The best way for a candidate to show they are serious about running is to have a real commitment to the netroots.

Do not ask me for my money if you can't figure out how to create a myspace, facebook, and traditional website. I don't want to pay for your big budget consultants if you can't even use the almost free tools available to you.

Blogging may never be 'mainstream' with the regulars that attack persons and not positions.

What it's become is electronic 'Cheers' where everybody knows your name and your position. Each individual blogging writes as if the world were watching when the reality is each room has the same individuals time and time again.

I personally place a lot more significance on the comments placed by people who use their real names.

Oftentimes, a person will use a variety of fake names to drive a point home. It is pretty obvious but that is the nature of blogging.

It isn't for everyone because it does require the fortitude to roll around in the mud a bit. However, it is an excellent vehicle for finding out the truth of the matter (and the obvious spin).

Rasputin and John ... thanks for your input! :)

Rasputin, I was wondering something about your response. Do you think that SINCE there are so many "netroots" tools available to candidates and campaigns, that more emphasis should be placed on online activities? Do you feel that it is, in a way, irresponsible for a candidate to not tap in to those resources?

Thanks again!

Katie,

I agree with you and would even go as far as to say that since it is so blatantly obvious that it is the same people posting under various pseudonyms that is greatly discredits what they are trying to say. If they would stick to their REAL identity, there is much more credibility to the argument.

Thanks for your input!

Although I don't have much experience with blogs myself, it would seem, from what little I know of it, to be a quick and easy way to get information to people. There are those who sign up to get regular notices when someone updates his or her blog, thereby making following the blog easier to do. Additionally, it is easy to create a running account of a particular ongoing activity, for example, organizing a fundraiser or public speaking. It would also seem much more convienent to follow a blog that follows one particular train of thought or sequence of events than trying to keep track of e-mails that may be sent in a somewhat random order. Perhaps most importantly, it is easy to attach messages to a blog for all to read, thereby making communication among a large number of people much easier than sending mass e-mails. Of course, as I said, I don't have much experience with blogs, so I could be completely and totally incorrect...

Nice to see you back around here, Heather.

I want to add one caveat. Most blog moderators, like Brian and myself, work very hard to stay accurate. But one thing that frustrates me is the inaccuracy of some of the comments underneath. Bloggers aren't held up to the same standards as other journalists are. They don't have an editor leaning on them, sources calling to complain, and the fear of seeing their inaccuracies highlighted in a "Corrections" listing in the newspaper. This keeps print journalists honest.

Now other bloggers can come on and correct them, but that's about it. It becomes an extension of the old childhood game of telephone. Inaccuracies travel and become even more twisted with time.

So blogging is a bit of a double-edged sword. It's a good way to get information out there, but one should always take the comments -- especially the anonymous ones -- with a grain of salt.

Looks like Heather is asking us to write her paper for her. Poor dear...

I will add that anonymous bloggers are often mean, too.

No . . .. Heather is NOT trying to get us to write her paper for her. It's called RESEARCH. But hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym does tell us all a lot about you.

I don't blog very much at all, but when I do it's mostly either as a response to brilliant comments like THAT or because I've signed a petition and am trying to get others to take notice. I think blogging is most effective as a virtual think tank of sorts and facilitates awareness, critical thinking (a lost art in our time), and the free exchange of ideas. This is of course as opposed to the sort of empty-headed flaming we all witnessed on here at 10:34 AM this morning. Nice going, "Somebody."

It's effect on campaigns, etc., is probably lessened becuase most of the people spending their time on political blogs have already decided who they're voting for, and those that haven't are likely a small demographic on these boards.

While I salute anyone who signs their own name on a blog, there can be several good reasons for anonymity:

-- whistle blowers or those holding unpopular positions can sometimes lose their jobs or receive threats or worse;
-- someone might want to test reaction to an idea is without actually personally espousing it; and
-- fairer, more objective consideration of an idea, policy or program is often possible when a name of the presenter is not known as some names draw strong emotional reaction (positive or negative) that color the discussion.

If a blog is about intellectual discussion or dealing with a search for complex or uncomfortable truths, anonymity can sometimes be a benefit.

Blogs vs Traditional Journalism???? Hmmm... Its only my observation but it seems that over the past two election cycles, both locally and nationally, its been blogs first that have ferreted out the truth about politicians, issues, scandals, events, etc, while even the largest newspapers & broadcasters are running a distant second.

As blogs are providing more and more real news traditional journalists are simply becoming mouthpieces for those who would slant that news.

That's sort of harsh, gs. As a former print journalist who has only recently switched to blogging, I can say I have worked with people with incredible integrity who are not mouthpieces for anyone. Most prescribe to the concept of presenting both sides of the story fairly and accurately. Blogs, on the other hand, often espouse a certain point of view and are quite open about it.

True, they are good at breaking stories, but they aren't as careful about sourcing, either. Oftentimes reporters sit on information they know to be accurate but can't release because people will not go on the record. Some bloggers would go ahead and put it out there anyway.

If anything, blogs have lowered our standards for journalism.

Somebody, thanks for answering what you come on to blogs for!

Harold, I agree there ARE times that people feel they need to use pseudonyms, and they have every right to do so.

When I do not feel that fake names are okay are when they are just to baselessly insult someone or when they are to drive home a point and make it look like tons of people are speaking on behalf of something, when really they are not.

Thanks everyone for you input so far...please keep it coming!

GS and Marie,

Thank you so much for bringing up an important topic...are blogs bringing down the value of "journalism" or news, or have blogs created a new era of journalism that brings about more truth? I am still undecided on how I feel about that.

I have a question -- when reading blogs or blog-like sites, like Truthout.org, Daily Kos or even this blog, are there certain things you look for to verify the credibility of this "true" information you are receiving? Does the person have to be a regular blogger, does the site have to be known for it's truth, etc, etc? Because anyone can blog, how do you vet out the nonsense and know what is bringing you the truth?

Thanks again!

Of course there are competent, honest and unbiased journalists but they seem to be on the decline as BigMedia's taken control of virtually all broadcast & print news sources. The best of those journalists are appearing more often on the Web and on their own blogs. Matt Drudge & his ilk are the"old web" while TPM's, Huntington Post's, Daily Kos' and even Steve Frank's site are digging and mining truth. Meanwhile Fox, ABC, Tribune, Times, & the other Media Mavens aren't winning any awards for truth and unbiased reporting. In fact they're fast becoming political prostitutes.

Once upon a time we lived in a world were "checking facts" was paramount to a news operation. I suggest those days have been buried by the shear weight of available information and instead of checking facts bloggers simply boil their threads until the facts rise to the surface.

Here's a case in point: according to WMI's own report, an unknown volume of PCBs sit beneath the landfill, part of 60,000,000 pounds of toxic waste. elsewhere, an 80 mile stretch of NY's Hudson River was declared a SuperFund site because 1,000,000 pounds of PCBs were discovered buried in the river silt. Despite WMI's own information not a single paper or reporter has any interest in getting that info to the public. The only place other than WMI's documents that that info's shown up is on this blog. How long does a traditionalist journalist have to sit on that information before passing it on?

Checking in on one blog only, is like listening to one talk show only. You'll end up being the same sort of close-minded individual.

The ultimate advantage of blogging is that the reader and writer can easily web surf for corroboration and that makes it hard for phonies to post their opinions as fact. You can't possibly do that with print or broadcast news.

I'll tell you one problem traditional media has now: Loss of staff due to lower profits and thus belt-tightening efforts. They can't cover as many things as they used to. And now they're competing with blogs.

I like Huntington Post and am on there a lot, but they go with sensationalist, sometimes sketchy stories quite often.

One more point: There is a LOT more backstopping in a traditional news operation. Once you turn in your story, multiple picky eyes look at it. Now when I post something on the Star's site, it's only me. I work very hard to be accurate, though.

To answer Heather: I put WAY more credence in something posted by regulars and people using their own names.

I think the Internet, aside from its journalistic merits or shortcomings, is, if utilized properly and dynamically, an EXCELLENT organizing tool. I haven't seen any stats in while, but it's an obvious fact that people spend a LOT of time on the internet nowadays, and in my case MORE SO than television, and social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, in addition to the staple campaign website have created a new platform for fundraising and organizing, as well as a whole added dimension to campaigning.

Once upon a time a website was a campaign novelty, but now it's folly to forgo a web presence, let alone not having a robust one.

Barack Obama's MyBarackObama or "MyBO" is an excellent example of a campaign site that has been pretty avant-garde in creating its OWN social networking interface among supporters, superseding the usual candidate web presence of a donation portal, sign up page, and candidate news and information pages.

And I think the Internet will only continue to impact how campaigns reach voters, raise funds, and win or lose elections.

So where's RJ and Mongo Flamo? Is Bubba still around? I'm curious because they regular visit blogs .... I'm going to have to venture into one of the other posts and ask them to come over this way!

Why participate on a blog?

The top reasons why I am on this blog:

I do it because . . .
. . . I might discover a new perspective or good idea.
. . . there are so few barber shops anymore.
. . . the anonymity suits me shy personality.
. . . sex, religion and politics are all discussed here.
. . . I am not much for video games or TV.
. . . I fall asleep reading novels and self-help books.
. . . there are no country stores around here.
. . . Lew Dobbs and his ilk have taken over all the other media.
. . . my writing skills need all the practice I can give them.
. . . I am not quick and smart and brave enough to do standup comedy.
. . . the proper study of mankind is man.
. . . a true, old-fashioned coffee house does not exist in this town.
. . . I do not have a suitable wardrobe to go to meetings.
. . . this is my home and I have ideas on how it should be run.
. . . the human mind is very entertaining.
. . . I sincerely believe that the biggest problem with communication is the assumption it has been achieved!

Put that in your report, Heather.

Hi, Heather. I'm still here, much to the chagrin of many. Right, Captain?

Welcome back!

Try Cafe Valentino's at LA & Stearns. Its the best coffee & customers in town. The owners and barristas are OKAY, too! Stop in at 9AM & I'll buy your first cup.

Heather,

Much of what is discussed is either clearly opinion or details to an event.

For the first the source doesn't matter as far as the veracity of the statements because it is opinion.

For the second category events, times, and other details aren't debated either because they are generally accurate or really easy to correct.

I don't conduct many interviews or research articles.

But my criticism of mainstream papers is that they only cover elections when much of the campaign is over.

Mongo,

I live for your presence here.

Truely . . .

Truly!

Haha, you guys are awesome.

Thank you very much for your input everyone! Please give more!

Specifically, what I am trying to gear the paper towards is whether or not people feel that they are "politically active" by participating in online political blogs. My feeling is that as more and more of politics goes wired, we are reshaping the definition of political activist.

How much does everyone feel this blog influences votes? Other blogs?

PS, GS I love Cafe Valentino! I will stop by one of these mornings on my way to school.

I tend to read blogs more than write anymore, primarily because of time constraints. I enjoy blogs because they are openly, admittedly biased and you see trends and themes in people's thought processes. I like to know where people stand.

Journalists generally use all sorts of tactics to get their bias in their stories all while claiming objectivity. Their stories are pointed at readers, while blogs encourage others to participate in the story's information. I like that.

Heather, I believe you asked something about what blogging says about our culture and ethics. I have three thoughts on this.

First, blogging is a lot like graffiti to me. You may not like what it looks like, but it is still there and you can't help but look at it.

Second, the meanness is the same phenomenon we see on the road. Drivers can easily road rage because they know they can get away with it. It's really easy for a blogger to sit behind a computer and hide behind a name and trash others because there is no accountability.

Third, women tend to use their real names while male like pseudonyms appear to represent more male responses. Maybe, I'm reading too much between the lines.

I'm not sure what this says about the state of men or masculinity in our society. Maybe, it doesn't say anything at all. I'm a big Clint Eastwood fan, particularly Dirty Harry. I like tough-nosed westerns too. I know Harry Callahan wouldn't hide behind a fake name. :)

Scott,

I really like the graffiti analogy. Traffic is driven largely by the discussions, which are opinion based, and not fact based. I know I readers get obsessive checking back on stories to see if someone has responded to them.

Heather,

This blog doesn't sway many voters because most of us already have an ideology that we apply to campaigns.

But it does show who has excitement building around them and who does not.

Many area reporters read my blog and get ideas about what stories are building up. I get calls every now and then from reporters or political activists/staff members/candidates/etc asking to be put in touch with sources.

When I see a campaign can generate comments and has press releases going out regularly readers know they are serious about trying to win.

But when a post goes up from a campaign and nobody, not even the campaign itself, comments it is a sign that there is almost no chance that the campaign is going to be successful.

There is almost no cost ( a person to write a press release) to get something posted. If a candidate can't take advantage of free media, why should they be trusted with donations?

If a campaign doesn't send material in it doesn't just not help them, it actually hurts them.

In search results for local candidates, especially challengers, I am usually close to the very top. If your campaign doesn't send in events when people google them the top results will be from your opponents talking about you.

For what it's worth, I think that this may very well be the last election where a political candidate can get away with not having an dynamic Internet presence.

MySpace and Facebook offer great opportunities for voters to see, watch and question candidates in real time. Best of all, it's free - talk about democracy in action!

And veering off track for a second, while it's not blogging, there are a lot of different political Internet websites available for voters to research candidates, which I think is awesome, like smartvoter.org, the candidate's respective political party websites, and their party's MySpace pages.

While blogging is an excellent way to post information about upcoming events, you still have to motivate voters to attend them.

Not to mention motivating people to vote, but that's a whole different blog :)

Heather,

You might want to include the Myspace Race.

Check out the different level of support candidates have on myspace.

Michael Tenenbaum is way ahead as of this moment above Gallegly and all of his Democratic challengers.

8% of people under the age of 30 get their political campaign 2008 news from MySpace....that may seem small to some people, but I'm sure the readers on this blog know that that is actually HUGE.

Thank you for the tip, Brian. I did not know about Michael Tenenbaum on MySpace...I do know that Jill Martinez has one up still from her 2006 campaign and that Mary has one that looks pretty high-end.

Anna, thank you for your input.

So, am I getting the right feeling that everyone DOES feel that the Internet (blogs, MySpace, etc) IS moving votes in one direction or another?

Heather,

I don't think it moves the average voter but it intensifies the feelings we have towards candidates.

It is like the video at the top of this entry. It didn't make me support Barack Obama but it did encourage me to help even more.

Hi Heather, nice to see you again.

The internet is revolutionizing the way people get information, including other content, such as music, TV shows, etc. It is an unstoppable force that is changing all of our lives, for better and for worse (mostly for better).

With regard to blogging, I consider it part of the democratization of mass media. Individuals can now engage directly in discussions on important issues and exchange ideas. Previously you were limited to getting information from newscasts or newspapers. Editors choose what letters to the editor to publish, and filter out "offensive" content. Conversely, blogs can be a lot like the wild west, but that is the real beauty. Individuals can decide what to read and what to ignore without having some editor decide for them.

As far as the quality of the information is concerned, blogs are all over the map. There can be excellent information that can be disseminated in hours or minutes, but there is also a lot of propaganda and false information. But that is really no different than talking to individuals about their ideas, some people are informed, some are not, some have a hidden agenda, and some are just looking to share ideas. It is up to the reader to differentiate.

Blogging also liberates us from having the MSM control content. Big news organizations have their purpose and have the resources to do excellent investigative journalism. But the MSM is also often guilty of gutting important stories and turning them into 10 second soundbytes, sometimes to the point where the essential truth of the story is distorted or lost. They often ignore important stories, and too frquently are willing participants in regurgitating information that is blatantly inaccurate. There is also, at times, a shocking level of groupthink in mass media. Stories can be rushed forward before all the facts are checked, and even if the story is inaccurate, it can be widely broadcast with no follow-up afterward to correct factual errors.

A good example of this was the 60 Minutes story on the Bush memos. It was the blogosphere that did a far better job at vetting the story and exposed the memos, and the source as frauds. The networks and large newspapers initially stuck with the story, even after serious questions were raised. The blogs put the large news outlets to shame and forced them to re-examine the story. The impact was huge and eventually led to the ouster of Dan Rather and several high level news executives at CBS News.

Another good example of the impact of the blogosphere was the Duke University rape allegation, where a group of rich white students from the lacrosse team were accused of gang raping a black stripper. This was an example of the meida jumping all over a story because it was too good not to be true. The intense media pressure empowered the local DA to move forward with charges in spite of a lack of actual evidence of a crime. Questionable practices by the local police were ignored, and the town went into a lynch mob mentality, fueled by ongoing media stories that had already convicted the students by making the story about race, rich white privilege, and oppression against women with no presumption of innocence. Under growing pressure from the media the University expelled the students from school, cancelled the lacrosse season of a national championship team and forced the team coach to resign. Massive protests were organized on campus (with huge media coverage) against the white students, with poster distributed demanding that they confess and face castration. But it was the blogosphere that brought up serious questions about the case and exposed the whole incident as a fraud. Eventually the DA was brought down over his handling of the case and later stripped of his license to practice law. Meanwhile, most large media outlets didn't even bother to run corrections, or even acknowledge their role it rushing to judgment and inciting the public. Sadly, the only ones who seemed genuinely interested in finding the truth were the bloggers.

So I believe that blogs can serve a very powerful role in disseminating information, and act as a sort of check and balance against other media sources. There is, after all, something to be said about the wisdom of the masses versus control over the flow of information by a select few. Sometimes a few thousand people can do a far better job at vetting a story than a handful of network executives in a glass tower.

With regard to the issue of bloggers who choose to remain anonymous, I think that option is essential to allowing the free expression of ideas. I vote anonymously, so why can't I blog anonymously? Both insure higher rates of participation. Some may choose to discount the opinions of those don't use real names, but that is their choice. In my experience, people build credibility through the content of their contributions, not by the name signed at the end. Plenty of people pay attention to what I have to say, so I have no reservations about posting under a pseudonym. Heck, writers do it all the time. If it was good enough for Benjamin Franklin then it is good enough for me. The fact that so many people respond to my posts (positively and negatively) speaks for itself.
Good luck with your paper. I hope I've given you something to chew on.

BK, Interestingly enough I am reading a biography on Ben Franklin right now and he did submit letters and articles under many different psyuedonyms - they were very often tongue in cheek. He also stood behind his ideas using his real name as well.

I'm not a real history buff but am also ready the bio on John Adams and it is interesting the juxtiposition of the two men who didn't really care for each other.

I maintain that comments signed by real names are more valid - sure it is easier/safer/free-er/more fun to use a screen name but it is never as valid.

I disagree that fake name encourage more posts - in fact, I know many people won't post on this blog because oof the anonymous blog BS that happens.

Katie, to quote from a famous line from our Governor - "Stop whining!"

I am wondering why the use of pseudonyms on this blog is largely confined to the male of the species.

What are you afraid of, gentlemen? Why is it the women have more courage than you do? I've had lousy things written to me here by anonymous male bloggers, including things so graphic that I had to have Brian pull them. Yet, I still use my own name. My picture is sitting out on my own blog.

If you really stand by your convictions, you shouldn't be hiding.

Who blogs more? Men or women?

How much time would everyone say they spend blogging per week? Per day?

Do you do other political activities? What, specifically?

Katie, it is probably an accurate statement to say that blogging is not for sissies. It can be a rough sport, and there are always going to be individuals who are uncomfortable with that. But I believe that anonymity frees people by allowing them to be more open and honest about their true feelings. If a person were talking about their feelings on certain issues in front of a group of people, or on television, they would likely hold back on any ideas that might seem politically incorrect or highly unpopular. I would argue that requiring the identification of posters in the blogosphere would actually hinder the free expression and exchange of ideas.

It is true that sometimes what is inside people's hearts can be a bit troubling. But that is the reality of the world in which we live. The question is whether you want to know the truth about what people really think and believe, or if you want to sanitize it through the use of peer pressure. Very few people would be willing to express their true thoughts if they knew they would be exposed before their peers (ala, Roger Waters' Wall). I liken it to the Matrix. You have to decide whether you want to take the red pill and stay in Wonderland to believe whatever it is you want to believe, or take the blue pill to find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes, which is sometimes into the darkest corners of the human mind.

The disagreement between us is whether anonyminity attracts people to blogging or drives them away. I would suspect that both answers are correct, depending on the individual. Those who like a nice, friendly, sanitized environment will not be drawn toward blogging, though they may read without posting. Those who don't mind rolling in the mud will be drawn toward it. However I would argue that the success of the blogosphere, and the widespread acceptance of anonymous contributors speaks for itself. Wikipedia is blowing away Encyclopedia Brittanica using exactly the same model. Much like capitalism, there is an ugly side to it, but at the same time it is liberating, highly efficient, and powerful.

BK - well said!

Marie,

Think about this: unless someone signs their full name and Brian verifies who it is (as with Katie Teague), how do you know that any blogger is who he or she claims to be? How do you know which names and which are pseudonyms? How that every male pseudonym on this blog is actually written by a male? The names might be male, but you do not actually know who has written and posted it.

For that matter a female name may not necessarily identify a writer who is a woman. To use something Katie referred to earlier: in his newspaper in the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin published a speech made in court by a woman named Polly Baker in her defense against the double standards of justice in the 18th century which penalized women for sexual impropriety. In fact, there was no trial or speech or Polly Baker. It was many years later that Franklin admitted he had created the entire thing and written the "speech" himself. His reason: to make a point and because he thought it would build interest and readership in his newspaper if he created a sympathetic female character to tell her own story. It did! For years, it received international attention and discussion.

Not traditional reporting on Ben's part, but a very blog-like creation in my opinion.

(Click on the link.)

Are you trying to tell us you're a woman, Harold?

:-) I'm kidding!

That was a wonderfully moving, profound bit of prose, Bubba, but you're still a chicken.

cluck, cluck!

I am very much at ease with my feminine side. How about you, Bubba?

Nobody here, but us chickens!

Heather,

As a candidate that actually used my name and openly discussed the issues with bloggers I would like to offer my opinion.

People who are interested in running for office need to be intensely aware of Google Searches which can be held against them or help them.

Candidates or potential candidates need to be extremely careful that they do not expose their game plan to their opponents who will morph to pick up their supporters votes and use their words against them or for themselves. Candidates who are running against a less informed candidate take the risk of "educating" their less informed opponent about the position and issues.

Looking back it is probably more wise to keep your cards closer to the chest and appeal to the broader less informed voter and not use the Internet for small local races.

Ultimately to win an election it is all about market penetration and blogs appeal to an extremely small percentage of voters that are highly informed and have already decided who they will support.

I once read from a blogger that they wish someone who was a strong candidate and naive would run for a particular office. Unfortunately that is a true observation.

The stronger marketer and fundraiser will win an election. Branding is ultimately what will put someone into office. I don't believe the Internet has accomplished this yet on a local level, I do believe in the next Presidential Race the Internet will be critical.

The money that is spent for flyers and postage hurts our environment and takes away from contributions that could have gone to charities instead of campaigns.

The hardest thing for me when I ran was spending money for a campaign rather then donating to the charities I support.

Post my real name? I don't think so:

"I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!"

-- Emily Dickinson

I only blog in self-defense.

Now, now, not so negative Donna. The biggest money does lose. Don't you recall Huffington, as example? You thought you were running against Kunicki and you were, in fact, running against Strickland. You ran a good campaign and you were a great candidate. The internet is fun and can help to raise money. As far as winning elections, not a chance. At this point, it is a great way to stay in touch with friends and supporters, but doesn't gain much political support.

To answer Heather's question: Personally, I mostly lurk rather than blog here. When I blog, it's on my personal MySpace page, LiveJournal, FaceBook and/or here, probably about two hours a day during the political season, and an hour off-season.

Observation: Another common thread for bloggers seems to be that they're activists, be it political, social or environmental. I've been really impressed with all of the bloggers on the Star (anonymous and otherwise) who demonstrate an active involvement in their commmunity. Can't go wrong with that. :)

Donna, Anna, all the other newcomers to the conversation!

Thanks so much for your input! This is great!

Please continue...I love to hear what you have to say! I think that the Internet is so greatly changing the definition of "politics," "political activism" and the way that voters are best reached ... what you have all contributed has greatly helped in shaping all of the side-bars to that, and in just how crucial the Internet now is to a winning campaign.

If any of you are interested in seeing the paper when it is complete, I would be more than happy to share....just email me at hchristenas@gmail.com!

Heather,

You can also have me post it here.