It’s been a fun past couple of weeks. I’ve taken quite a bit of heat about everything from loosely identifying people I casually know as a “friend†or “colleague†when they clearly were not, to being personally attacked as a self-promoter, and assailed for defending Ron Paul’s “fringe†supporters. I’ve addressed all of those criticisms over the past few days in previous posts. If you haven’t been following the blogroversy (and want to), the National Journal’s Danny Glover has a full wrap-up of the discussion with links to the posts.
I won’t address those attacks further. Read through everything and deduce what you will. I’m moving on from the discussion and I’m hopeful they’ll do the same. I will say that I appreciate those who have commented, blogged, IM’d, facebooked, emailed or called privately to express their support for me. Trust me, the “25-Percent Rule†continues to apply.
However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which I want to address and that is my relationship with Google as it relates to the MoveOn.org/Senator Susan Collins’ AdWords controversy. A campaign aide for Senator Collins, Lance Dutson, focuses much of his distaste for me over this issue and his accusations require a response.
Lance and others have argued that the Google/MoveOn controversy was ideologically-driven by Google. In other words it was assumed that Google is a Left-leaning organization and the company wanted to “help†MoveOn.org by pulling down the ads in question.
Lance’s concern and skepticism about Google’s political leanings is widely held and should be taken more seriously by Google. And I’ve long-held a similar concern.
In March of this year, I wrote an essay detailing my concerns with Google/YouTube getting heavily involved in the political sphere. Further, I’ve asked a top Google executive about how they plan to truly be “neutral†over content in the political sphere (YouTube video via Josue Sierra here).
And let’s not forget that it was the campaign that I was working on in 2006 which was the target of Google’s Political Action Committee, NetPAC, which was funding our opponent – whose campaign was practicing the antithesis of an effective online campaign strategy - while our campaign aggressively utilized Google’s services to help disseminate our campaign's message.
(More after the jump)
So after reading Robert Cox’s piece in the Washington Examiner over the controversy, my thoughts and actions weren't about defending Google, but about helping add the one important side of the story which was missing: Google’s. I’m not a “journalist†or a “reporter,†but I can recognize when a central piece of a story is missing and rather than jump on the band-wagon, I thought I'd find out the facts.
As one of the few bloggers on the Right with contacts at Google, I reached out to them to find out what the heck was going on. A few hours after I asked for a response, they gave it to me, which I blogged and sent around to a RightBlogs listserv where the discussion on the issue was taking place. Twenty-four hours later, Google officially responded at its blog.
At TechRepublican, I provided an element of the story which was missing and I praised Dutson for the overall strategy. I even offered a suggestion of how he could get around the policy (not that he needed the advice):
However, as I said before, this was a smart move by Dutson to help drive traffic to Senator Collins' website. Google has informed me that the policy above does not apply to the bidding of key words which trigger your ads but only to the content of the ads themselves.
Let's hope that a little creativity from Dutson will get some similar, effective ads up in the near future to ensure that conservatives in Maine are clicking the ads.
For example, would "Move On" violate their trademark? That's a question for the lawyers.
Recently, the Chief White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Bill Sammon, attended our weekly conservative bloggers briefing where he brought this controversy up as an example of how a blogger should have strengthened the argument by including all sides of the debate.
You can download the short audio clip of that discussion here. I’ve transcribed it here:
Question:
Quick question, this is Allen Fuller with PolicyMedia.com, how do you feel that conservative blogs can better contribute to the news stream? A lot of bloggers aren’t traditionally trained journalists – have that kind of writing regiment and training – are there opportunities to improve how we are a part of that conversation?Bill Sammon:
Yeah, and I think… one way is to employ some of the traditional tools of the traditional press. That is to say, shoe-leather reporting. And I know a lot of that is already going on but I think more of it can go on in terms of…I think there needs to be more actual traditional reporting and less sort of navel-gazing (not that anyone in this room does the navel-gazing), but I think a lot of the blogs will get an idea, seize on it, and run with it and sometimes it would be stronger if people (again, no one in this room)…I’ll give you an example.We ran a thing a couple of weeks ago about MoveOn.org, or about Google not accepting MoveOn.org’s ads, and everybody got all excited about it. And it was a good piece. It wasn’t…it was from our blog-thing. But then it turned out later that Google came out with…their top lawyer came out with this long statement saying, “look, you know, we have a form that anyone is allowed to fill out that says ‘I don’t want my trademark used in anyone else’s ads’ and if that form is filled out it automatically kicks it out on anyone’s ads it’s not an ideological barrier.â€
Now I don’t…I’m very skeptical about Google, but I think you have to at least give that a place in your coverage when Google says that. Now I don’t know whether that blogger did or didn’t call Google but if they did maybe that would have been something that would have strengthened it.
And then of course on the other hand, it got results because MoveOn then asked to be taken off that list so that other parties could use the MoveOn trademark in their ad so it actually did cause some change for the good.
But I’m just saying that sometimes the credibility will rise faster if you can back up some of these premises with good, hard facts that you called - just like a regular reporter - and you called up the guys in legal office and said, “OK, give me your statement because I’m going to hold you accountable,†and just put it in there. I’m not trying to cast dispersions on bloggers, I’m saying in cases it can be strengthened.
Since Cox’s first article, he has written two more commentary pieces for the Examiner on the issue. He asks some good questions which Google would likely address if asked.
Now, on a personal note, let me disclose that my support for Google is 100 percent organic. I personally love the company. I appreciate the way Google treats its employees as creative human beings who add value to the organization. I’ve blogged before that I’m a YouTube and Google loyalist because I think their products are superior to anything else on the market. So while I would like to get more involved with Google on a professional level, up to this point, that is not (yet) the case.
I would also note (particularly because some have questioned my principles) that I was offered a decent monthly retainer this past spring to help work with a coalition (cable/â€bellsâ€) which opposed Net Neutrality and which would have required me to work against Google and other supporters of Net Neutrality. The revenue would have been nice as I was just getting started, but after talking with another conservative who feels the same way I do about Net Neutrality, I turned the opportunity down. For me, it was a decision based on my support of Net Neutrality instead of money.
Though I support Net Neutrality personally, it is also important to note that I've given space at TechRepublican for a policy discussion on the issue which gave equal space for the both the conservative argument FOR and AGAINST the issue. I think that those who oppose the issue would like to make it a Republican v. Democrat issue, but that's simply not the case.
Further, of the few people that I have met at Google (probably about a dozen by now), they have been accessible and more than willing to work with me to help clarify issues and concerns which I’ve blogged about, and are even willing to support conservative causes like the Modern Media Strategies Workshop that I helped coordinate. (They also supported a similar event on the Left and were actively looking for a similar event on the Right to help balance their involvement.)
You will notice that I haven't said that I agree with Google's politics outright. I think that as a company they know that they have left-leaning executives and personnel, and their PAC traditionally supports Democrats more than Republicans. But I have met a few Republicans that work for Google, which signals to me that they're trying to find the right balance.
I can say that Google understands its new role in the political space and, IMHO, Google seems willing to learn what obstacles they need to overcome to address the long-held concerns of conservatives.
Perhaps the old saying that you attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar applies. If we work with and within the system, I believe it is possible to encourage Google and others to provide an equal playing field.
As Google actively works to find their footing in the world of Washington they’re going to make mistakes. Bloggers will continue to call them out for those mistakes, including this one. But before I make accusations, I'm willing to find out the facts first.
Put simply, if we continue to scream from the sidelines at companies like Google instead of working with them to help them see the Right side of the story, our message will never be heard.
Comments
Your misrepresentation of Bill Sammon and Robert Cox
For the record, Bill Sammon did not say, as you put it, that, Robert Cox's Oct. 11 Blog Board piece in The Washington Examiner was "an example of how a blogger should have strengthened the argument by including all sides of the debate."
In fact, what Bill said was: "Now I don’t know whether that blogger did or didn’t call Google but if they did maybe that would have been something that would have strengthened it." Since the Cox piece was an oped and not a blog post or news article, Bill's otherwise absolutely legitimate encouragement of bloggers to include both sides of a controversy has no relevance. You have wrenched Bill's words out of context and attempted to make them serve your own ends. Kind of reminds me of a Maureen Dowd approach to the use of quotes out of context.
For the record, and speaking as the editor of all three of Robert Cox's opeds on the Google/MoveOn.org controversy, I have to wonder if you've read the second or third installments. If you had, you would have known that Cox spoke at length to Google, quoted them at length in the newspaper and noted a number of questions they have yet to answer regarding the consistency and logic of their implementation of their trademark policy. And knowing that, you would have then realized how inappropriately you have used Bill Sammon's comments.
By the way, how about making the links to the Examiner opeds actually link to the Examiner opeds?
Thanks Mark
Leopard is still throwing a wrench in my HTML when I use " or ' but the links all should work now as I've gone back and edited the document with a plain text editor.
Regarding your claim that I pulled the quotes out of context, I disagree. In fact, I put the entire audio/transcript up to avoid a possible misrepresentation of the statement.
As you say:
That's my opinion after hearing Sammon's comments and I don't think I was off-base by saying as such. The entire commentary was posted so that others could agree or disagree with my analysis.
For the record, I have read Cox's second and third installment, as I noted in the post. I was saying that Cox raised some good questions and that they likely need answers. We agree on that point. I could have been more clear to say as such.
"I'm willing to find out the facts first"
Really?Mr. All,I expect the reason folks have been critical of you is that you have a tendency either overstate the case or make statements that strain credulity. In my case, I do not like people that I do not know referring to me as "friend" and "colleague". I appreciate that you have acknowledged my concern and edited your post accordingly. In the spirit of your post I too am willing to drop this matter and "move on" (pun intended!)An example of you making statements that strain credulity is your claim that after reading my Examiner article on October 11, your "thoughts and actions weren't about defending Google, but about helping add the one important side of the story which was missing: Google’s." Later on in your post you talk about your desire to have a "professional relationship" with Google, that you are networking into the company and that they have already funded an event which you helped coordinate. Is it possible that you do not realize that your own words contradict this claim?  Do you actually think that people will believe your interest in this issue stems from sense of journalistic integrity?You go on to say "I can recognize when a central piece of a story is missing and rather than jump on the band-wagon, I thought I'd find out the facts."That's great and I only wish Google was as responsive to me as they are to you except that you do not make any effort to "find out the facts". Instead, you call Adam Kovacevich at Google and he issues you a boilerplate statement. You then add a comment to the effect that their policy "makes sense".What fact is that you believe you have "found out"?As far as I can tell you have written about the Google/MoveOn story twice and have yet to contact me about it. It is my understanding that you have not contacted Mark Tapscott, my editor at the Examiner, nor Lance Dutson of the Collins campaign. To the best of my knowledge, you have not contacted anyone at CafePress or any of the CafePress "shopkeepers" who were sent C&D notices by MoveOn. You have not contacted any of the lawyers involved either. In fact, the best I can tell from reading your posts is that you have contacted just one person, Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich - and did not bother to fact-check his statements. You also appear to have relied on claims made by Google's Public Policy Counsel Pablo Chavez in a blog post without checking his claims either.Meanwhile, I have done a great deal of research in my Google/MoveOn coverage including a dozen interviews, obtaining internal emails and other documents from Google and CafePress, going through various documents including SEC and FEC fillings and a lot more.Had you taken the time to do even the most basic fact-checking, you would have found that the statements made by Google are false and misleading. Adam's statement is pure PR boilerplate most of which is lifted directly from the Google web site. The web page linked by Mr. Chavez makes NO REFERENCE to the policy he claimed MoveOn used to block the Collins ad. There is also a form linked off that page which likewise makes no mention of the so-called "standing request" policy. If you had read all three of my articles for the Examiner you would also know that Mr. Chavez statement that MoveOn filed their trademark complaint with Google "some time ago" is misleading. Some might even argue it was INTENTIONALLY misleading. The complaint was filed on 9/19/07. That is just 16 days before Lance Dutson purchased his anti-MoveOn ads. The Google complaint was filed by MoveOn on the same day they sent a series of "cease and desist" emails to CafePress which shows a broader effort by MoveOn to suppress the political speech of its opponents.I cannot hope to address all of the errors or misleading/uninformed statements you have caused to be published on this issue so let me just pick a few:1) I have never stated that I believe the Google's decision to ban the Collins anti-MoveOn ads was "ideologically-driven by Google". I am reasonably certain that Lance Dutson has never said that either but I will let him speak for himself.2) You wrote "Since Cox’s first article, he has written two more commentary pieces for the Examiner on the issue. He asks some good questions which Google would likely address if asked.""Likely address if asked"?I am curious as to why you are publishing this statement. Do you believe you have some information about what discussions I have had with people at Google? If so, what is that information? I can assure you that I am better informed as to whether Google was asked the questions raised in my articles. I can assure you that the premise of your statement - that they have NOT been asked - is false.3) In regard to your transcript of Bill Sammon's remarks, let me tell you that I just got off the phone with him. I will let him speak for himself if he cares to address this topic publicly but suffice to say he is not endorsing your use of his remarks in your post not does he support your effort to serve as Google's apologist in this matter. It was my sense that he WOULD endorse Mark Tapscott's sentiment that you have "wrenched Bill's words out of context and attempted to make them serve your own ends". Your reply to Mark is non-responsive; apparently you do not realize it is possible to both misrepresent what someone said AND provide "the entire audio/transcript" which is what you have done here. Happily, you do have comments enabled so informed readers can correct your misrepresentation but really you should correct the piece itself so give yourself a gold star for that.As the primary target for your various "accusations" with regard to the Google/MoveOn issue I would be fascinated to learn what you imagine are the "accusations" I made in my articles for the Examiner. Can you name one? I can save you the trouble of looking. There are NONE. Given this, what is the basis for this statement "before I make accusations, I'm willing to find out the facts first"? From what I can see YOU are the one making accusations -- and not bothering to do the slightest bit of fact-checking of the self-serving, misleading and false statements Google put out in response to my articles.I am going to give you a little homework. Go back to the post written by Pablo Chavez a couple weeks and click the link he provides to the Google Trademark Policy on the Google web site. Show us where on that page there is ANY description of the type of "standing request" trademark complaint Mr. Chavez claims is described on that page. It is a very brief statement. It ought to take less than a minute to realize that there is NO SUCH STATEMENT. Once you've done that consider putting just a fraction of the energy you have put into defending Google into entertaining the question as to whether Mr. Chavez' statement was truthful.
Personal Attacks?
I, too, noticed the contradiction that Robert pointed out - your claim to be completely unbiased and your simultaneous admission that you're angling for a job with Google. It goes to exactly my point that you are in favor of whatever is good for David first and foremost.
That said, my bigger problem with this post and your other, is this claim that I have attacked you personally - together with your simultaneous admission that you willingly, and as a business practice, do exactly what I have illustrated.
As I have said repeatedly, I really don't care if that's your business model. I know a lot of people who have tried to get ahead in exactly the same way. I don't have any respect for them either. I have known far too many people who got ahead by doing a good job to have any respect for someone who puts getting their name in print ahead of getting their client's name in print.
That aside, here is my question, and one which I hope you will address. If you freely admit that you are a rabid self-promoter as a business model, and that this is simply a fact of life in "the business of PR", why do you claim that me pointing that out is a "personal attack"? How can you plead guilty to the charge, and still try to make it about Erick and me?
It sounds to me like you have fallen back on the cliched charge that "my opponent has gone negative" in an attempt to shift the focus from your own actions to the straw man you create. If you complain that you have been wronged despite your admission of wrong-doing, somehow you make yourself out to be the victim. It really strains your credibility even further than the items Robert pointed out.
Either that or you have some deep seated feelings of guilt over your tendency to put your needs above the needs of the clients or party you claim to care about.
What!? David All a narcissistic self-promoter... NEVER
This post is a perfect example
of why you are coming under fire. These comments are exactly correct.Your facts are wrong. You didn't bother trying to get the story from people you identify as 'friends'. And the general undertone of your criticisms and advice is, in my opinion, dead wrong.
Even if we are to take your false statements here as facts, the core of your message is a dangerous one.
"Put simply, if we continue to scream from the sidelines at companies like Google instead of working with them to help them see the Right side of the story, our message will never be heard."
(Never mind that I have personally been working with Google on this, and have had in depth conversations with several people in their Elections and Issues Advocacy department about the problems with their policy. I think it's terrible how you've misrepresented the facts, but let's put that aside for a second.)
"Working" with Google or other information infrastructure entities does not mean acquiescing to a tilted playing field. This issue with Google is so important, not because it has the potential to uncover some massive conspiracy of left-wing collusion on the internet, but because identifying potential bias will help the Right get a fair shot at getting its message out. This type of issue, as we all know too well, is beyond the grasp of many of the old guard of our party. If the tech wing of the party doesn't uncover this type of thing and fight for accountability and a level playing field, no one will. We all know Google is more sympathetic to liberal causes than to conservative ones. We all know the IT industry tilts left. Our solution to that is not to throw up our hands and hope for the best shot we can get, it is to apply constant media and market pressure to these entities to ensure as fair an opportunity as possible.
Criticizing people on the right for pushing back against Google is the equivalent of criticizing groups like the Media Research Center for trying to hold CBS accountable. Your logic extended to that venue would call for a meet-n-greet with Katie Couric, with the hope she'll learn to like conservatives and start giving us a fair shake. I'm not advocating a constantly contentious relationship with Google, but I'm calling BS on the idea that the right stands a chance without a diligent fight for a fair shot.
Internet technology, Web 2.0 and the like are not one-time-only phenomenons. They are an evolutionary step in communications, and they carry with them many of the same factors that have exisited with mass media for a long time. Growing enamoured by the individual technologies is a distraction from the practical use of these tools in the broader ideological struggle. Pushing people to use YouTube or Google as a cure-all to message resonance is like putting someone in the driver's seat of a car because they are lost.
And, many people who are seasoned in the political sphere know this, even if they are unfamiliar with the technology. When someone who has made a living artfully passing messages through media watches a video of a Republican strategist doing their best 'LonelyGirl15' impersonation on YouTube, that person is not going to be receptive to someone like me advising them to adopt the medium.
So the end result of your 'revolution', I fear, is that serious people become reticent about these tools, and that the adoption of these powerful ways to spread our message slows. That's a destructive path, it won't help us win elections, and when you couple that with your admission of self-promotion as a primary goal, it becomes an ugly picture that you are bound to continue receiving criticism for.
Post new comment