« Shrub's Plan to Leave Every Child Behind | Main | Nuclear Sub Crashed Into Undersea Mountain »

January 14, 2005

WSJ Sucks, Bloggers Rule

It took the Wall Street Journal three paid reporters to come up with a short article that has zero news value, but still managed to make its World Wide News Box. The title is "Dean Campaign Made Payments to Two Bloggers." It's writers were William Bulkeley and James Bandler with contributions from Jeanne Cummings.

Amongst the lies in the article is this gem: the blogosphere is up in arms about the "recent" revelation that Dean paid bloggers to be consultants to his campaign. I'm also highly amused by the definition given of the blogosphere: "as many bloggers like to call the online community." It's all rather messed up and a really just a right-wing nut job rewording of a Zonkette post.

Zonkette, who presumably lifted her name from Wonkette, was apparently just trying to write a small blog in advance of a conference on blogger ethics. Her real question is how much transparency is needed when bloggers become political consultants. She thinks bloggers should list every single person/campaign that pay them for anything. It's a rather stupid position. First of all, there's no reason a blogger has to admit her real name. Second, if you don't have to admit your real name, that means you don't have to post under your true identity, which means your source of income is completely beside the point. Furthermore, it's been a helluva long time since I was last paid for anything remotely to do with my activism / blogging. At the same time, I think it's important for you to know that I'm an active member of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. In fact, I'm the At Large Membership Representative on the national board (and am running for a different position in the elections happening this Spring). So, that'd be why I try to point you to WILPF's many websites.

And hey, if you're qualified, apply to be the next UNO Director.

Anyway, the point is that biases come in many shapes and forms, not just a paycheck. I'm certainly biased about unions and labor issues in general because of my experience working as a union organizer and being the daughter and grand daughter of union members. Should all those things be listed on a "source of bias" page? Hell, I don't even know how to add pictures to this site, how am I supposed to add a bias page?

This blog - and most blogs - are not about static points of view. That's why people enjoy blogging. It's a chance to explore the world, write down opinions, and draw people into discussion about the world without ever having to leave the comfort of your bed. I don't think it's necessary to be fully transparent in order to be successful, or even honest, when blogging.

Hell, if I knew the secret behind a bunch of MALE bloggers making buckets of money off their random words on the web, I would jump on that bandwagon and topple it grabbing for the reins. Alas, I have two faults against me: I'm female and I have other things on my mind besides establishment politics.

Posted by cj at January 14, 2005 6:52 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Remember me?