Daniel Glover and Mike Essl imply that all bloggers identically operate with a conflicted interest lack of ethics, because a few have (cue foreboding music) accepted money, from candidate electoral campaigns for their consulting work.
The authors repeatedly refer generically to "bloggers" as if they are all completely alike, except for partisan orientation.
No mention was made of the fact that the primary reason most all these bloggers went to work for their respective campaigns is because the bloggers shared the candidates' ideological goals in the first place. Nor was mention made that many bloggers volunteered for campaigns and received no pay whatsoever. Conveniently, no mention was made either about incomes received by James Carville or Paul Begala or other paid campaign consultants who routinely appear on TV and write newspaper articles, promoting the candidates who pay them. Nor was any mention made of folks like Armstrong Williams, self-decribed "journalists" who were paid explicitly to write propaganda.
More comment from Steve Gilliard and Atrios.
Please consider supporting our work.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
