A pickle for Piccolo
Carla Axtman
(Updated below*****)
Some of us who are compelled to follow our blogging passion and still pay the bills take jobs with candidate or issue campaigns--either for the money or for the experience. When I went to work for Merkley, it was a measure of both. And when I did advocacy online for Jeff I was reminded early to make a good faith effort to disclose my role as a paid staffer. I screwed it up sometimes--mostly because that whole being perfect thing isn't my strong suit. But I tried pretty hard to make certain that folks knew my gig.
Right now, I have a small contract with the DPO, doing some research and content for the Allen Alley website. When I negotiated and accepted the job, I decided it would be best not to blog about the Oregon State Treasurer's race. For me, that was the best way to deal with any conflict of interest problems. But if I had decided to lay down some pixels about it, I'd have considered it incumbent upon me to disclose my paid contract with the posting. Kari seems to have a ton of clients in Oregon--and I think he tries to make a good faith effort to say something about it if he blogs on a race where he has a client, in general.
So ethical standards aren't the same for everybody and since there's no blogger lawbook, there won't be a perp walk for those who don't live up to my standard. But really--if someone is paying you to work on their campaign, if you decide to blog the race it seems like basic honesty to say something on a regular basis about it.
But hey, maybe my version of "honesty" is just a little too high-bar.
Which brings me to ask why Ted Piccolo of NWRepublican isn't posting some regular disclosure about the fact that he and his company are raking in some serious bucks from Matt Lindland's campaign--given the fact that he's consistently humping for Lindland? Disclosure-aversion? Honesty-deficit? Basic ethical black hole? Really really forgetful?
Of all of the posts Piccolo has done on Lindland, I found one that had some semblance of disclosure, including when he's commented in support of Lindland. That little blurb says something about providing some graphics to Lindland during the primary.
(*******Update********An anonymous commenter found 3 more posts that have some level of disclosure. So of the at least 20 posts advocating or talking up Lindland, Ted has disclosed 4 times. And this doesn't include when Ted has commented for Lindland at other blogs, including here at BlueO, where Ted doesn't appear to be disclosing that Matt Lindland is his client.)
During the primary, Piccolo's company took in around $8000, which seems like a lot of scratch for a few little graphics. And it looks to me like the company is also doing Lindland's website--although that could have happened after the primary--I don't know how long the site has been live or how long Piccolo has been running it. According to Orestar, Piccolo's company has been paid $16,395 through July August 4 by Lindland's campaign. Yet Ted's status as a paid shill for Lindland has been given essentially no notice.
Either way, its slimy to me that he doesn't bother to let his readers know that Lindland's campaign is a client.
Especially since Ted gets props in the media for being an activist blogger--while seemingly avoiding the connection to his paid campaign client work.
By the way, Lindland's Democratic opponent is the superb Suzanne Van Orman. I get no money whatsoever from that campaign--I just think she's awesome.
I believe that bloggers should be paid for their efforts and it would be peachy if the folks with money would merely recognize my brilliance and write me checks because they love me. That hasn't happened yet--although hope springs eternal. Until that grand day however, I think we have to cop to it consistently when we blog a race where we have a client or we're on staff. It seems like basic ethics to me.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:05 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
Carla:
I agree. I know I try to remember to do such things whenever I post about those I work for. The one that I'm the worst about forgetting to mention is the DPO, since I'm in that odd spot of being an activist in the DPO and doing contract work for them.
Aug 22, '08
I'm pretty sure those of us who frequent NWR know that Ted does contract work for Lindland and other candidates. Not sure what your point is, Carla, since he's mentioned it before. Perhaps he doesn't add it to every single post like Kari does...and thank God for it. That gets a little tedious and quite frankly sounds a bit self-serving to constantly parade your client list out for everyone to see, ad nauseum.
Lindland is a great candidate, with or without Ted's support.
Aug 22, '08
Carla-
What about the post dated May 1, 2008 where Ted identifies himself as "a sorely underpaid consultant" for the Matt Lindland campaign?
Or the April 8, 2008 article where he discloses that his company has done some design work for the Lindland campaign.
Or the May5, 2008 article where he discloses his work for the Lindland campaign.
Or the May 11th, 2008 article where Piccolo again identifies himself as a "sorely underpaid consultant."
And I don't think you can characterize Ted's work for the Lindland campaign as "a few little graphics". I believe Ted did all (or mostly all) the graphics work for Lindland's campaign, not just "a few little graphics".
I sure hope your research on Allen Alley is as good as your research on Piccolo. If so, Alley is a shoo-in to win this November.
2:51 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
Disclosure isn't about bragging about what clients you have - it's about letting those who read the blog posts know that you have a financial stake in the campaign.
Disclosure on the blog posts is about more than just those who frequent the blog knowing you work for the campaign, but also for those who are infrequent visitors or news organizations. It's a big difference between a newspaper seeing a quote from just a volunteer activist for a campaign as opposed to a paid consultant for a campaign. When there are quotes from Kari in the newspaper about a campaign, he's not listed as just an activist - he's listed as a paid consultant for the campaign. That's an important distinction.
If anyone would feel that Kari is bragging about his clients, it would be me since we're in the same business. But I don't feel that way - I think it's a good thing. I think those of us who are in that position of being a paid consultant to the campaigns should do our best to disclose that to the public.
3:09 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
Perhaps he doesn't add it to every single post like Kari does...and thank God for it. That gets a little tedious and quite frankly sounds a bit self-serving to constantly parade your client list out for everyone to see, ad nauseum.
Yeah, it does get tedious. Painfully so. But then, everytime I don't, somebody whacks me across the knuckles with a ruler.
I do think the practice is a good one. Sure, people regularly criticize me for blogging about my clients; but hey, the only reason they know it's my clients is because I disclose that.
I pay pretty damn close attention to who is working for who, and I had no idea that Ted was working for Lindland. He's certainly never mentioned here at BlueOregon any of the times he defended Lindland.
Aug 22, '08
To the Truth - I read many blogs on a daily basis, including this one and NWR. I've never read a disclosure form from Ted on any of the posts I can remember reading that were about Lindland. In fact, this post is the first I've read about his involvement in the campaign....
I must have just glossed over them.
Aug 22, '08
Everyone is different, but when it comes to blogs, I usually assume the author and/or blogmeister has some kind of stake in the topic's outcome. Either financial, ideological, or personal. Unless there is some kind of implied or explicit claim of disinterest.
MSM makes that claim of disinterestedness, whether or not it's actually honored. It's part of the financial basis for that industry. Blogs, not so much.
So...I guess I'm not feeling the slime. Or moral queasiness. Do you think that Ted encourages his readers to believe he is disinterested, and is hoodwinking them or exploiting them? (Maybe he is; I have no idea.) Or is he just cheapening the medium?
Maybe this behavior is a practical problem, in terms of strengthening the medium's credibility; I'm not sure it rises to the level of an ethical problem. Does it?
3:51 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
To not practice full disclosure is to commit a lie of omission.
Aug 22, '08
I'm not seeing the lie of omission, yet.
I'll add one more thing. For me, I don't particularly care about the KIND of stake an author has in an outcome. The stake could be desire for a political result, or it could be a paycheck.
In either case, if I know or assume the author has an agenda, and I will discount the message, accordingly.
And as I mentioned, in the case of blogs, I always assume there's an agenda until led to believe otherwise.
But..if someone deceives me, and sets the expectation they don't have a particular stake ...but it turns out they do...then we have an ethical problem.
And, just to be clear: enhancing credibility is usually a good idea. But is it, always and everywhere, especially with blogs, an ethical necessity?
Aug 22, '08
I agree that disclosing is very important. That's one of the reasons I was annoyed by Sen. McCain's comment-rewarding scheme. It encouraged people to make comments without disclosing they were being compensated for doing so.
Someone should develop a blog software plug-in that automatically adds disclosures. For example, every time Kari makes a post mentioning, say, Jeff Merkley, it could ask him if he wanted to add the disclosure at the end. Said software might also give viewers the option of hiding the disclosures, for people who find them tedious.
5:38 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
Or the April 8, 2008 article where he discloses that his company has done some design work for the Lindland campaign.
Or the May5, 2008 article where he discloses his work for the Lindland campaign.
Or the May 11th, 2008 article where Piccolo again identifies himself as a "sorely underpaid consultant."
Okay, you found 3 more. Congrats. That makes a total of 4. I'm updating the post now.
I did a search for Matt Lindland on NWRepublican for posts by Ted. There are at least 20 posts advocating or talking up Lindland on that blog. That doesn't count the times that Ted has advocated in comments on blogs for Lindland. I've only looked at Blue O, but there are at least a handful here. No disclosure.
If Ted didn't think it was something that should be done, he wouldn't have bothered the few times he actually disclosed. I had no idea Ted was working for Lindland--and I follow Oregon blogs very, very closely. It would appear from this thread that I'm not the only one.
6:12 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
For what it's worth, I've aways found Ted to be an honorable advocate for his point of view. It's unclear to me that the presence of a disclosure, or a lack thereof, is really the nut of the problem with regard to blog advocacy.
In my view, the use of blogs to anonymously smear candidates, like Tom Powers (aka Taoiseach) did earlier in the Senate race, or "the truth about allen alley" is doing in the treasurer's race is a much bigger deal than whether or not a blogger discloses a relationship on each and every post or blog comment.
Aug 22, '08
Bouncing off the tediousness of disclosure as mentioned by Kari, one thing that's easy is to just keep a single page up that explains various conflicts you have and than link to that page in posts where one of the conflicts is relevant. That way those who want details can get them and those who want to avoid tediousness can do that too.
Aug 22, '08
Sal,
Allowing smears to stand in the "comments" sections of posts on a blog is the sole responsibility of the creator of the blog who has the responsibility of editing the "comments" section.
Until the 3rd branch of our government, the courts, start taking up and ruling on libel and slander on blogs, then the status quo of smears from anons stands.
As for I Am Coyote AKA Ted Piccolo, he is the one who owns and runs NW Republican. What he wants to do in his private domain is completely up to him. Ya'll can take this into a long, convoluted discussion of blogspot blogs versus privately made blogs like BlueOregon, but please just take my stance as if Ted Piccolo is responsible and owns everything under the name "NW Republican."
Just because Kari Chisholm provides full disclosure does not mean that Ted should be held to the same standard.
Like any good academic will say when it comes to "standards", the question is "By whose standards?"
Considering that ya'll are on the opposite end of Ted's political spectrum, I don't see him holding himself to your "moonbat" standards anytime soon.
I apologize to Ted if what I said here preempts anything you up. I just think this whole post is a stinking pile of bulldung.
Carla,
I like your colorful posts on the East County races. This posts just reeks of something mighty personal between Ted and you. Keep that between the both you please and keep us entertained with your posts that pertain to what is happening on the campaign.
BTW, awesome reporting on the Wingard confirmation. Very informative and I enjoyed re-reading it a couple of times :)
6:48 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
In my view, the use of blogs to anonymously smear candidates, like Tom Powers (aka Taoiseach) did earlier in the Senate race, or "the truth about allen alley" is doing in the treasurer's race is a much bigger deal than whether or not a blogger discloses a relationship on each and every post or blog comment.
Sal--you almost always comment under the name "Oregon Independent". I know that because I know you--but I'd be willing to bet that most people don't. I noticed you changed your usual commenting nick, likely to avoid the irony of your own fairly anonymous commenting while blasting someone else you think was "smearing". But, not so much. "Anonymous smearing" isn't generally taken very seriously by local politicos and local media. Ted clearly is to some extent, therefore a lack of disclosure that he's being paid by a client he's consistenly shilling for is unethical, in my opinion.
Moonbat--I have no personal issue with Ted. I think bloggers should disclose under these circumstances. God knows Kari has had the shit kicked out of him numerous times on this issue.
As I put in my post, there's no lawbook for bloggers. We're pretty much a self-policing bunch. In my view, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than what Ted is doing.
6:57 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
"or "the truth about allen alley" is doing in the treasurer's race "
Does one need to guess beyond "The DPO" to figure who is likely to be behind that website, given Carla's backhand disclosure?
Non-disclosure sounds like a lot more of an issue when it's done once, as opposed to four times. At four, now you're haggling about how much is enough, which essentially grants the point that some kind of disclosure has been made. And once that's done, it's hard for me to get too worked up. More disclosure would be welcomed, but what can you really say beyond that? It makes the thesis of this piece "Blogger cites in only 20% of mentions!," which may just reflect the breathless anticipation we all have waiting for Gobama.
Really though, to call someone out like this in front of thousands, I'd expect a more egregious crime.
7:05 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
Sal--you almost always comment under the name "Oregon Independent".
Carla, we both know that isn't true, as does anyone who has been a regular reader of this blog. Prior to this week, I have commented under my own name for the last two years, including on the more controversial comments I've made. On my own blog, Oregon Independent, I post as "Sal Peralta".
The reason why you know me, first and foremost, is that I sign my personal email address on each and every comment on this blog and link to my own blog on every comment, so that it is reasonably clear to people who have posting privileges on the site who I am.
You may still be in a snit over my criticism of your hatchet jobs against Alley and some others, but you should at least have the integrity to tell the truth about my commenting habits.
I differentiate that from launching a totally anonymous blog whose sole purpose is to "trash the bad guys" as Tom did as Taoiseach, or as whomever runs the "truth about allen alley" blog.
Aug 22, '08
Outing: interesting fracas brewed up here. I am enjoying this rare opportunity to peek behind your insider veils by dint of this slight pissing match.
As a periodic poster here, I quickly abandoned a moniker as dishonest and, frankly, useless for it is easy to distinguish my Voice without seeing email addys.
I have directly experienced working for an employer that will censure an employee for commenting in the course of employment on legislation pertinent to the job - in this case, I was the only one in the unit who heard about, researched and understood a key piece of legislation that hid entire histories from our investigation. By simply letting people know this was coming and updating them on the ins and outs of it, I was subjected to attack from above because, unbeknownst to me, this legislation was introduced by someone in strategic alliance with critical players far removed from me!
Despite this "education" (I've encountered others from early in my work life) I still feel it is an important aspect of "freedom" and the right to raise your voice to BE who you are and take the hits you might take for having raised your voice.
9:29 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
I should modify my previous statement to say:
I'm not seeing the lie of omission, yet.
If it's deliberate then it's a lie of omission by definition.
The real question is whether it was deliberate.
In this particular instance it may be that, as someone who reads NWR regularly said up-thread, Ted Piccolo's readers on his own blog know of his affilation with Matt Lindland's campaign and so it potentially becomes an issue of whether Piccolo discloses often enough to keep his new readers informed as to the axes he might be grinding. Which arguably doesn't rise to the level of a lie of omission.
But... I'm not aware of Piccolo having even once disclosed his affiliation with Lindland in any of his not exactly infrequent comments here at Blue Oregon. Possible motives for why he might not want to disclose that affilation here - while arguing here in defense of Lindland - don't really require much of an imagination. They seem rather self-evident. Which goes to the very heart of why deliberate failure to disclose is a lie of omission.
9:58 p.m.
Aug 22, '08
Carla, we both know that isn't true, as does anyone who has been a regular reader of this blog. Prior to this week, I have commented under my own name for the last two years, including on the more controversial comments I've made. On my own blog, Oregon Independent, I post as "Sal Peralta".
You've been commenting here as "Oregon Independent" for awhile, Sal. Certainly longer than "prior to this week"
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/07/or-1-running-ag.html#c123970310
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/07/or-1-running-ag.html#c124104520
If folks take the time to click through--then they might figure out who you are. But then its kind of weird you would choose to use your name tonight when making your point, when you haven't been for awhile.....ah well.
And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest. I think when you're paid to do work for a client and you blog about them, you should disclose on a regular basis--at least enough so that those who are well engaged are informed.
I don't take your criticisms of the Alley thing especially seriously--so there's no snit on my part (the DPO is in charge of it, btw. It says so in a box on the right side bar where everyone can see it--which is of course, much more clear than when you use a psuedonymn to comment). I'm just making note of the obvious.
9:04 a.m.
Aug 24, '08
Holy Smokes! LOL, I had no idea this was such a big deal to some of ya'll. Since I've never tried to hide or deny it and have talked to so many folks about it already I just don't think about it the deep dark way that Carla seems to.
Carla...I've done and will continue to do work for Lindland. There feel better now? Just don't expect me to apply that tag on every single comment I ever make. I'l leave that to you.
Please compare what his campaign has paid me with what other campaigns have paid their consultants. Then if you would not mind encourage everyone else to hire me. Please?
I do hope that you see my company show up on other campaigns. Heaven knows, as a good capitalist, I could use the money.
Aug 24, '08
Ted,
The point isn't that you should disclose on every single post, it's that you should disclose when you post about a client.
From an ethical view, that's what makes sense.
6:47 a.m.
Aug 25, '08
Should I also disclose when I am a personal friend of someone who is the focus of a post?
Or if I ever borrowed $5 from? Bought a drink for or they bought a drink for me? Played poker with?
No the whole thing can get really silly if you ask me.
Say it from time to time and there is no denying it should someone ask.
The problem with Oregon politics, especially if you limit it to one party or another, the world gets really small.
And my arguments for Lindland, Atkinson, George etc... reamain the same whether or not any or all were clients or friends or both.
Aug 26, '08
Ted,
You're just being silly.
If you're commenting about someone who is employing you, that's notable information, because you're clearly not impartial.
Yes, it may be someone you would support anyway, but if they're paying you, you likely are going to lack any sort of nuanced viewpoint, ignoring negative information that you might at least discuss if you were a supporter but not in their employ.
8:18 a.m.
Aug 26, '08
Hmmm... Here is a news alert then.
---I am not impartial---
I would have thought that the title of my blog "NWRepublican" would have signaled that to most folks.
Then again the email address that I use nw republican at... would have been a second signal.
Of course placing a banner ad for my company on my blog should have also, well... been a clue.
Oh and the fact that I do mention from time to time that I provide services for some folks (not enough...) should have been another.
LOL...
Don't expect me to put that qualifier on everything I ever post. I am going to assume that most people will get it.
yip yip
Aug 27, '08
Ted,
What you're ignoring is the difference between not being impartial because you have a certain set of beliefs versus not being impartial because you're being paid by one side.
It's a huge difference.
<hr/>