Blogs, Primaries, Negative Campaigning

by: wegerje

Thu May 31, 2007 at 14:12:26 PM CDT


We recently deleted a diary that without quite meaning to raised the issue of the role of blogs in primary races with respect to negative campaigning. Because the diary mentioned a particular candidate and a particular incident the comments quickly devolved into noise. The diary and comments brought back memories of a low point for this blog. An unfounded charge was posted, allowed to stand and an intense and heated debate ensued. Several people quit posting and those of us with responsibility sought out ways to remedy what we perceived as damage to the blog's reputation or potential reputation.

It was sort of like watching a train wreck. Fascinating if you are well off to the side, but increasingly scary as you get closer. What is interesting is that it affected not only the campaigns and the race but the blog as well. The blog became a victim of the negativeness of the process. It became a lose-lose-lose situation: both sides and the blog.

Since then we have recovered our reputation and built on it. And as seen by our recent actions we have become wary of its repetition and we are attempting to be pro-active. Taking action has its own repercussions. We get accused of being censorious and anti-free speech. Fine, we can and do deal with that all the time. It's called being vigilant against trolls. But that situation and the current one did not involve trolls or just trolls.

Because we are dealing with respected members of the community the larger issue remains. When I said that this time we had been pro-active, that was only partly true. Yes we were pro-active in preventing a small fire from becoming a larger one. But we were re-active towards the initial small fire.

Even now there is heat being generated around a primary race. Charges of un-progressive conduct are being raised and 'thems fightin words'.

So what I'm suggesting here is that we give this some thought now before we step in it again. In debates and sports there are referees in addition to rules. Is it reasonable for us to pursue being up-front about rules and pro-active about identifying referees ahead of time in the area of primary fights amongst general allies? I'm willing to give it a shot.
wegerje :: Blogs, Primaries, Negative Campaigning
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Blogs, Primaries, Negative Campaigning | 35 comments
Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)
This is the only blog on which I am active. I am more familiar (and probably more comfortable) with e-lists. E-lists have to deal with spam and trolls. But the usual response to complaints about so-called "off-topic" posts is, "There's a delete key on your computer."While my observation has been that attempts to impose rules of conduct are almost without exception counterproductive. I left one list in part because far too much bandwidth was being spent arguing about rules of conduct.

No delete key on a blog of course. And that's really not my personal habit in any case. But this latest incident happened at a time when I was absolutely overwhelmed with work. Fourteen-, 15-hour days at the end. And when I saw that one particular exchange had degenerated into nois and name-calling, I simply scrolled down.

Doesn't everybody have a scroll wheel on their mouse?

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

ratings abuse (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps a refresher course in non-abusing ratings is in order.

Eg, you don't rate someone a troll just because you disagree with their position; likewise, you don't rate a trollish comment as excellent just because you do agree with their position.

As few rules as possible (0.00 / 0)
but IMO there must be a few. I.D. the referees. Prohibit name calling.

Sources.

The recycled rumour that was floated had absolutely no attribution, never did.

I'd go so far as to say that reporting what one has experienced firsthand *could* be sufficient. (I've done so & some of those times it was about the specific candidate referred to.) Let others judge whether the author has built the credibility for the account to be believed. Let others lend credibility with their own stories, for that matter.

As someone who actually attended journalism school for awhile, I'm very pro-free-speech but have scorn for anything resembling fodder for scandal rags (or libel suits). Either source it with a link, scan your docs into your story or put yourself on the line with your eyewitness account.

Or be deleted.

Yinn's @ the ready... (0.00 / 0)
It's the reason I don't post many diaries here.  Still no thought of apology.
[ Parent ]
i don't understand... (0.00 / 0)
care to expand?

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
[ Parent ]
Yinn deleted an, admittedly, juvenile diary post of mine... (0.00 / 0)
with no warning, bad information about what troll action that had happened earlier, and hasn't yet apologized for her deletion trigger finger (in her defense, she, like me, doesn't know all of the controls here, and didn't know how to demote, as I didn't know how to 'back-page' the post when I posted it).

I don't mean to continue this situation beyond this post, but, the deletion 'wound' hasn't scabbed over yet.  Sorry to bother others w/ my personal peeves.

[ Parent ]
our reputation (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I remember talking to someone who's work as an activist I admire quite a bit, and having her tell me (this was last summer) that she choose not to participate in this site anymore because the comments had gotten so nasty.  Though I respect her choice, it was still hard to hear, and her presence is missed.

So, though this may not be that helpful of a comment, I have to agree with yinn:  rules, yes, but as few as possible please. 

Also, I don't know if this was done or not, but if something is being deleted because it contains a very damaging unsubstantiated rumor, perhaps the author could be contacted and told that they are welcome to re-post the diary once they have something to back it up. 

Honestly, there are so many crappy things going on in politics and with various politicians that you CAN document, that it seems hard to see the need to spend time debating what could end up being not even true.

Basic stuff: The common wealth should be used for the common good, not to enrich the well-connected few.  

Who can you trust to be a referee? (0.00 / 0)
During the above mentioned "low point," an admin or an editor violated everyone's trust by copying an offline discussion.  Also, in my opinion, in heated matters such as these primary battles, the parties recognized no one as being neutral.  One is viewed as either being "for" or "against."

The damage was real.  Anyone who was not a member of the community who dropped in on the "wrong day" was probably turned off and probably discounted any other works from this site simply due to a bad experience.  This community also splintered into other blogs.  This set back the community back a year due to a lack of critcal mass and diversity of interests and viewpoints.  My own experience was that after getting caught up in the battles over Il-6 in '06, the blogginois ambush of Archpundit by ilyavitz, the HRC fiasco, and Laesch's "outing" I bacame fatigued by the sheer idiocy of it all.  I seriously doubt I've contibuted anything other than a few comments the past year.

I wish I had the answers.  I just don't think a referee format will be very effective when dealing with passion.

Yea, a lot of "mistakes" were made during that time. (0.00 / 0)
I had really repressed some of those memories your comment "dredges" up. Your comment and Yoda's remind me of just how real the issue is and might well become again.

At the moment our only strategy is vigilance and timely deletes. Perhaps turning off the comments of diaries that are taking a bad turn might be another tactic.

The folks concerned about rules make real points. Indeed we tried our hand at rule making during that time. It didn't really get anywhere.

After the fact referees are not likely to work, for the reasons you mention. But perhaps if we IDed some ahead of a fight...?

Could we put a race on notice? Like, "OK CD-14 we declare your race to be 'hot' and we are instituting special rules for diaries about it."

And how about doing a poll on who might be trusted as referees?

And here's another thought. I just posted over at Fireside 14 asking if we should send folks that are getting into it over to their blog?

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
I'll do it....I'll do it (0.00 / 0)
I volunteer to be a referee.............Just joking of course......good ideas above.........
[ Parent ]
Becareful Joe (0.00 / 0)
  The so called progressive police are out to censor certain people who are not going along with their agenda. Talk about having it both ways. Certain people say one thing but their actions show another. I for one am outraged by the treatmet of serveral bloggers here. Being progressive means that you are allowed to speak your mind. I thought this was america. If you want change they they need to be discussed and instead of attacking people and spreading false rumors maybe we should get to the issues at hand to me that is progressive.
[ Parent ]
Well sort of. (0.00 / 0)
"Being progressive means that you are allowed to speak your mind."

That's true but lets face it for a blog like this to function well we need to set limits. I expect that you could imagine situations where it would be possible to speak your mind in ways that would not further the goals of progressiveness. When a guest, even a relative, is in your home you do all you can to protect their freedom of speech. But at the same time you are counting on them to be civil. If they begin to scream or rant or use too much obscenity you would find yourself stepping in to set limits on their speech. Same here.

But it gets a little more complicated here. At home it is just you or just you and your spouse that must work together to set limits. Here there are many more people that must work together. Sometimes some here get over-zealous. Any of us can get over-zealous. I know I have at times.

What I'm saying is for you to work with us and at times give us some latitude to make mistakes. And when we do make mistakes, work with us to fix them.

We are actually very slow to ban people here. Ask the next poster JoeF. Although we have banned him twice and he is on his third username, we have actually been very patient with him. Some say too patient. A while back we banned a user skeeter. The same as jmosskeeter? Don't know, but maybe.

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
Thank You (0.00 / 0)
  Jeff you are right free speech come with a responseablity to guard what you say. If I have offended anyone then I ask for that people forgive me. The point that we are trying to make here is the false and made up rumors about John can not be tolerated. We went through all this bull-filth in last years campagin. John has come clean that the rumors are false and that he never particpated in that sort of behavior. John is not the monster that some will have you think. He fights hard in the poltical arena because if you want change then you have to work hard to see results. I have no offical role with john's campagin just a strong stake in the future of my country. I thank you for being fair and in the future I will watch my crude comments and sorry if I have offended people. I will try not to be so quick to judge people in the future I was wrong. However my dedication to getting John has only increased and look forward to a great issue oriented primary where we will all win. Thanks Jeff
[ Parent ]
Rumors can be manufactured (0.00 / 0)
to compliment and to hurt.  I've just read many of your comments and they can also be considered rumors. 

If you block out the bad you have to block out the good as well.  That IS why we have free speech.

I know John Laesch and I know he is not a great as you say he is.  In fact I would go so far as to say you exagerate to the extreme. 

[ Parent ]
Rubbish. (0.00 / 0)
Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom to use any particular venue. This is a privately run site, paid for by some of its members. You have the right to start your own site using your own money. You do not have the right to post anything you want to on somebody else's site, any more than we would have the right to go into your home and preach to your family if you didn't want us there.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone
[ Parent ]
true, but... (0.00 / 0)
imho the greatest value in this site comes from its ability to be THE community blog for all left-of-center folks.  the less we fragment, the better.  if we are civil here, we can make it into a great communication device to at least allow all of us to reach out to each other, and be informed of what is going on.  we could be much stronger if we just communicated better about our ideas and plans and activities, even if we dont agree all the time.

William J Maggos
[ Parent ]
Fireside14 here. (0.00 / 0)
I posted a longer comment on Fireside14.  Yes, we would love it for people to come over to blog and comment about anything going on in CD-14, including cultural and personal stuff.

No, we don't want people using it for a base to promote slander.  We define slander simply.  It is an unsubtantiated claim that someone has been involved in a criminal or other scandalous activity.  The key word is unsubstantiated.  So if you want to come by with a juicy story, you'd better be able to back it up.  If you don't, your post will be deleted.  If you do it twice, you will be deleted.

Outside of that, we have no particular rules at our house.

Pop in once in a while.  I will be posting several new installments of Poon's Lobster House that will tell you how Denny's debacle in the last election was greeted by the formerly high strutting members of his posse, I mean, party.  I will also reveal why Colin Powell never goes to Poon's any more, how he lost his shirt, and why he had to knock out Donald Rumsfeld with the leg of a table.

Omnes vulnerant, postuma necat

[ Parent ]
unagidon... (0.00 / 0)
i looked at the link that jeff posted, and found a diary that you posted there while i was at the height of the aldermanics.  you referenced me a few times, and thought it deserved a reply.  but my soapblox login doesn't work, and i didn't know why.  anyway, i'll frontpage it here and i'd crosspost it there, if i can (and probably blog for america under a different/similar nym).  check back later tonight or tomorrow, if you don't see it there...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
[ Parent ]
You have to register at each (0.00 / 0)
soapblox blog. There's not a common login across the various soapblox blogs. It's been talked about but never implemented.

Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
New Rule: Assessing progressivism off-limits (1.00 / 3)
> Even now there is heat being generated around a primary race. Charges of un-progressive conduct are being raised and 'thems fightin words'.

Keep it real, say what you mean, what you really want is a PSB "hold" list. When you ask after the need for new rules, what you are really asking is how do we prevent criticism of our fav names from appearing on our bulletin board?

Here's some rough draft suggested New Rules:

1. PSB will periodically publish a list of presumptive progressives.

2. For our own protection, get it over with and PSB files with the Feds & the state as a PAC acting in the interests of candidates on said list.

3. Dairies & comments will be rated by whether they, in the judgment of referees, tend to favor or not favor a candidate on the list. Unfavorable diaries & comments will be deleted without warning or discussion.

4. In particular, discussion related to assessing the progessiveness of the record of any member of the list will not be tolerated.

We as a group need to figure out how to build an online community for progressive political discussion where the progressiveness of individual candidates is off-limits. That's our challenge.

Hope this helps.

I can't resist milking this one. (0.00 / 0)
JoeF wrote:

3. Dairies & comments will be rated by whether they, in the judgment of referees, tend to favor or not favor a candidate on the list.

Obviously you are udd--, er, utterly lost in Cyberspace, and are actually looking for this site.

I hope this helps, in the event that you skim through this thread again and this post happens to cross past your eyes.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone

[ Parent ]
skim??? (0.00 / 0)
**groan**

thanks for the smile (even though i hate puns)...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009

[ Parent ]
Oberweis (0.00 / 0)
Buy more milk!

ltsply2
[ Parent ]
Trolls, bring out your trolls! (0.00 / 0)
Why do you come back if you think the progressives here are not what you think progressives should be (rhetorical question, i.e. don't respond)?
[ Parent ]
my suggestion (0.00 / 0)
I'd be happy with simply banning GOP shills who are here merely to cause trouble....
[ Parent ]
you're completely clueless, aren't you? n/t (0.00 / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
[ Parent ]
I appreciate the kisses.... (0.00 / 0)
...but sweet talk will get you nowhere, bored.
[ Parent ]
banning GOP shills (0.00 / 0)
  Last summer I attended the DFA training when it came to town.  One of the organizers told a story of what he would do if a republican came to his door while canvassing.  He wouldn't get in a heated debate with the canvasser, wouldn't be abusive, or mean, wouldn't even just turn them away.  He said he would invite them in for coffee and maybe a piece of cake, he would talk on and on with that person because every moment they are sitting down is a moment they won't be out on the campaign trail getting actual GOP people out to vote. 
  Personally, I like seeing Joe here on the blog, I find it kind of amusing actually.  If Joe wants to waste his time telling us that we are completely nuts, well then, at least he isn't out knocking on doors telling others the same thing.
 
[ Parent ]
negativeness (1.00 / 1)
> The blog became a victim of the negativeness of the process.

You're not against negativeness, don't pretend you are  It all depends on to whom the negativeness is directed. There's plenty of pols you LOVE to HATE around here. You WELCOME & ENCOURAGE negativeness directed at SOME. Rahm comes to mind off the top of my head.

You're not opposed to negative campaigning in general, just in the specific, when directed toward your current crop of heart-throbs.

One man's negativeness is another's frank discussion.

Yea, so what? n/t (0.00 / 0)


Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
so (1.00 / 1)
So any time you delete negative diaries & comments about some candidates, and not others, when some candidates are presumed progressives while critical assessments of the progressiveness of others are prohibited by rules or referees, you are no longer a discussion board for progressive politics, you are veering off into electioneering, you are operating as an advocacy site for specific candidates. Which you can do. But drop the open progressive voices forum BS and be honest and get it over with explicitly list who you are stumping for.
[ Parent ]
Yinn, this is one of the trolls... (0.00 / 0)
(who always posts on the front page) that my deleted post was directed to.
[ Parent ]
Bored Now (0.00 / 0)
Did you post your diary on the Laesch campaign without the ability for us to comment?  Because although there is some information in it, I would hardly call it informational.  You are actually making a speculation.

Omnes vulnerant, postuma necat
yes... (0.00 / 0)
the only reason i posted it was because i had thought i already had and had referred to it.  not sure what was speculative, because i know i was wading through exit polls and other polls at the moment...

"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
[ Parent ]
if you can't change it let me know.... n/t (0.00 / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
[ Parent ]
Blogs, Primaries, Negative Campaigning | 35 comments
Prairie State Blue
Front Page - Back Page


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

1 User(s) logged on.
Search




Advanced Search

Misc
View
Powered by: SoapBlox