Does the GOP Pay Friendly Bloggers? 759
jamie writes "According to the conservative political journalism site Daily Caller: '"It's standard operating procedure" to pay bloggers for favorable coverage, says one Republican campaign operative. A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that "at least half the bloggers that are out there" on the Republican side "are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales." Or in some cases, it's the ads themselves: ads at ten times the going rate are one of the ways conservative bloggers apparently get paid by the politicians they write about. In usual he-said she-said fashion, Daily Caller finds a couple of obscure liberal bloggers to mention too, but they fully disclosed payment and one of them even shut down his blog while doing consulting work, unlike Robert Stacy McCain and Dan Riehl."
Probably but... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's small potatoes compared to outright fraud.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michigan-Tea-Party-party-looks-like-real-astroturfing-Freep-calls-for-criminal-probe-101383014.html
Wow, this election should be interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
I would not have expected Slashdot to have a story like this but oh well!
MSNBC is telling us how the Tea Party is raciest and the designated tours of Washington DC are designed to avoid black areas.
Fox has had show after show about two new books on how Obama has circumvented the Constitution and sold us down the river.
All I have seen on CNN is how the markets are collapsing and everything is circling the drain
Personally I think we should send Washington, as well as both the parties a simple message
YOUR FIRED! Clean out your desk and get in the unemployment line like the rest of US!
It really is time for some new blood in Washington.
Summary misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
The summary suggests that pay for bloggers is more a conservative phenomena than a liberal one -- ie "at least half" conservative bloggers are paid as opposed to "a couple of obscure liberal bloggers". While this may or may not be true, this is not what a fair representation of what the article says. From the article:
"
On the left, many of the once independent bloggers are now employed by, or receive money from, liberal organizations like Media Matters, the Center for American Progress and Campaign for America’s Future.
Some critics allege that the funding sources have distorted the once vibrant voice of the liberal blogosphere, discouraging dissent in favor of staying “on message” to help President Obama and Democrats in Congress pass their legislative agenda.
Indeed, many of the groups now employing liberal bloggers meet with White House aides for a weekly strategy session on Tuesday afternoons organized by the group Common Purpose. It was here that Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously told independent-minded liberals that they were being “fucking retarded” for straying from the party line.
"
More balance in the story summary would help everyone appreciate how the influence of money on independent media sources is a general problem, not a partisan one.
Re:Not just the GOP (Score:5, Interesting)
All political parties utilize bloggers and forum posters to spread positive messages about their agenda (or negative messages about their "opponents" agenda.)
Yes, but...
Basically, the article explains it as, on the liberal side, there are all kinds of foundations and think tanks and what not that hire/support liberal bloggers who of course write mostly liberal things, whereas on the conservative side, because there is not that same support network to pay for conservative bloggers in general, conservative bloggers are essentially paid by specific candidates. So, in other words, they're not as much being paid to blog about conservative things in general but in favor of a specific primary candidate who pays them.
If that's correct, it doesn't necessarily say that one model is more honest or better than the other, but they are a little different.
Ah Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a news flash, both sides suck and neither represents the general voting public. If the fanboy idiots of the political world would just realize that, we'd all be better off.
Re:conservatives (Score:3, Interesting)
Professional online media optimizer (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you kidding? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow, this election should be interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not just the GOP (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that liberal foundations and think tanks advocate in favor of specific policy outcomes, whereas candidates and political committees advocate in favor of specific electoral outcomes. Using the recent election and legislative battle over health insurance reform as examples, consider the roles of the different organizations.
The GOP tried their damnedest to prevent any reform legislation from passing, because that would allow them to paint Obama and congressional Democrats as failures.
The Democratic party tried to pass any legislation and claim that what passed was the best option so that they could use it to get reelected.
The Center for American Progress, for example, tried to influence the debate in Congress in order to make the legislation better (from their perspective, closer to single payer) so that more poor people would have health insurance and the system overall would experience slower cost growth; to that end, they publicly challenged Democrats who were on the wrong side, and in some cases agitated for their electoral defeat.
The difference is that the parties care about candidates, and the think tanks care about policy.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Interesting)
Bribing bloggers is illegal.
No, it isn't. It is unethical, but perfectly legal.
And anyway, the Democratic party has the biggest paid shill operation in history, far exceeding anything the GOP does with a few bloggers. It's called Hollywood.
Re:Wow, this election should be interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
It really is time for some new blood in Washington.
Oddly, I hear that same message on the news every election cycle (Particularly loudly when Democrats are in power).
Instead of just repeating slogans and talking points, why don't you take a look at the positions of each of the candidates who are available (and have a reasonable shot) and then make an informed decision.
if you have a business, do you just blindly hire someone til it seems right?
Re:conservatives (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:conservatives (Score:2, Interesting)
Which policy?
Re:"the fact that it is an overtly political blog (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd much rather read two partisan sources (one from each side) as they'll get to the heart of the issue better and faster than a neutral source will most of the time.
Fair enough. As long as they are up front about their biases, I'm fine with it. I might not agree with their conclusions, but at least I can see it from their side honestly.
Re:conservatives (Score:1, Interesting)
Or could it be they don't want to live most of their lives at the expense of others, and therefore vote for candidates that at least give lip service to smaller government?
Some people I know started voting Republican solely because of gun-rights issues, and then came to support the whole idea of limited government, and soon after, started voting Libertarian.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:From the "no shit" department? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes because ABC working in the White House is NOT propaganda. That 2 hour Obamacare health care special was NOT propaganda.
Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers need to give it a rest and realize that both parties are equally full of shit.
Cato is libertarian (Score:3, Interesting)
And IIRC they're usually on the "liberaltarian" side of that category as well. Not everybody who thinks it's nice to keep more control over your own money is a conservative.
Look at some of their Op-Eds from this month: "America, Home of the Free -- Except for Muslims?" and "Mosque Debate is a Red Herring", arguing against the current conservative assault on the First Amendment. "Government Needs to Divorce the Marriage Business", arguing for equal public treatment of homosexual and heterosexual unions. "It's a WikiLeaks World, Get Used to it", arguing for increased official release of even military secrets. "US Spying Spawns a Dystopian Epidemic", arguing against the Bush-expanded state surveillance. If the RNC is paying Cato, they're not getting their money's worth.
Re:i don't know that link domain (Score:3, Interesting)
Went back to look at Free Republic's web site a while back, and Lo! how the mighty have fallen. Whereas formerly there would be hundreds of posts after a particularly hot topic the longest thread that I saw was around 30, most of them from the same posters as all the other threads.
Re:conservatives (Score:3, Interesting)
As an ex-republican, I agree with you completely.
The problem is, there isn't a good home for the remaining few conservatives.
It's not the libertarian party -- those guys are caught up in procedural issues like "should candidates be required to wear shirt and shoes at our convention, or is that the malignant hand of the authoritarian state?" And a 3rd party won't succeed in the US. It can change and election but not win one. (Ross Perot)
It's not the Tea Party. Back in 2007 when it was a Ron Paul only thing, the Tea Party "movement" was looking like the good choice. But then dipshits like Scott Brown (R-MA) got involved.. people like Glenn Beck (die-hard Ron Paul critic, until he saw which way the wind was blowing) got involved. And so now the Tea Party is a hodge podge of people who are just pissed off..
There are so few people that stand for _anything at all_ that finding someone who stands for the right stuff is too much of a stretch to even consider.
That said, obviously Ron Paul is the politician i am happiest with by several orders of magnitude.
Re:Yes...this will end well (Score:3, Interesting)
Just making sure I was reading your assertion properly. Given the current climate of partisanship and spin, I think my question was valid.
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that the democratic party is mostly fighting fair
I guess you never heard of the JournoList. Why do the Democrats have to pay when "journalists" are willing to be the PR arm of the DNC for free?
Not News (Score:1, Interesting)
This is not news.
Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Microsoft does it. Oracle does it.
This is how advertising is carried on in the modern world. Slashdot should realize that it isn't just republicans who astroturf. It's every large group.
Political bloogers have been paid for a long time. (Score:1, Interesting)