Campaign blogging ethics

Charlie Burr

Open discussion

Is it ethical for campaign staffers to post anonymously on blogs?
Does it depend on the content of the comment? Should there be a higher level of disclosure if they are slamming an opponent?
Should employees of a campaign always disclose their affiliation no matter what?

Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    no, no and no.

    i'm against anyone blogging anonymously. too much crap gets spewed by people who hide behind their nick. have the guts, and decency, to let people know who you are. if posting with your real name will get you beat-up or killed, maybe posting in blogs is not what you should be doing.

    campaign staffers have a large responsibility to play it straight. civilians just have a moral responsibility to be honest, open and civil. i have to think twice (and more) because i post as me -- and when i post crap, then i have to live with the embarrassment.

  • (Show?)

    Personally, I like it when people use their real names, and I always try to use mine when posting.

    I have to say that I can think of times where it should be fine for a campaign staffer to post anonymously. Most campaigns have a rule that if your name ends up in the news attributed to anything (unless you've been approved to say it), you're fired. And yes, as many of us know, the newspapers do pick up comments from blogs. I've had it happen a few times, such as during the race for Multnomah County Chair.

    So unless you're able to post under a name other than your own, you have to stay away from the blogs completely, even if they aren't discussing your race. It's that or your job.

    I don't think you should be posting anonymously on posts that are on the race your candidate, ballot measure, etc. is in - otherwise it ends up being a way to just post completely untrue gossip in an attempt to make the other side look bad. But even when you stop doing that, there are plenty of volunteers and supporters willing to do it in your stead, so it's not really going to cut down on that.

    I think if you're currently working for a campaign, then you should disclose that whenever commenting or posting on a topic that deals with your race. I don't think it is near as big of a deal to have the disclosure if it's something you worked on a while back (unless it's a case where it is ongoing work where you might not have any paid work coming in now, but will later - for instance some of my house candidates I may only do work for them every few months).

    I stopped disclosing my work for the Novick campaign some time back, since I hadn't worked for the campaign in months and the site you see now isn't even the site I built. But if I post on something regarding his web site or Merkley's web site, then I think the disclosure makes sense.

  • (Show?)

    Hello my name is Debra and I have just been plain damn too lazy to go to all of the places with the Oregonian37 moniker to change it. Becoming involved with a campaign is the single greatest reason why I stopped posting on campaign issues (with rare exceptions)most anywhere, and about pretty much any of the races, on my own blog. I am definitely not hiding from anyone, but I have had my name stolen before, and so I rarely put it anywhere that is not an encrypted site. I am not hard to find, but I don't feel like making it easy. It is definitely a personal decision on a personal issue, for me anyhow.

    As for folks on campaigns using aliases or posting anonymously, I have no use for it, particularly when commenting on what they have a vested interest in.

  • (Show?)

    I both agree with and identify with what T.A. said.

    Most longer-term readers of Blue Oregon will recognize a couple different false names used by at least one regular commenter here who is a staffer on a state legislative race. Although he has been careful to avoid using his real name - one of the false names predates his joining the campaign - or that he's a staffer on any campaign. Which begs a semantic question of sorts... Is a campaign manager technically a staffer?

    Actually, come to think of it... perhaps defining "staffer" would be constructive here. Is an unpaid intern a staffer? Or are only paid members, intern or not, considered staffers? I ask because I'm really not sure. A campaign manager on a city council race out in the 'burbs is not only not equal to the campaign manager of a state-wide race, but probably isn't getting paid either.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Those of us that are here casually, as citizens, know that you folks that word things to death are part of something other than your own thoughts. We learn a lot. But if some folks don't I.D. themselves you have to weigh the comments in that light.

  • (Show?)

    I take "staffer" to mean anyone representing a campaign in an official capacity, working for pay for a campaign (whether as an employee or consultant), or those working as interns.

    I'd say a campaign manager is definitely a staffer - they're the person who has more say about how the campaign runs than any other person except the candidate. And often times they even have more say than the candidate since they run all the day-to-day things and the candidate may only be brought in for major decisions. I don't think it matters whether or not you're paid in that position - you're a spokesperson for that campaign, an official resource for the campaign, etc.

  • (Show?)

    That's basically how I would have defined it, Jenni. But on the campaign manager issue... in the world of labor unions a manager is definitely NOT the same as an "employee" and in some circumstances are not held to the same ethical standard even though both are employed by whomever owns the business - assuming it's a privately owned enterprise. But I trust you see what I'm getting at.

    It seemed like a constructive thing to get everyone working off the same definition.

  • (Show?)

    I agree - getting the definition we're working with is definitely a good thing.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My grandfather was a prosecutor who put gangsters in jail during Prohibition, a state AG in Michigan after being part of a group of WWI veterans who broke the county party machine (back in the days before primaries, the machine had been drawing the names of delegates out of a hat, feeding them dinner and paying their train tickets to the state convention in return for buying their votes at the nominating convention), a state Supreme Court Justice who left the court to run for Gov. (Gee, does that sound like Ted Kulongoski at all?).

    In 1968, I was a Eugene McCarthy college student first able to vote in 1968--back when voting age was 21.

    I still have the thank you note for going door to door for Tom McCall's re-election, volunteered on my first legislative campaign in 1976, voted for John B. Anderson in 1980.

    All wisdom does not reside in one political party, and I have friends across the political spectrum. Most of them live outside the Portland metropolitan area.

    I have been a Dem. national convention delegate after being a local volunteer coordinator for a presidential campaign; a member of State Central Comm. as well as other party activities; and worked on numerous campaigns at all levels, always as a volunteer (never paid). My work experience includes retail sales, working with children (child care, substitute teaching, working in an assistant capacity) among other things. I am well aware that employers contemplating hiring someone can use a search engine to read every post made under one's real name.

    If I were required to use my real name, I wouldn't comment on blogs but rather just read them and send links and quotes to friends.

    My friends and people I meet in person know who I am, but there is no reason total strangers online need to know that information.

    I notice that some of the strongest comments come not from people who use their full names (like Jenni) but those who use screen names or first names.

    There are times when BO is very informative and useful.

    However, there are people here whose point of view is that they have the right to tell us what to believe. I don't see what that helps.

    My guess is that more minds are changed when people who know each other use something here as a jumping off point for conversation than when bloggers argue with each other online. Esp. when someone who blogs repeats what someone who doesn't blog said to them, and the response is "well, why should we believe that person exists if they don't post their own comments?". Such hostility does no one any good, even if the person posting such a comment gives their full first, middle, and last names.

  • (Show?)

    well, LT, what i want to know is what is it about your comments and your "real" life that make them incompatible? this isn't a site where we talk about how to grow dope or cheat on taxes. this is politics, the life and soul of our public life (politics, not BO).

    i guess a difference could be made for those who author posts and those who submit comments. BO requires real names for its authors, and that is a challenge unknown to the hidden comment crowd. comments, after all, are not real posts anyway. quick throwaway, well, comments. and one of the things i can say about comments, being the recipient of hundreds over the past few years, is that the ones i tend to brush aside the quickest are the ones written by anons. i have no idea who they are and if they want to hide behind a cutesy nick, i'll give their comment that kind of regard.

    unless you're a whisteblower or someone saying something you have no business saying, i think you ought to be honest about who you are. imo.

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Of course anonymous and pseudonymous postings are okay. The Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers under pseudonyms, and the anti-Federalists argued against them the same way. It forces the reader to judge arguments on the merits and to think critically about the self-interests of the authors.

    If readers aren't smart enough to sniff out trolls and snipers from among the anonymous postings, then the cure is to help them be wiser, not to lower the discourse to the intellectual level of the dimmest person in the room.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "this is politics, the life and soul of our public life "

    And there are those of us who are active in politics but also have a side of their lives which has no connection to politics. I do not know the political affiliation of anyone I work with, nor have I known that in most of the sales and education jobs I've had. My guess is that lots of voters feel the same way---and may not want to get into political discussions at work.

    I realize this may be a shock to some people here, but there's a whole wide world out there (esp. downstate from the Portland area) where politics is very low on the radar screen and not everyone wants every statement they blog about politics to be available online for years to come.

    There is a great "In the news" Oct. 2005 post about Jim Hill running for Gov. For those deciding how to vote for Sec. of State, you might want to read Rick Metsger's comment. Very interesting.

    BUT, if Obama wins Oregon, this exchange will look very different now:

    Posted by: Mac Diva | Oct 15, 2005 11:15:15 PM

    Hill must be hallucinating. He might, if the white liberals are being less hypocritical than usual on election day, win a seat on a city council. But, there is no way he will be elected to state office in a state with as racist as Oregon.

    Posted by: MAG | Oct 16, 2005 11:40:41 AM

    Dear Mac, Check the facts: The thinking that a white dominated Oregon would elect an African American to statewide office has been a source of discussion before, unfortunately. But the facts show an entirely different scenario. In the 1980's, Jim ran in a white republican dominated South Salem for state rep and then the Senate. He won. Then he ran for State wide office as State Treasurer. Guess what - He won. Not once but twice.

    Granted the Governorship is different than Treasurer, but let's not sell Oregonians short.

    `````````

    Would it really add a lot to the conversation if we had the full names of both those people?

    And should people who don't want their thoughts from years ago still be posted on blogs just not comment? Wouldn't that narrow the scope of discussion here?

  • (Show?)

    BTW... a little something to whet your appetite...

    In just a few weeks (post-primary), we'll be FINALLY launching BlueOregon 2.0.

    Among many, many improvements is that we'll be making a major step forward for commenter identity. We'll protect the rights of people to post completely anonymously, while rewarding (somewhat) people who are willing to use the same handle all the time and rewarding (a lot) people who are willing to use their real names.

    By "reward", I mean that the identity question will be tied to privileges on the site. For example, the new BlueOregon will allow anyone who is using their real name to post an in-the-news item (not just editors or even just contributors; anyone with a real name in our system.) And, incidentally, they'll all be labeled with who submitted them.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "We'll protect the rights of people to post completely anonymously, while rewarding (somewhat) people who are willing to use the same handle all the time and rewarding (a lot) people who are willing to use their real names."

    Thank you Kari. As someone who likes to keep my political life separated from my work life (often non-political jobs where I might not want to discuss politics), and as someone who has always used the same screen name (my initials), I appreciate that.

    Not being a public figure, never intending to run for office, I have no interest in posting a column. I appreciate what you are planning.

  • (Show?)

    And I should point out that we're not saying that all posters should use their real names. We're talking specifically about those who work for a campaign, represent a campaign, etc.

  • (Show?)

    My parents' views on public opinion ring as true today regarding print, radio and television media as ever before regarding internet anonymity or discussion:

    Act and speak as though anything can be remembered and repeated verbatim.
    Lies and anonymous statements are more to difficult remember making than honest and personal ones as far as I can tell.

    Say what you mean and put your stamp on it. Otherwise, adopt a nome de plume and be taken less seriously until revealed.

  • Gary (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT-

    Thanks for the suggestion about the Metsger link from 2005. Now looking back, his comments were not only true for that cycle but actually some of our current candidates should be taking that advise, when looking at all the attacks that don't help the Democratic cause.

    Here is what Metsger said:

    "Personally, I am glad to see Jim is considering the race. His entrance is no surprise as many of us had heard of his feeling out the race as early as last spring while we were in session. Jim would certainly contribute to the debate. I will be making my own decision shortly, as I told Sen. Brown and my Senate colleagues that I planned to have a decision by the first of November. Sen. Brown told the caucus that she has a potential candidate for my seat she believes can win my district so that is helpful in my own decision making process. As for Jim, those who have discussed his fundraising abilities are accurate. Jim through his Treasurer ties had connections on Wall Street that probably will continue to serve him. All of us considering running know how daunting that money aspect is for a race like this. My good friend and colleague Sen. Walker and I certainly don't have Wall Street to back us but that doesn't mean hard work and a sound message can't generate the support needed. This is where we as democrats must really look inside ourselves. As Governor Kitzhaber pointed out so well in Sunriver last week, we need to address the issues that Oregonians really care about and have a plan of action that is credible and resonates with our citizens. All the money in the world won't push any of us past that hurdle. I remember Jim Hill standing up strongly for some issues in the 2002 primary but still garnered only about 1 out of 5 democratic votes in key Multnomah County ( I believe it was about 22.6% give or take a hair.) Whoever turns out to be our nominee must not only energize the base with a credible message but also must be able to generate enough support from R's and I's to win in November. That is the challenge we all face, including Governor Kulongoski. Still, I believe we as democrats are best when we participate in that process and challenge each other thoughtfully and respectfully. This is in sharp contrast to many on the other side who practice the art of personal attacks to advance themselves when confronted with competition. I believe our nominee will be a better candidate and a better governor because of that debate. Jim would contribute well to that discussion. I respect him as I do the others considering this run. As Governor Kitzhaber said, this should not be just about winning elections( which is important naturally) but winning elections should be based on winning ideas. Anointing a candidate in a primary without challenges from within the party weakens that discussion, weakens consideration of new ideas and leads to a risk avoidance strategy for election. That, in the end, weakens the ability to govern. As a potential candidate for governor I welcome Jim to the table and any others who, like me, are tired of traveling without a road without a clearly defined destination. It is time we stopped lamenting the loss of the 'good ol days' and looked ahead to the bright future Oregon has ahead of it. That future however will only be bright if good men and women will aggregate their energy to make it so. We can do it as Oregonians and democrats should lead the way."

  • redcellpolitical (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Um... of course anonymous postings are OK and they should be OK even for campaign staffers, volunteers, consultants and interns. What does revelation of a connection mean? Does it devalue the position stated in the post? Someone above said that we should know if people have a vested interest: Newsflash, we all have a vested interest in the outcome of every campaign.

    Someone mentioned the Federalist Papers, although almost everyone knew who the authors were at the time, the ability use alternate identities is a way to trump the state's authority to impose and identity on you. In other words, the obsession with knowing if my name is John Smith and I am the John Smith residing at 2427 NE Ass Street SS#666-66-6666 is means for the state to control us by linking our personal identity to our financial identity to our religious identity etc, etc.

    Besides, I know several of the posters here are either in the employ of a campaign or volunteers for a campaign and it is clear that no one is betraying confidences. Are they trolling, well maybe (I mean how can you repeat the same tag line over and over again when your aspersions have been totally refuted, without being a troll?), so don't feed the trolls its your choice.

    And... so far the pseudonyms have not revealed even fairly major events this season that have taken place in off the record settings. Even those which might be damaging to the opposition.

    I have a professional life that involves work with staunch republicans and equally staunch democrats and such folks tend to believe that personal POV gets in the way of professional POV whether it does or not.

  • MCT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There IS a reason some people might want to keep their politics off the table in their dealings with their clients and the public, and post anonymously. Or maybe a worker might not want his boss to know his political opinions. If you think workers don't sometimes get "punished" for their beliefs, dream on. Why do you think companies often post ambiguously stated "core values" in their policy manuals? "Get on board, or get out." My clients are mostly down to earth and liberal, like me. It comes out right away when I speak with them. But not all of them are liberal, or Democrats, and some of them wield their wealth as though it were a right of entitlement. But I have a fiduciary duty to all of them. Therefore I keep my political opinions to myself in my dealings with them. It's not professional to do otherwise.

    OTOH....political staffers can turn into trolls when they post anonymously. Some would say, in the interest of a neutral stance, that perhaps some bloggers should recuse themselves from a discussion of candidates they represent at some level. But blog sites are NOT neutral....they are high tech op/ed sites, and anyone reading them should take it all in with a grain of salt, and get over themselves.

    And I also think that if all candidates & bloggers & commenters would conduct themselves with an eye to straight talk & higher standards....and restrain the tendency to sling twisted truths and plain ol mud at their opponents, we would not need to raise the question of who has the right to blog and how.

  • Allison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like to just use my first name, because I figure people who know me will probably recognize my voice and people who don't know me won't find me all that interesting anyway.

    The only thing that matters if a person is with a campaign is that their statements are probably biased towards the person they're working for. But. Aren't we all biased towards the people we like whether they pay us to or not? No offense meant to any commenters on BlueOregon, but even if I recognize your name, I'm going to assume you have an axe to grind and possibly ignore it unless the content of your comment/post/blog etc is somehow enlightening, interesting, or validating to me. I believe having your name may improve the value of your discourse (if I know you know what you're talking about, I might listen to you harder) but if I don't know you or you're anonymous, you could be in the pocket of the worst candidate ever, or just some guy on the street and I'm going to ignore you about the same amount.

    It seems different if the campaign recruits a bunch of people (or a bunch of their staffers) to respond to change what looks like the blogosphere's perspective on a post, but we're all seasoned blog readers and commenters on the internet. Do you really believe the world is reflected by the opinions expressed in comments on blogs?

    It seems to me that at least some of the people who want everyone to be not-anonymous just want gotcha-moments some time in the future. That's just mean. Let people have their ideas, say their piece, judge their piece on its merits and then move on. Some of us may have ambitions later in life we didn't know we had and don't especially want to be judged on what we said when we were 17. Think of the things you said when you were 17. Aren't you glad no one was recording them?

  • allison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    T.A. Barnhart,

    In defense of "LT's" anonymity.

    What if this person is an officer in the military? Life for an officer (who happens to be a Democrat) in the military is made a lot easier if politics are never discussed and that the men ahead of him/her in the chain of command can assume what they'd like about his/her political affiliations. They spend a large amount of time, in a world that's pretty strongly conservative, among people who frequently look at opposition to the war as a person insult, and in isolation. If I was the only D in my company, I'd like to be anonymous too.

    What if this person works in one of those so-called evil corporations? Does he or she want the boss to know about the post that decried their environmental practices?

    There are lots of good reasons to want anonymity. I think we let people choose their own.

  • Joe Smith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "And I also think that if all candidates & bloggers & commenters would conduct themselves with an eye to straight talk & higher standards....and restrain the tendency to sling twisted truths and plain ol mud at their opponents, we would not need to raise the question of who has the right to blog and how."

    That, of course, is the problem. If only all would...but my impression is that there's been a gradual but steady increase in vitriol, ridicule, and personal attacks on BO, almost always (if not always) under cover of anonymity. The result is a detiorating level of dialog that is to this observer disheartening.

    If all those who hide their comments behind psuedonyms presented offerings comparable to the Federalist Papers I'm sure the question would not even be raised. Unfortunately this is not the case.

    It would also be useful if we become more willing to allow people to learn and to grow -- and thereby not to hang them for opinions once expressed but no longer held. I can remember making what then seemed rational arguments for positions 180 degrees from what I now believe. "Flip flop," or enlightenment?

    I think a blog where folks had to identify themselves might be less spicy, but more productive; maybe a BO3?

  • (Show?)

    It doesn't take anonymity to poison discourse, but the relative risk (as we say in public health) that poisonous and lying comments come from anonymous posters is considerably higher than for named ones; I think the consistent ID semi-anonymous are more similar to the named.

    The ethical question about staffers doesn't seem to me to be anonymity, but spreading lies and slanted half-truths, or engaging in sock-puppetry phony dialogues etc., etc. Anonymity can be a tool to facilitate that, even as it can be a tool to facilitate focus on ideas in substantial posts divorced from presuppositions about the writer. But it's not the anonymity, its the ethics of the underlying actions. IMO.

    LT, I'm not sure that I buy that Portland is more political than down-valley. Two things 1) your description of people with lives little concerned with politics day-to-day undoubtedly describes the vast majority of Portlanders too, and 2) in small towns where everyone knows everyone's business, "politics" comes to take on other meanings entirely anyway. The middle sized "small towns" may be a bit different, but not completely, and I'd sort of guess that in those communities the ability to be anonymous might particularly influence participation.

    It is possible to stereotype bigger cities too, you know. ;->

  • roxanne bruns (unverified)
    (Show?)

    after watching what Merkley and his net consultants have done to Novick for blogging under his actual name, why would anybody be so bold to contribute to the exchange of ideas on the blogs under full attribution?

connect with blueoregon