SOS candidates talk about blogging and BlueOregon

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

BlueOregon just posted the full WW interview of the Secretary of State candidates, but I wanted to bring your attention to a 5-minute snippet near the very end of the discussion.

The SOS candidates were asked if the blogs help or hurt our politics. In contrast to the discussion from the US Senate candidates, all three candidates gave interesting and thoughtful answers to the question - and they didn't pull any punches when it came to BlueOregon.

I suppose this is a good time to recap for everyone how we've structured things here at BlueOregon.

As I wrote back in November, most of the "in the news" content here is NOT written by me. It's written by Nick Wirth, BlueOregon's first paid intern.

Also, we've given each statewide candidate direct access to BlueOregon - with a pipeline that doesn't go through me:

In any situation where I am, in my day job, working for a particular candidate in a statewide primary - I've contacted all of the other candidates and made sure that they've got another contact here at BlueOregon. Sometimes that's another editor, sometimes that's Nick. In any case, they don't have to bounce their ideas or share their news with me. (We haven't contacted every other candidate at every level, but the same approach will apply.) The reactions have been universally positive and thankful.

Along those lines, by the way, starting later this week you're going to start seeing guest columns from candidates in contested legislative primary races. In each case, because I have clients in some of those races, the guest columns are going directly to Nick and Jeff Alworth - and the first time I'll see 'em will be on the blog.

I've always joked that the Oscar for Film Editing is an impossible thing, since you never know what landed on the cutting room floor. By the same token, BlueOregon's readers can't see a lot of the editorial decisions that are made backstage here. Your team of editors - Charlie Burr, Jeff, and I (along with Nick) - work pretty hard to keep the pipelines open to all Democratic campaigns and to keep the news coverage here on an even keel.

We're going to keep doing that. We're not always going to succeed, and certainly the hardcore supporters of various campaigns are going to keep jawboning the process and the outcome. That's OK by us.

See you in the comments.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great discussion.

    It is true that sometimes the back and forth here turns people off, but on the other hand, this is a site where people can do the kind of discussions that in previous decades only happened in person (one good thing about my years on St.Central Comm. was being able to talk about folks across the state).

    And accountability is a problem--there are those of us who would quit commenting if we had do put our fullnames here every time instead of a screen name, but on the other hand sometimes people say things that aren't true.

  • (Show?)

    Interesting and thoughtful comments indeed.

    What struck me is that out of five answers, only one of them offered a 100% positive and relatively unexpansive statement on the impact of the blogs, ie "they provide information." That's more a notation of function rather than an assessment of quality or impact.

    Everyone else balanced the positive aspects with more negative ones. I thought Kate Brown offered the best response of anyone (including Novick, who was definitely a little cranky sounding in his otherwise accurate answer), although Metsger seemed to know what time it was too.

    Vicki Walker ought to do a fact check on Jack Bog sometime, if she likes accountability AND his website...

  • (Show?)

    oh. And all due credit to kari in this case for posting the clip. Devil in one thread, angel in the next!

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Vicki Walker: If Politicker says something wrong, it's not true that there's "no way to stop" the misinformation. There's a comment button right there, plus an email link. Unlike with traditional media, you can immediately hold blogs accountable for what they write. And other blogs will take note.

    With BlueO, I do wonder what's so hard about putting people's names to what they write. Instead of having to repeat things like, "most of the 'in the news' content here is NOT written by me. It's written by Nick Wirth," why not just put Nick's name on what he writes? The argument that because it's news, it doesn't need a byline doesn't seem to succeed anywhere else in journalism.

    Also, while I disagree flatly with the idea that insiders shouldn't be allowed to blog, or that bloggers are corrupted by being insiders, or whatever is being argued along those lines, I do think it makes sense to prominently list clients so people can't make the tired argument that there was a post by someone other than Kari about Sam Adams or Jeff Merkley without a disclaimer about Kari, as though a disclaimer would provide new or relevant information to anyone reading.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As interesting as blogging about blogs can be, I hope that this story doesn't distract from the nearly-identically-laid-out story below it with a clip that starts off with Kate Brown bemoaning out-of-state contributions.

    It's the thread where I wrote:

    LOL! Kate Brown says people are frustrated about out of state interests... but she's got how much money from out of state PACs? Like, $50,000 or something? So, like, is she going to scoop up all that money, get elected, and then close the door for other candidates? Whatever.

  • (Show?)

    And if someone can explain to me the Oscar for Film Editing, I'd be eternally grateful!

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought it was telling that both Metsger and Walker criticized Kari specifically for his advocacy role, with Metsger saying that B.O. is "struggling right now" as a result.

    I'm struggling to understand the difference between their comments and Novick's, and why Kari can get all hot and bothered by Novick's comment yet think these are just fine. Kari, perhaps you've gotten too emotionally involved in the Merkley/Novick race.

    The reality is that all the comments were insightful -- if you're really that interested in navel-gazing.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, the film editing Oscar came about at a time before special effects were done with the push of a button... so even the simplest overlay or crossfade had to be done under precise lighting conditions and by manipulating the actual celluloid film itself. These days, the criteria are less about effects ("visual effects" has its own award) and more about the pacing and continuity of a film.

  • (Show?)

    Miles, I do think that BlueOregon is straining under the stress of all these primary campaigns. That's a far different argument than the one that Steve made.

    Oh, and I should have disclosed up front (though Senator Brown does it for me in the video): My firm built Kate Brown's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I just don't believe you when you feign outrage over Novick's comment. You're using mock outrage in order to score political points in favor of your preferred candidate. What Novick said is so non-controversial and so obvious to anyone who isn't locked in a dark room with a laptop that you'd have to be an idiot to misinterpret his obvious meaning. And since you're not stupid, I can only conclude that you're lying.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Speaking of feigning outrage... (see above post)

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Funny how perception and reality get so mixed up and people start using words like lying in regard to perception. Lying is about concrete facts, nobody shot at Hillary Clinton, it is not a matter of perception, it is a fact. Regarding Novick and Kari, you move into perception of the levels of meaning each is giving to words, something else. Stating that Kari's perception is wrong is different than asserting that it is a lie.

    Novick's initial comment was 'inartful' at best, his clarification regards something I've kicked some of you for on a number of occasions. People don't always express themselves well, including politicians. It is real easy to leave some words of your train of thought out of the moved air. There's no delete key, you know, and no rewrite in editing where moved air is involved.

  • (Show?)

    I just don't believe you when you feign outrage over Novick's comment.

    Well, actually, I suggest you re-read what I wrote. There wasn't any outrage in MY comments.

    I called it "bizarre", precisely because I know PERSONALLY how much Steve thinks the netroots is important - from my long conversations with him before he announced and from seeing him work the room at YearlyKos.

    There are others who are outraged. I'm baffled.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's the lie:

    But Steve Novick dismissed blogging as "a way for a number of people to waste a vast quantity of time."

    Steve didn't "dismiss blogging" by that comment. Kari knows that. In fact, every thinking person who watches the clip will come away with the same conclusion. The partisan back and forth is a huge waste of time. . . is there anyone here who disagrees with that?

    As a side note, I understand why some might read my first comment as emotional and angry, which is the pitfall of the written word. In reality, I'm completely dispassionate on this issue; I cannot get riled up over a fabricated controversy.

    (Semi-colons are the surest sign of dispassion.)

  • (Show?)

    i'm sorry, but where the hell did Rick Metsger get the idea that blogs are not supposed to be adovacy media? i'm not a researcher at a think tank; i'm not a reporter for a hack weekly throwaway that prints spoilers to Oscar-nominated movies. i don't have the time (having to earn a living) so i don't pretend to be a Journalist. i'm a blogger, and i state my opinion. i don't lie, i support my statements the best i can (both with references to other, reliable-ish media and logically), and i stick my name on it. if i was writing about the economy or trade policy or something, i'd have to do a lot more homework. that's not what i'm doing, and it's not what most BO bloggers do. and we don't pretend to do otherwise. this surprises Rick Metsger?

    and someone might also tell Rick that Kari is the only getting paid to do partisan media work. and since he does not edit the writings of other people, anything that is free of Kari's byline is free of Kari's evil influence.

    and on top of all that, we BO bloggers have immense power. after all, something like, what, 3.2% of Oregon voters read us? wow. a sense of perspective can't hurt. i wish i could swing an election, but i'll have to leave that to my dreams.

  • (Show?)

    anything that is free of Kari's byline is free of Kari's evil influence.

    Well, maybe not influence - since I regularly poke and prod our contributors... suggesting topics, editing headlines for Googlishness, etc. But I don't edit the posts directly - other than fixing an occasional typo, broken link, or formatting glitch (damn that bill gates!)

  • (Show?)

    something like, what, 3.2% of Oregon voters read us?

    That would be overstating it, I think.

  • Gary (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought Metsger was spot on in his analysis. Blogs do play an increasingly important role in news delivery and sometimes in the back and forth that goes on, factual accuracy is lost and that is to the detriment of the blog. The blogs that strive for accuracy will grow their readership and those that push rumors and anonymous attacks will go the way of the dodo bird.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon