Blogger Ethics 101
I started to write a reply to Chris Bowers in the thread Jerome wrote about his recusal from MyDD. As my reply went along (and became long) I decided to switch to a diary in the hope that more folks will read it and, hopefully, join in a lively and spirited yet friendly, intellectual discussion regarding ethical and civil conduct amongst all of us.
I haven’t participated in or read the vast majority of the Ohio Senate campaign posts. I gather it has gotten uglier then the two conversations (here and Booman Tribune) that I have participated in. I have no interest in getting into the he said, she said nor the relative qualities of the two campaigns.
The issue is larger than that and if it is not addressed fully, dispassionately, and without attachment to the specifics of personalities or campaigns, we will be forced to go through it again and again and again… and it is a very destructive process. I suspect that Blogger Ethics are no different then any other ethics. Some of the specifics vary but the general rules are the same. So let’s talk about this some. Let’s be civil about it. And let’s try to understand what the groundrules ought to be for all of us so that we can avoid some of the rancor that divides us and erodes are collective effectiveness.
Jerome posted:
Truckin’
by Jerome Armstrong
I’m not going to be posting or blogging here any longer while working campaigns. There’s no upside and the downside of posting personal opinions, where it’s easy to mark it as a political ploy by the opposition, is plenty. If you do see me blogging, it will be with the campaigns or committees sites or blogs I’m working.
And for the umpteenth time. None of the political consulting I do is associated with Markos, which we stopped with the end of the ’04 cycle. I’m still working campaigns, with a contracting staff of usually 6 others, at least into ’08. Though I thought I could personally blog my opinions while openly disclosing my work-related interests, that seems unrealistic given the competitive situation. So, see you on down the road.
Misc :: Wed Oct 26th, 2005 at 07:15:35 AM EDT
Jerome has disclosed that he is doing consulting work for the Sherrod Brown Senate Campaign and for Gov. Mark Warner’s PAC (which is a probable precursor to a Presidential run).
About jerome armstrong:
Political blogger since 2001, I worked on Dean’s national campaign, and now do internet strategy as a consultant. Politicians I currently work for are Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown and Virginia Gov Mark Warner’s Forward Together PAC.
Let me say real quick that this post is not about Jerome. It is about ethics, specifically conflicts of interest. It is triggered by the controversy over his work for the Brown campaign but my comments, and I hope the ensuing discussion, has nothing to do with him personally.
Ok… full disclosure… so far, so good. The problem of course is that Brown’s competitor is Paul Hackett and many of us worked for, contributed to, got excited about Paul Hackett’s recent House campaign. It was one of the highlights of the growing netroots activism. Feeling powerless and then discovering that we do indeed have the power brings emotional attachment. Perfectly natural and nothing wrong with it… as long as we are aware of it and can understand ours and others reactions and future decisions in that context.
I’ve been reading a lot of emotional reaction. My experience is that conflict often occurs when people that process via feeling and people that process via thought (See Myers-Briggs and Kiersey) get into discussions and disagreements. We simply do not hear each other. This problem is worthy of a whole host of discussions of it’s own. I bring it up here simply to ask people to step back a moment and consider that part of the problem is simply that we humans tend not to do a good job of listening to each other. We read or hear the words but through our own filter and we never really read or hear what it is that the other person is actually trying to get across.
Ok… enough of that….
I work for a major financial institution. We are required to take yearly classes (brief, simple, and generally very stupid) on business ethics, conflicts of interest, money laundering, etc. I know there are similar resources on the net for ethical and legal blogging standards. I have one of them linked but have not read it. If I ever again locate that elusive thing known as “free time” I will. My guess is that while details may differ the general ideas and concepts remain the same.
Disclosure is a critical first step in resolving conflicts of interest. However, as we often see with Judges and other elected officials, recusal from certain decision making processes is also necessary. Perhaps that is appropriate when a blogger is working for a particular campaign… and this appears to be what Jerome is doing here… recusing himself from MyDD.
However, it appears to be the shotgun, GBCW, variety and that does not seem necessary to me at all. In fact, that strikes me as an inappropriate response if we use the model of Judges and elected officials recusing themselves from particular decisions in which they have a conflict of interest.
Following that particular model it would mean that Jerome would not comment at all on the Ohio Senate primary or, potentially, the upcoming Presidential primary. However, he would be free to continue his other commentary here and elsewhere.
A perhaps trickier, but to me acceptable, approach would be for Jerome to post official Brown or Warner campaign posts written by him or others as long as they were clearly stamped across the top as being official campaign statements and not normal MyDD opinion pieces.
As I said earlier, I have named Jerome in this post but hopefully it is clear that this applies to all of us.
And again, I am not interested in any of the he said, she said, nor, in this post, the specific difficulties for the blogosphere in the Hackett/Brown campaign (another issue worthy of addressing separately) regardless of personalities involved.
Rather the basics of ethics and conflicts of interest that we all ought to follow scrupulously.
And I mean that… scrupulously.
We are not Republicans.
This is important to me because there are fuzzier cases than this one. What about the rest of us political bloggers?
There are high profile bloggers, web site owners and front pagers like Jerome, Markos, and Chris.. and it is starting to become clear to me what sort of very high standards you folks must keep. Such folks generally fall into two categories. One set of bloggers are taking the role of journalists (Josh Marshall for instance). Journalism has it’s own set of well established ethical codes of conduct. Codes that we are all too painfully aware are not being followed as they should be.
Others are political partisans (Markos and Jerome I think) who write in order to promote a particular point of view and generate political action in a direction they favor. Then there are diarists and common taters like me and most of the folks here. The average Joe with an opinion. Not too many problems there… until…
You or I become party officials such as town committee members and precinct captians like I and others have. Or we start a little blog of our own something many of us have done. Are volunteer leaders of volunteer grassroots groups such as the various local DFA or PDA or other groups. This becomes a little fuzzier. Also fuzzy is when we become involved as volunteers for specific campaigns. If we are paid staff it becomes clear that we have a conflict of interest but what about the average Jane that gets involved in their favorite politicians campaign?
I can address some of this from my own experience and perspective as I fall into all those categories today.
A year ago I became chair of my town democratic committee. As such it is my job to get democrats elected. Period. It is a purely partisan position. It is highly unlikely that I will support a member of another party unless by agreement of my entire town committee. Certainly not a Republican but this also means not a Green despite my own generally positive feelings about the Green Party and Green candidates. Inside of me there is a conflict here but I have taken on a job that has certain expectations and I have made a decision to agree with those expectations.
LUckily so far, I have not had any primaries or conflicts like Brown/Hackkett arise… yet… but as we gain strength such things will happen. As a town committee member I am also a county committee member. Further, I am now on the executive committee of my county Democratic party. This means I need to be able to support the county ticket and the portions of the state ticket that cover my area. Again, so far, no conflict but I fully expect there will come a day when the party decides to back someone I do not support. What if the county decides to back a DLCer? What then? I am prepared to buck the party under certain circumstances. I am prepared to swallow my disagreements under some also. It will be a case by case call for me. Is it worth the trouble of an intra-party fight or do I let this one slide and “save my ammunition” for another day?
We’ve had lots of discussions and disagreements over that decision process here. It is up to each of us to consider and decide for ourselves when one or the other protocol is called for.
You are likely to read me write about some of these local campaigns. Thinking this through I think it is probably appropriate for me to add my party title to any posts I write on these campaigns for the purpose of full disclosure… even if these are things I would have written before I became a party functionary.
The general rule is that any conflict of interest or any appearance of conflict requires full disclosure. When in doubt, err on the side of caution and fully disclothe… er… I mean… disclose.
While local campaigns are most likely to nothing more than informational and anecdotal to all of you there may well be occasions where say a supporter of a Green Party candidate from the area is also on-line and full disclosure will allow all of you to take into account the likelihood that I have not fully considered both the Democratic and Green Party candidates and am instead expressing a partisan point of view. While I am highly unlikely to write negatively about a Green Party or other party candidate unless I actually feel that way and I am also highly unlikely to write positively about a Democratic candidate unless I believe what I am writing, it is only fair to you the reader that such a disclosure be included.
I am also aware of a personal delicate line between being “a party guy” and being an individual that thinks it is important to be critical of the party and it’s elected officials when called for (which is, unfortunately, often these days). I’ve no doubt I’ll piss off my county or state chair at some point. If they read even half of what I’ve written on-line the last couple years I’m sure they’d already be pissed. So I am aware of the dynamic tension between the need to voice my opinion and not wanting to limit my effectiveness by pissing the wrong people off. This is dangerous territoty. It is important to be an effective and powerful voice for change within the party. This will require that I bite my tongue and choose my battles sometimes. I’m ok with that but am aware of the danger of the slippery slope where “winning” and being “effective” begins to drown out “conscience” and “ideology.” But ideological purists tend not to be effective in effecting political change.
Whether we like it or not politics is the art of compromise. A very difficult line to tred. Very difficult.
I am also the organizer for my local Democracy for America group. We started as a grassroots group in support of Gov. Dean’s Presidential campaign. Now we are Democracy for the Hudson-Mohawk Region. We work loosely with the Democracy for America PAC that Gov. Dean formed but we ignore their and do our own thing half the time. This is doubly difficult. Part of what we do is encourage people to join their local Democratic Committees. Partially to strengthen the Democratic Party but also exert influence over the direction of the party, move it away from the disasterous and destructive influences of the DLC and consultant class and towards a more populist, citizen oriented progressive agenda… or else. Else what? Else we take the damn thing over! Some people on-line think we should split off and form a third party or join the Greens and strengthen them into becoming a real force. While I wish for a system in our country that would support a multi-party environment we don’t have that today so I chose to work within the Democratic Party and am prepared to support a take-over of it by peaceful means or in the equivalent of a corporate hostile take-over if necessary.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that to my County Party Chair. He and I work well together and I believe are in favor of generating the same results. Full disclosure requires that I let him know just how fervantly and to what extremes I am prepared to go in order to create an effective and progressive Democratic Party and agenda. I’ll have to think about that some but that is a conversation that needs to happen I think.
The other part of the DFA group that needs stating is that we want to become the premier force for progressive politics in the nation. An ambitious goal. I want to see the group grow in numbers and in numbers of locations. We want to be in every congressional district and in every state legislative district. We want all of you to be so impressed that you join us. Such ambitious plans require ethical conduct however. How often do people or groups express such ambitions and then justify “by any means necessary?” No, not by any means necessary. There are other progressive groups in my area and we want to work in coalition with them not steal their membership. I’d love it if they all decided we were the coolest thing since sliced bread and folded their groups into ours but that ain’t gonna happen so that’s ok. But again it gets into tricky ground. How do we build membership, how do we advance ourselves as a powerful and effective force and voice in the progressive community without being in conflict with other progressive groups? The answer to that question is usually but not always clear.
I also have a blog now. Traffic is in single digits weekly and I do not have the time necessary to keep regularly updated content. Perhaps someday when I find which closet I left that “free time” in. I also occasionally write diaries here and on other blogs. And I regularly comment on others diaries and front page stories (hmmm… maybe that is where I let all that free time… hmmmm). When will these things require disclosures or recusal?
I think the stuff outlined above probably answer that question and I think we all need to consider these situations for ourselves. I think there is one last situation that I’ve not covered and it is one that I think has come up in many of the comments in the current Hackett/Brown controversy.
What about when we volunteer for candidates?
There is a young woman by the name of Kirsten Gillibrand that has filed papers to run for Congress in New York’s 20th district. I know Kirsten and unless something truly dramatic happens I am likely to spend a great deal of the next year working for her campaign… on a volunteer basis. I am pretty much committed to it. I support her as an individual. No conflict there. But I also intend to write very favorable posts on-line regarding her and her campaign… and very negative one’s about the incumbent, her Republican opponent. Still no conflict and as long as I don’t lie or slander, no ethical problems.
But what if someone else gets in the race on the Democratic side? I am all in favor of democracy and a persons right to run for office but I don’t want anyone getting in her way and making her run any more difficult then it already is. A primary
would definitely be a negative. Now the potential for conflict arises.
I think it would be silly and unreasonable to expect me, as a partisan, to give equal time, sing the praises of, or even mention any other candidates. But… it would probably be right of me to disclose that I am a volunteer for her campaign and probably, though I am less sure, to also disclose my roles in my local DFA group and the Democratic Party. Definitely if my statements are official statements in one of those two capacities but perhaps also even if they have nothing at all to do with them. That part is a little fuzzy for me but…
When in doubt full disclosure is the way to go.
In the Hackett/Brown controversy some of the complaints about Jerome have been coming from people that had or have a vested interest in the Hackett campaign. There is nothing wrong with different people supporting different campaigns. It is right and healthy. I don’t think any of us are used to such an embaressment of riches as we face in this particular campaign. I am not super familiar with either candidate but what I do know of them leaves me happy with both and wishing that we could find two different offices so that we could elect them both.
I think that if we the blogging community are going to criticize and hold to a high standard the likes of Jerome Armstrong then we must do the same ourselves. If you are or have been a volunteer for Paul Hackett, certainly if you are or have been a paid staffer, or intend to be either then it is highly appropriate to disclose that information as well.
Extreme? Yes. But… when in doubt… take the high road, keep our side of the road squeaky clean (with each other and in stark contrast to Republicans), fully disclose.
I think I said it above but I’ll add it in here again… I think it is completely appropriate for Jerome or other people that have entered into a paid relationship with a candidate, campaign, or other political entity such as a PAC or 527 to disclose this information and to recuse themselves from writing on the topics that relate to that campaign or PAC/527 unless it is clearly marked as an official communique of that campaign or entity. By adding in the PAC/527 part I am adding in the controversy some have about NDN and virtually all of us have about the DLC. But this also means DFA, PDA, and others. It’s all or none and not just the one’s we don’t like. If change is going to happen… let it begin with us.
Back to Jerome for a moment though. It is completely inappropriate for him to be hounded into not blogging here or elsewhere on other subjects then Brown and Warner. This is no different then if I decide to write about my thoughts on the relative merits of Brown v. Hackett. I don’t live in Ohio, have no relationship with either candidates campaign or previous campaign, and have no dog in the race. In relation to them I am just another Joe with an opinion. The only possible conflict that would sneak in there for me is if DFA decides to endorse one or the other and any relationships I may have with individuals involved in one campaign or the other. That can get a little fuzzy too but I am not a DFA employee and am in no way bound to back candidates they back. Similarly it looks as if I will have friends backing both Brown and Hackett so it’s a wash.
Anyhow… I am not an ethics expert but I have had a small amount of training and mostly it is just common sense and rigorous personal honesty is all that is required. I’ve also had to learn to back off a moment and listen… really listen… to people that feel their way through data and the decision making process. Ya’ll look insane and masochistic to me but at least today I recognize that yours is also a perfectly valid method for processing data and making decisions. I don’t understand it and I ain’t gonna adopt it but I accept it as valid for you. Likewise, please accept that while my process may look cold and calculating to you it doesn’t mean that I am cold and calculating. It is simply the process by which my brain processes data and makes decisions. Detaching from the emotions of the moment, cutting each other some slack, listening and accepting each other as valid even in disagreement, are important ingredients in productive discourse in which everyone benefits.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers here. Several places the ethically right answer seems a bit fuzzy to me. Any thoughts?
Peace,
Andrew
