FoxNews.com reports how political attacks are becoming more common on blogs.
Blogs can be a double-edged sword for a campaign. They can help publicize a campaign, allowing the candidate to reach a wider audience. But on the other hand, a candidate could be linked to a blog, for example, that has made offensive statements or launched personal attacks, even though the blog has no official ties to the campaign.
Here are some examples of when a blog can be a liability to a campaign (via FoxNews.com):
Accusations have been made about Montana U.S. Senate candidate Jon Tester's leanings because of support he received on the DailyKos site, which also has postings in support of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro; and Democrat Bob Casey has been linked to an anti-Semitic Web log after a blogger on the site threw his support to the Pennsylvania candidate for U.S. Senate.
One online media expert says that blogs fill a void (via FoxNews.com):
Chris Nolan, editor and founder of spot-on.com, said the medium is a powerful way for political consultants to operate online.
"What they are replacing is good, old-fashioned op-ed research," Nolan said. "It's a symptom of how mediocre much of the political reporting being done in this country really is."
Blogs are no different than a TV advertisement, direct mail or other campaign-type effort to push an issue or candidate, said Nolan, whose site uses blogging software to post objective reporting on the Internet.
Others say that the influence bloggers have in politics should be put in perspective (via FoxNews.com):
But Democracy for America Executive Director Tom Hughes said bloggers are not the go-to source for campaigns seeking an edge.
"Blogs are a new battlefield for campaigns, but they don't replace television, radio or knocking on doors," Hughes said.
This article touches at the heart of why I hate politics so much. Many people, and studies have confirmed this, have no idea what they're doing when they go to the ballot box and pull the lever. Why memorize a candidate's agenda when it's likely a carbon-copy of that of many who came before him/her of impossible promises and fake optimism?
Rather, when most people go to vote, they act out of an impression or an image they have in their mind about a candidate, likely formed from the candidate's appearance, self-assuredness and/or various other intangible factors. What this kind of a system yields is candidates who the political parties think can win rather than who would best uphold the Constitution and who can best control their image and keep it squeaky clean until election day. This obviously makes spin vitally necessary (in order to sound good) and much caution to be used when making associations (in order to look good).
How do you explain all this? Is it a by-product of laziness on the part of the electorate? Maybe. Is there a psychology behind this behavior? Sure. However, in my opinion, the antibody to all this is to only elect those who make promises that can be kept. Or, more to the point, let's realize something: "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Let's quit electing politicians who attempt to keep this great fiction going!
This seems to open the door for a new form of dirty trick: set up an insincere, offensive blog and throw your "support" behind your opponent.
Posted by: Mark P. at August 11, 2006 05:02 PM