Who's speaking?

Posted at 1:54 PM on June 23, 2006 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)

The other day a news script crossed my desk; I don't even remember what it was about other than it was some political food-fight, only the one doing the talking in the news script wasn't a candidate, it was a candidate's surrogate.

Years ago, we had a sort-of "occasional" policy that if it involved a candidate, we wanted the candidate on the record (Update 3:15 p.m.: The more I think about it, the more I think this was not a policy at MPR, but was a policy where I worked in Boston), not a surrogate. It was a nice try but ultimately a losing battle since, among other reasons, 99.9% of all political stories would disappear if the candidates had to be the one to lob the grenades.

It's getting worse in the era of blogs and other new tools. The "I'm Candidate XYZ and I approve of this message" law that attached a candidate to what was being said was also a nice -- if ineffective -- try because one of the new tenets of politics is don't let the candidate get dirty; let someone else do that, thus absolving the candidate from any charge being hurled. Deniability, in other words.

As I said a week or so ago, I'm interested in how the relationship between blogs and campaigns works as it's clear that partisan blogs have a role to play in getting stuff "out there" and, if they're having the best day of their lives, picked up by the mainstream media.

That relationship issue took a new turn a few days ago when Minnesota Democrats Exposed head writer Michael Brodkorb, a former GOP spokesman in Minnesota, took a paying gig with the Mark Kennedy campaign. However, we haven't been told yet what that gig involves. Michael has only said that what he posts on his blog are his opinions.

Maybe. But in the Klobuchar-Kennedy battle, who's doing the talking? If, for example, I read on MDE today -- as I obviously have -- "MN GOP: KLOBUCHAR RAISES BIG MONEY WITH “WASHINGTON CELEBRITY” AT LAVISH WEEKEND FUNDRAISER," who exactly is talking (and for reference, see my post yesterday about the "my fat cat is fatter than your fat cat.")?

Ostensibly it's the Minnesota GOP, written on a blog whose writer states his own opinions, and is employed by the Kennedy campaign. Presumably they all agree. But what does the candidate have to say about it?

This isn't a confusing situation only where Republicans are concerned. During the early part of the year we learned that blog postings critical of a DFL gubernatorial candidate were coming from a volunteer/staffer on the competing DFL candidate's campaign. Another "volunteer" posted a picture of John Kline as Col. Klink. In both cases the campaign's response was, basically, "hey, it wasn't me."

Or was it? We really don't know. Should we?

---

Comments (11)

So, a blogger can't post anything without it being attributable to their boss or former boss?

hmmm

Who is your boss again?

Posted by triple_a | June 23, 2006 2:48 PM

---

My boss is MPR, which is why I could never -- even though I've thought about it -- have a blog outside of MPR. MPR is, like it or not, responsible for what I write. But if you have an employment contract with a campaign and you write on your own blog about the campaign, is the campaign responsible for what you write?

A blogger can write anything he or she wants; that's not the question. The question is whether what's being written is at the behest of the employer.

Is it an issue? It could be. If a blogger were to be, for example, the conduit between a political party and a campaign, that would be a serious issue. I believe it would also raise questions about "coordination of activities." Why would you even want to get into having those questions raised?

Brodkorb is to be -- as he was -- applauded for disclosing his employment by the Kennedy campaign. The fact he felt a need to disclose it displays a concern about the appearance of conflict; one that doesn't go away with the disclosure.

BTW, who is YOUR employer, triple_a?

Posted by Bob Collins | June 23, 2006 3:12 PM

---

So you are alleging that Brodkorb is breaking a law by being a conduit between RPM & Kennedy?

That somehow, one of them is getting him to post information on his blog so that the other can get it.

Or are you saying that since he once worked for RPM, he can never ever talk to, call, or happen to be involved in/with something related to what RPM does?

Does it matter where I work? I don't work for a campaign, party, or media outlet. If you're good with google and read my blog at all, you should be able to figure it out pretty darn easy.

And you can have a blog outside MPR. If you did what you do here, on an external blog, I'd have no problem with it, but as you just alluded to. The personal content here on Polinaut is in fact under the MPR banner, and when you make such accusations like this on this blog, it is being taken as news.

Big problem in my eyes. Rather than do the responsible thing and find out the whole truth, you throw up un-corraberated suspicions of yours that have a very negative result if true.

You are convicting people of breaking campaign laws in the arena of public opinion with these little nuggets you do from time to time. Oh sure you don't come out an say that they are guilty of something wrong, but you raise enough suspicion that the damage is already done.

It is the whole do you beat your wife type attack. Damage is done once you raise your little black helicopter suspicion under the banner of Minnesota Public Radio.

You want to be another blogger who spends all day trying to bust the GOP for something, do it on your own time. I don't think that a publicly funded news organization should pay someone to spend all day trying to find all the dirt and gossip that can be used against the GOP (MArriage CD, fish photos)

I would hope that MPR has much more important news to dig up than this.

Posted by triple_a | June 23, 2006 4:05 PM

---

Press releases are floating around in cyberspace and I just grab the ones I like and post them. I don't post every press release I find, just the releases that fit in with the missiom of Minnesota Democrats Exposed.

If Ford Bell and Amy Klobuchar (or campaigns) send me their releases I will post them.

Posted by Michael B. Brodkorb | June 23, 2006 4:51 PM

---

My dear triple_a, you have an uncanny ability to rework what people write into some new meaning and then dismantling it. Have you no love for the literal?

Everything you describe is perception. But if you could just try -- just try -- to step out of your partisan role on Planet Politics for just a moment, you'll note that I'm interested in how bloggers and campaigns interact, and how the poor schleps like me, who don't live and breathe a candidate's exhaust, can know who is saying what?

MDE only provided an example of relationships because, as far as I know, with the exception of Norwegianality (who stopped blogging), he's the only one I know who has established an employment arrangement with a candidate; and certainly the only one who continued to blog after it.

I tend to believe this will be the future role of blogs. Is it good? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. I happen to think it's worth discussing even if I have to put up with the usual slings from the bunkers of Planet Politics. There are simply some things that are worth discussing and not everything you disagree with can -- or perhaps I should say "should" -- be explained away by the usual "he's a lefty; he doesn't worship at the feet of my candidate" response that is designed to end conversation, and marginalize the speaker as an evil intruder upon the democratic process. That's just the hogwash of campaigns. I do understand why partisans do it; the alternative is thoughtful discussion and these days thoughtful discussion does not serve the needs of politicians in a campaign. If they did, then one of those blogs you write for would turn the comments on.

I've said it before. I don't worship at any politician's feet -- a situation that party insiders simply cannot relate to and, thus, cannot believe.

I won't bother repeating what I've already written but I may check back later for the entertainment of finding out how you rework it. That is, if nothing is on TV tonight.

Glad to hear you haven't thrown in the towel on blogging.

Have a great weekend.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 23, 2006 7:21 PM

---

Michael: If you don't mind my asking -- and even if you do -- you didn't say what role you have in the Kennedy campaign? What will you be doing?

Posted by Bob Collins | June 23, 2006 7:24 PM

---

My problem is that you assume any blogger who sounds like a candidate is schilling for them. If they disagree with the opponent just like the candidate and post to that affect you discredit their words as being told to do so.

Since you are so 'removed' from partisan politics you completely ignore the fact that some people do agree with the candidates and want to help them get elected.

I don't get paid! How much more clear could it be? For all the work I do on the blogs, my only reward will be on election night if my guy or gal wins.

And you ignore the point I brought up to call you out. Polinaut is really very similar to your problem with blogs and campaigns. The line between personal views and news is incredibly blurred. And you said it your self, MPR is responsible for what you write. I happen to think there is an awful lot of personal grievances with members of campaigns or candidates. I wonder if that same attitude crosses over to your news duties. Or if others in your profession with out the outlet like Polinaut, end up just sinking their views in their stories.

It is all about bias. You seem to be unhappy that you cannot have some detailed and transparent family tree of blogs and campaigns to see who is schilling for who.

People like me think the same thing about the media. Why don't they print this? Why'd they ignore that? Why'd they have to run that negative story over and over without giving any one a chance to explain?

I bet you're just thrilled I'm still around. :)

Posted by triple_a | June 23, 2006 9:16 PM

---

//I wonder if that same attitude crosses over to your news duties.

What news duties would those be?

And, yeah, I'm glad you're still around. Triple_a, don't take things so seriously. Seriously.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 23, 2006 9:50 PM

---

Sorry but when a member of the media uses publicly funded media resources to raise the suspicion of breaking the law with no proof against Republicans on a near weekly basis, it isn't something that I'll just let go. And when said media member spends large amounts of time towards making it their responsibility to discredit the GOP and/or one of their candidates/ everything they say, it leads me to believe in the bias.

Especially when you never even bother to address the complete hypocrisy of the GOP's opponent. Nope, instead you're devoting your time to finding illegal dealings with center right bloggers and Republican campaigns. Meanwhile the DFLer is lying to people. Oh well, nothing to see here, so might as well ignore that one.

This is like my beef with the conventions. You're deciding what is important to cover again. I think you are dead wrong.

You are the Senior news Editor, no?

Posted by triple_a | June 24, 2006 7:01 AM

---

I know I'm wasting my breath here, Trip_a, but I simply must say one more time: put down your partisan filter and read it all again. Perhaps it would be easier if you just change on the references to GOP to DFL, and MDE to some left blog.

The point wasn't what MDE is or isn't guilty of -- the point is the changing nature of politics and the roles blogs can and will play and the line between campaigns - bloggers - political parties begins to blur.

The nature of politics is changing, the nature of political communication is changing and pretending they're not doesn't necessarily make it so.

Hypocrisy is an area I tend not to get into unless it's bipartisan, by the way, since there are few politicians -- indeed, there are few people -- who are not hypocrites, especially in an election year.

Again, it's unlikely a careful read of the entire post again will reveal this to you but I'm mostly interested in what -- to use the race you care about -- Kennedy has to say about Klobuchar and Klobuchar has to say about Kennedy. I really don't think surrogates are credible when they're used to maintain deniability for the person at the top. Didn't you get that?

I do admit to chuckling when reading, I think it was on KvM (hey, why don't you guys turn on the comments?) that I'm biased because I didn't run your investigative report: EXCLUSIVE: MY CANDIDATE'S OPPONENT SUCKS.

Trot Mark Kennedy out to talk about Amy Klobuchar, and I'm there, though. Any time. Any place. Amy got something to say about Kennedy? Ditto. Have you heard? THEY'RE the candidates in this race.

That's my old-fashioned, bipartisan, anti-surrogate strategy. If it drives surrogates crazy, well, good.

Also, regarding the "you only pick on the GOP" mantra, you might want to read the last paragraph.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 24, 2006 9:59 AM

---

I'm a part time consultant on research. I am not a full time employee.

Posted by Michael B. Brodkorb | June 24, 2006 5:10 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

Email Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor