Today's Washington Post featured this article by Tim Craig discussing the validity of using reader comments from blogs in political advertising. The focus, of course, is on Tim Hugo's use of comments apparently made by a Democratic activist on the blog Raising Kaine.
In the article, Craig quotes a University of Alabama political science professor as saying that "it is like quoting graffiti off the underside of an underpass and using it in a political ad."
Beyond the question of why we are getting Virginia legislative election analysis from a 'Bama prof, is the question of the legitimacy and appropriateness of using such comments in campaign ads.
The 'Bama prof states that "Most people . . . have no way of testing the veracity of something posted on a blog." Yet I feel that this reservation is misguided in the instant case. (I wonder if the professor actually watched the ad or if she just had it described to her) The ad in question features comments under the heading "What others are saying" about Rex Simmons. The only veracity that is relevant in this case is whether others actually made the alleged comments, which they did. Further, the comments were sourced to Raising Kaine so that people could read them for themselves. While it may have been better to source the comments to a particular individual or at least "a democratic activist," I don't think their use here is entirely inappropriate. I also think people are just going to have to get used to seeing blog posts and comments show up in political advertising.
This doesn't mean, however, that it would be appropriate for any candidate to use any blog comments in any context. Had Tim Hugo attempted to appropriate a comment that claimed Rex Simmons was a fan of dogfights or something, then the veracity argument would be valid. Factual claims should be properly validated, but the quoting of someone's opinions, which they have openly published, is another story.
With any luck, these developments will only have a chilling effect on the blogosphere to the extent of the more outrageous comments that are made. Our Virginia blogosphere is an active arena for discussion and this blogger hopes it remains so.
Speaking of sourcing
Karen S. Johnson-Cartee, a political science professor. The Post seems to leave out how she's an active Democratic political consultant to many Democratic campaigns. A simple google search finds that info.
Graffitti Blogger
Hi, I am an active democratic and republican consultant; in the state of Alabama, one has to work both sides of the aisles to avoid the demagogues, theocrats, and racist iconoclasts. And, I was a registered Republican, when I lived in Roanoke, Virginia, for a number of years. Thank you very much. Furthermore, I served as the 5th and 6th District Young Republicans Campaign Coordinator for Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional races, in the 1970s in Virginia, staying active in Republican politics, at William and Mary and later at the University of Tennessee, where I volunteered for Lamar Alexander. Not that I've established my Republican bona fides, (does being a CREEP Nixonette help you to see the error of your characterization of me?), let me correct what I have done and why. Here in Alabama, I've done a Republican Attorney General's race, numerous judges, district attorneys, and other local races. And, yes, I've been a gubernatorial Democratic Campaign consultant, Democratic Congressional Campaign Consultant, and a host of other regional, local, and state legislative offices. I vote the man or woman and the issues, not the emotion. Here, I just want the good guys or gals to win, and I don't play party-belong games, where in the true areas, with at risk populations, you need to walk both sides of the aisles to get things done for the betterment of society and the body politic. And, coded insider language that only a fellow blogster would know, violates universal ethical constraints for identifying ad hominem attackers (AAPC). Yours truly, Karen Johnson-Cartee, Ph. D.
Good find
Newspapers have an interest in promoting blogs as unreliable sources of information. However, political advertisments have oft quoted unsourced comments made in newspaper stories, so what is the difference here? If anything, blogs actually may make sourcing of such comments easier as reporters are much more likely to protect the identities of their sources. With the internet, we know that anonymity only goes so far.
Political ad hominem
Folks, putting "a whole lot of people hate so- and-so" on a broadcast ad doesn't hold up to the evaluative criteria needed for a veracity meter under any professional code. In order to judge statements about a candidate, particularly negative attacks or ad hominem, one must have at least some of the following identifying bits of information, according to no less than Aristotle, many years ago:
1. Name (Telephone Book, Birth Certificate)
2. Geographic location
3. Political Affiliation or Special Interest Representation
3. Occupation or Political Expertise
Even his name, city affiliation, or the moniker "ordinary citizen" would have been preferable to an attribution that is an internal blog nickname or handle. Get Real! Karen Johnson-Cartee
Post new comment