Move by Zach Stephenson of MN Publius means more blurring of the lines....

Posted at 2:04 PM on July 5, 2006 by Tom Scheck (13 Comments)

Zach Stephenson with MN Publius announced earlier this week he was leaving the blog to work for the Amy Klobuchar campaign. Now I can't begrudge a brother for trying to make a nickel but there are some serious questions about the line between being an independent blogger and working for a campaign.

Now everyone knows MN Publius backs Klobuchar over her Republican opponent, Congressman Mark Kennedy. But do these moves cause another blurring of the lines for folks who visit MN Publius to get an objective, Democrat view on the status of the race? MN Publius was hailed by liberal bloggers nationwide last week for reporting on the Kennedy campaign removing some references and photos to President Bush. Was that done independently of the Klobuchar campaign? Was it leaked to MN Publius or did the two work hand in hand? Zach is leaving MN Publius but that doesn't mean the blog won't get a tip or two along the way.

Michael Brodkorb with Minnesota Democrats Exposed was questioned by Bob Collins about his decision to work with the Kennedy folks. Zach Stephenson should answer those questions along with any other blogger who decides to work for a political campaign.

Comments (13)

Tom, I worked in politics in Iowa for quite a while before moving to Minnesota to get away from campaigns (ask me how that's working out some time...).

I wouldn't worry about which bloggers are sleeping with which campaigns, at least not on the left. I don't think there's a single liberal Minnesota-based political blog with enough in-state readership to influence any of the races. As for the Republicans, I think that question should be asked often: John Hinderaker literally has more blog readers than ALL the MN liberal blogs put together, and he and his Power Line bloggers have successfully mau-maued the Strib (not to mention CBS) on numerous occasions. If you want to convene a blogger ethics panel, I'd start the discussion there, and not with some guy right out of college who just graduated from a blog to a campaign.

I would also ask that you not project your concerns about fellow journalists onto bloggers. The crooked pro-Thune blogs aside, blogs are not being bought off by campaigns, although some bloggers may be trying to volunteer in that capacity.

Michael Brodkorb is currently the most aggressively partisan blogger in the state, but in a month he doesn't reach as many people as Pat Kessler does in one broadcast.

One last point. The rightwing "blogosphere" in Minnesota has their own radio network. Any chance the major media will ever cover that and ask some of the more obvious questions about whether or not those radio broadcasts should be subjected to FCC scrutiny?

Posted by Mark Gisleson | July 5, 2006 2:52 PM

... but Zack quit the blog. I agree, it's a fine line, but it's also a totally different situation from Brodkorb (and from Norwegianity, who left to work for Ford Bell but shut down the blog entirely).

Posted by Victoria | July 5, 2006 3:40 PM

I agree with both Mark and Victoria here. Zack made it explicitly clear that he wouldn't be posting for any reason for the duration of the campaign, while Brodkorb still won't put a one-line disclaimer before posts regarding the US Senate race, even though he's now a paid consultant for the Kennedy campaign. BIG difference, and that's without accounting for the differences in readership between MN Publius and AssRocket.

I think the trend right now is toward greater accountability in the blogosphere as a result of the Thune bloggers out in SD - once a blogger gets big enough, people will ask where their loyalties lie and for whom they're working, and our credibility rests on the quality and timing of our answers. I don't see a problem here with Zack.

Posted by MN Campaign Report | July 5, 2006 4:11 PM

Blogs are in many cases a middle ground between what comes out in a press release and what the Star Tribune might pick up on. I think as long as people jump around from blog to blog they are capable of figuring things out on their own.

Part of the appeal of blogs is the access to information we collectively are able to combine. The problem is we come to expect insight every day when there is none there. If the reader gives us to much credit for passing along this insight from time to time, they might also buy into some of the tricks we use to keep the readers coming back.

I also question what the line is and if there are any political bloggers who are on the other side of the line outside of those who got their start in traditional media. Also I'm not so sure a known political connection makes you less credible, in fact I would argue it tends to make you more credible in many cases, as you can't go far down the road of unconfirmed possibilities.

Posted by Mike Grimes | July 5, 2006 6:13 PM

Mike is correct here. He and I have disagreed on various issues - initially, both of my readers who go back that far will remember that I caught him blogging heavily in favor of Independence Party candidates, specifically Peter Hutchinson, without disclosing that he was/is the IP's Special Events chair (or whatever).

But now that this information is out in public, it lends him a greater degree of credibily to speak on issues related to the party, since it can be assured that he'll be aware of most goings-on therein.

But again, we come back to the Stephenson question...Tom, you dropped the ball here. There's a big difference between party operatives who happen to blog and bloggers who become campaign staffers.

This difference speaks to variation in top-down vs. bottom-up campaign power - by hiring Zach, the Klobuchar camp is drawing from the Netroots (bottom up) instead of hiring someone who was already on their team and happened to have a widely read blog (top-down). It's organic, it's exciting for the Netroots, and it's people-powered.

Posted by MN Campaign Report | July 5, 2006 10:27 PM

What's this junk with comment moderation, btw? Don't you trust us, Tom ;)

Posted by MN Campaign Report | July 5, 2006 10:28 PM

Michael Brodkorb also works for other candidates, but will not admit it, and instantly removes any references to the fact from his blog.

As an employee of Weber Johnson PA (www.weberjohnsonpa.com), it is impossible for him to argue that he doesn't have at least a passing financial stake in the campaigns of other firm clients such as Norm Coleman, Tim Pawlenty and John Kline.

There are plenty of lines being blurred on both sides, and I think with each passing event such as the move by Zack, more and more people are understanding that blogging and ethics have no mandatory connection.

Posted by Roving Reporter | July 5, 2006 11:06 PM

I think that depends on your point of view, RR. If the goal of one's blog is to have fun and give people a laugh, then you're right, there's no ethical requirement. If, however, a blogger wants to have a serious impact on political discourse, both in the netroots and in the real world, I think a ethical requirement does exist. It may not be as stringent as those placed upon journalists, but blogs are not newspapers. They're more than that :)

Posted by MN Campaign Report | July 6, 2006 8:21 AM

"This difference speaks to variation in top-down vs. bottom-up campaign power - by hiring Zach, the Klobuchar camp is drawing from the Netroots (bottom up) instead of hiring someone who was already on their team and happened to have a widely read blog (top-down)."

Or campaigns who hire people to start blogs without disclosing they are part of the campaign. That's the ethical line that needs to be watched, not who is hiring bloggers.

Posted by rew | July 6, 2006 9:43 AM

I agree that there are bloggers who are trying to stay within the ethical boundaries set forth by the journalism community, but for every one who is, there are ten who are using their blogs to support or attack others without worrying about ethics.

Michael is a perfect example. He claims he is being open and honest by announcing his association with Mark Kennedy's campaign, and for that I applaud him. But when you attempt to hide a number of conflicts by admitting to one, your honesty remains questionable. I just hope that the mainstream media either look into the potential conflicts with the bloggers they choose to feature, or, at least don't settle for blogosphere scuttlebutt as being reliably sourced.

Posted by Roving Reporter | July 6, 2006 9:51 AM

I might be mistaken, but I thought the comment moderation was put into place by Bob, not Tom, to combat spam.

Great discussion btw. I would have put in my two cents (which have since been put in by others) but I was too wrapped up with the whole Rocketboom fiasco. :(

Posted by blankout7 | July 6, 2006 11:36 AM

Does this mean I have to wait until after the election to start my Wege v. Jugs O'Fun blog?

It would be objective — you have my word on it!

Posted by Mark Gisleson | July 6, 2006 11:54 AM

Why would anybody visit MN Publius for an "objective" take on the race? If I want a relatively objective take I go to NPR or the Star Tribune. Blogs like MN Publius (or NSP, for that matter) aren't objective - and that's the whole reason for their existence.

Also, when did it become an issue for tips to be given to blogs? Do mainstream news media never take tips from interested/involved parties? This is a pretty clear double standard.

Posted by North Star Politics | July 7, 2006 2:52 AM

Services

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