ispure nonsense.”

Clay Butcher writing on anwr.org, a website run by Arctic Power, an Alas-ka nonprofit that would like to see the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge opento oil drilling;

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

“Bush is al-Qaeda’s choice for American President.”

Jude Nagurney Camwell writing on Iddybud (iddybud.blogspot.com);

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

From the website TheAmerican Street(www.reachm.com/am-street);

*Credentialed*Credentials revoked

Bounced Bloggers

1

2

3

4

SUNDAY, JULY 25, 2004 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OPINION LOS ANGELES TIMES

Page 2: Bounced Bloggers - California State University, Northridgevcspc00g/454/bouncedbloggers-lat.pdf · 2004-08-25 · Bill Ardolino on INDC-journal.com; *Credentialed ... The Kerry-Edwards

OP_M_6_M6_LA_1_07-25-04_su_3_CMYK

In late June, “official convention blogger” Eric Schnureposted an ebullient paean to weblogs and the role theywill play at the Democratic National Convention. “Thetruth is,” he wrote on the convention’s website, “moreand more people prefer their news and information,

fresh and unfiltered, smart and savvy, even with an angle andan attitude. . . . That’s why we’re so excited bloggers will becoming to Boston and bringing their unique perspective withthem.”

But, as it turned out, the Democrats weren’t that excited.In mid-July, after notifying a number of weblog writers thatthey had been granted media credentials to cover the conven-tion (just how many, the convention staff won’t specify), JohnKerry’s team revoked the credentials of 20 invitees.

The action was immediately denounced by some of thespurned bloggers, who insisted that it was an attempt by theDemocrats to filter out those not on board with the party’s

program. Schnure offered a hand-wringing apology in a letterto New York University’s Jay Rosen, one of the credentialedbloggers: “Unfortunately, despite hours and hours working toget this right, we goofed. We offered credentials to more blog-gers than we can accommodate. Thus, we acted as quickly aspossible to notify people of our error.” He went on to insistthat bloggers’ politics had nothing to do with whether or notthey received credentials. “I cannot stress enough that our er-ror was one of logistics not leanings.”

But is he playing it straight? You be the judge. Because theDemocrats won’t release a list of whom they’ve accredited —or de-accredited — it’s hard to draw definitive conclusions.But we’ve pulled some excerpts from the blogs of both thosewho say they have credentials and those who say their cre-dentials were yanked. See if you can tell which are which.

A hint: You can go with your gut most — but not all — ofthe time.

“It was sunny and hot and he took off his blue blazer, laughing and point-ing to the five shirtless teenaged boys in the front row, each with a huge redletter on his chest that together spelled “KERRY.” The crowd adored him.The day was perfect.”

Alison Teal writing on Hot Flashes from the Campaign Trail (hotflashes-fromthecampaigntrail.blogspot.com);

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

“The debate and rhetoric about current gas prices has been heating up. . . .And a lot of what is being said, especially by the Democrats and the media, ispure nonsense.”

Clay Butcher writing on anwr.org, a website run by Arctic Power, an Alas-ka nonprofit that would like to see the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge opento oil drilling;

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

“Bush is al-Qaeda’s choice for American President.”

Jude Nagurney Camwell writing on Iddybud (iddybud.blogspot.com);

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

From the website TheAmerican Street(www.reachm.com/am-street);

*Credentialed*Credentials revoked

“Liberals have been predicting for almost a year now that Bush would cutand run rather than face a tough reelection fight with 150,000 troops still onthe ground in Iraq. Well, that hasn’t come to pass. And I think it’s fair to askwhether John Kerry would have shown the same kind of resolve if he werePresident.”

David Adesnik writing on Oxblog (oxblog.blogspot.com);

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

“In order to succeed [in Iraq], it is going to take time, hard work and deter-mination. While soldiers will continue to die, Bush’s leadership and resolvewill ensure that their deaths are not in vain.”

Will Oelmer writing on dinnerforamerica.com;

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

Bill Ardolino on INDC-journal.com;

*Credentialed*Credentials revoked

“[This website] will not endorse a presidential candidate, but after leaningtoward John Kerry for some time, I’ve recently decided to endorse him. I’vemade over my personal blog to become the Swing Voter Weblog.”

Rick Heller writing on Centerfield (centristcoalition.com/blog);

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

The Kerry-Edwards team radiates ability as well as good cheer and opti-mism. Bush-Cheney is a downer. It’s time for a change and it’s coming. We feelit in the air. . . . Do your part. Get excited. Volunteer. Contribute. We need thisteam. We need this change.

Jeralyn Merritt of Talkleft.com;

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

“Bush made no mention [in his attack on Castro for encouraging sex tour-sim] of the influx of prostitutes . . . expected in New York during the week ofthe Republican Convention.”

Dave Pell, writing on electablog.com;

*Credentialed *Credentials revoked

ANSWER KEY: 1. credentialed. 2. credentials revoked. 3. credentials revoked. (Go figure.) 4.credentialed. 5. credentialed. 6. cre-dentialed. (It should be noted, however, that another of the site’s writer’s, Paul McCullum, posted a piece on the site titled “Top 10Reasons Why Bush Will Win — or Why I’m Moving to France.) 7. credentials revoked. 8. credentialed. 9. credentialed. 10. creden-tialed.

D E M O C R AT I C C O N V E N T I O N

Bounced Bloggers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Associated Press

M6 SUNDAY, JULY 25, 2004 OPINIONLOS ANGELES TIMES

ment with Iran in the hope ofincreased cooperation.Brzezinski’s presence on thetask force was particularlysignificant. As PresidentCarter’s national securityadvisor during the Iranianhostage crisis, Brzezinskipersistently favored a morehawkish approach to Iranthan Secretary of State Cy-rus Vance.

The Bush administra-tion, for its part, has treatedIran the way many of its crit-ics wanted it to treat Iraq: Ithas supported a EuropeanUnion initiative to resolvethe nuclear issue in a peace-ful way.

So there’s a widespreadU.S. consensus to engageIran in peaceful negotiationsin partnership with Europe.This strategy has one smallflaw: So far, it isn’t working.

European and even Rus-sian pressure on Iran, withthe possibility of additionalU.S. pressure down the road,has not persuaded the Irani-ans to reassure the worldabout their nuclear inten-tions. The diplomats haven’tgiven up yet — and theyshouldn’t. There might evenbe, as the task force reportsuggests, some additionalcarrots to put on the table.Both Iran and the U.S. havemuch to gain from ending ageneration of hostility andlearning to work together onissues of mutual concern.

But Americans shouldask the hard questions.What happens if Iran contin-ues to resist European andU.S. efforts to engage overthe nuclear issue? To put itmore bluntly, if all the alter-natives have been ex-hausted, if peaceful engage-ment doesn’t work, are wewilling to go to war with Iranto prevent it from getting nu-clear weapons?

This is probably a tough-er question for Democratsthan for the Bush adminis-tration. Clearly, the adminis-tration isn’t spoiling for newcrises, to say nothing of newwars, in the Middle East. Butthe Bush Doctrine is prettyclear on this point. Iran is anauthoritarian regime pursu-ing weapons of mass de-struction while maintaininglinks to terrorists. An admin-istration faced with an Iranthat rejects diplomacywould have to either eat theBush Doctrine or press for-ward toward military con-frontation — hoping that co-ercive diplomacy, backed upby a credible threat of force,would persuade Iran’s mul-lahs that compromise was

Iran’s Nuclear,Terror Threats[Mideast, from Page M1] the only option.

It’s unclear how a JohnKerry administration wouldrespond. Many scholars con-tend that the U.S. can livewith a nuclear Iran. They saynuclear weapons havetended to make regimesmore responsible, not less,over time. Look at the SovietUnion and China. Look atIndia and Pakistan. Beyondthis, much of the Demo-cratic Party’s base believesthat Iraq was one MiddleEastern war too many tofight for the Bush Doctrine.

Yet the political pressureon a Kerry White House tostop Iran’s drive for nuclearweapons would be intense. Anuclear Iran threateninggenocidal strikes against Is-rael while flirting with terrorgroups sworn to destroy theU.S. is not exactly the kind ofMiddle East that Democratswant.

Many Democrats (andquite a few Republicans)hope there’s an intermediatestep between failed negotia-tions and coercive diplo-macy backed by the threat offorce. If negotiations breakdown, wouldn’t the U.N. Se-curity Council impose sanc-tions that would make Iranreconsider?

Let’s hope so, but onceagain let’s look at the facts.France and Russia havelarge commercial interestsat stake in Iran, they havetheir own political agendasin the Middle East and theymay not see a nuclear Iran asthreatening their interestsin the way Americans do.France and/or Russia mightblock any sanctions toughenough to work. We may findthat the most we can getfrom the United Nationswould be “slap on the wrist”sanctions that anger and in-sult Iran but don’t reduce itsability to go nuclear.

The U.S. may wind upfacing in Iran the choice ourintelligence agencies told uswe faced in Iraq: betweenmilitary action against arogue regime or allowingthat regime to assemble anarsenal of nuclear and otherweapons of mass destruc-tion.

If we get to that unhappyplace, the chances are wewill again not get SecurityCouncil backing for militaryaction.

This choice is not yet in-evitable, and the diplomatsstill have some tricks uptheir sleeves, but the U.S. iscloser than many think towhat could well be the big-gest and most difficult crisisin the war on terror yet.

with cultural liberalism onissues of sex and family,work and welfare, race andcrime, and religion and pat-riotism. When the conclu-sion of the Cold War ended aset of political debates thatmade Democrats look weak,Clinton set out to addressthe other liabilities system-atically. His success, com-bined with the growth of theaffluent, secular and sociallyliberal segment of the popu-lation, increased the size ofthe Democratic base. It alsore-legitimized governmentactivism, which was no lon-ger seen as underminingmiddle-class values. Noweven Republican presidentshave to support federal ac-tivism.

Kerry seems to be follow-ing Clinton’s lead in treadingcarefully on social issues. Hehas refrained from raising is-sues that would offend cul-turally conservative voters(such as gun control) andmade rhetorical concessionson others (abortion). But atthe same time, he appears tothink that Clinton’s work ispartly done. He has not actu-ally taken on any faction ofhis party. There has been no“Sister Souljah” moment.Perhaps the calculation isthat the Democrats alreadyseem so unthreatening tomost people, and that thesize of the base has in-creased enough, that nosuch moment is necessary.That, in other words, there isno need for welfare reformwhen welfare has alreadybeen reformed. Even a cau-tious campaign cannotavoid taking some gambles,and that is one of them.

Another gamble is thatthe public will not associateKerry with anti-Bush ex-cesses among his allies. Athird is that a general per-ception that the war in Iraq

is a failure — or a tainted en-terprise — will relieve Kerryof the need to get specificabout his plans for Iraq andreduce the otherwise daunt-ing Republican advantageon national security.

The Democrats’ fourthgamble is nominating, inKerry, a liberal who seems insome respects to be a poorcandidate. Kerry may be tac-tically moderate but, on pol-icy, both he and Edwardshave voted with the liberalsin the Senate. The fifth of thepopulation that considers it-self liberal may wish Kerrywere bolder on, say, thedeath penalty (which hegenerally opposes). But hisviews and theirs are nearlyidentical. This country hasnot elected a liberal to thepresidency in 40 years — andnever has elected one averseto the use of force abroad.

Kerry’s personalityseems, in addition, to be off-putting to many people. Hewon the primaries by beingthe establishment alterna-tive to a self-destructingDean, not by inspiring any-one. If he wins the WhiteHouse, it would be becauseDemocrats started the cam-paign with the loyalty ofnearly half the voters, andKerry made smart moves tocourt the remainder, not be-cause people were excitedabout a Kerry presidency.

The longer-term gambleof the party is demographic.It looks as though theparty’s base is going to be in-creasingly composed ofvoters who are single andwho are secular in outlook —but those voters will remaina minority of the electorate.Can the Democrats continueto straddle the values issuesunder those circumstances?Maybe not. But so far,judged by how well the Kerrycampaign is doing, all thesebets appear to be paying off.

Kerry’s CampaignTakes Few Gambles[Issues, from Page M1]