What actually happened vs the "goal" of one person?
by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 11:25:43 AM EST
When Zephyr says "we", referring to the Dean campaign, and "our" in the statement "it was very clearly, internally, our goal" to pay us for supporting Dean. The people she is referring to, who would have been on the campaign's internet team at that time to discuss such a matter (among them Joe Trippi, Matthew Gross, and Nicco Mele), and obviously that didn't include Howard Dean. I've emailed those individuals asking they respond to the matter, and if in fact her accusation is true. And Zephyr should also clarify who this group is that created such a "goal". Personally, I believe it's just a bogus accusation made by Zephyr to fit into her over-arching 'ethics for blogging' crusade-- that the "goal" works more as an ethical issue for her own reflection, than it does as a projection onto Markos and I as bloggers.
But already, the Mighty Wirlitzer is using Zephyr's claims, in order to equate the private actions of DFA (implying Dean) with those of the Bush administration's payola of government funds to Armstrong Williams for biased reporting. And the wingnuts, fearful of a reinvigorated Democratic Party with Dean as DNC Chair, are flouting it. CNN was asking about "Dean paying bloggers" this morning, and the WaPost is following up on the story. Zepyhr should step up to the plate and clarify, or retract the accusations as her own frame of mind, and not DFA's; as wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do?
Update: See Atrios, grrrr.
Update 2: Simon Rosenberg blogs about the matter:The internet and blogs represent a new way to communicate ideas and talk to voters, and as a party, we need to embrace these opportunities. I have invested a great deal of time and effort work to increase participation in politics through the Internet, starting in the mid-1990s and continuing through this campaign. While there may be only 447 DNC members, my campaign - which includes bloggers, I am proud to say - is using the Internet to open up the process to the increasing number of citizens who are going online to learn and participate in our politics.
Now, some on the right are cynically using the work of bloggers who have helped open up the democratic conversation to try to excuse the actions of Armstrong Williams. It's stunning to me, as someone who has worked in TV news as a producer and writer, that Williams can be talked about in morally equivalent terms to Markos Moulitsas, who was transparent about all his business relationships, or Jerome Armstrong, who shut down his web site to prevent any conflict of interest. Williams was paid with taxpayer money to propagandize for a corrupt Republican party leadership, and what happened deserves a full investigation in which the involved parties are held responsible.
Ultimately, however, we cannot lose sight of what is truly at stake. Williams is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the vast power commanded by the corrupt and radicalized Republicans that control our politics, and to some extent, our media. The power the right can bring to bear on any issue because of its investments in communications and intellectual infrastructure needs to be matched, and exceeded.