×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does the GOP Pay Friendly Bloggers?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the speculation-and-innuendo dept.

Republicans 759

jamie writes "According to the conservative political journalism site Daily Caller: '"It's standard operating procedure" to pay bloggers for favorable coverage, says one Republican campaign operative. A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that "at least half the bloggers that are out there" on the Republican side "are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales." Or in some cases, it's the ads themselves: ads at ten times the going rate are one of the ways conservative bloggers apparently get paid by the politicians they write about. In usual he-said she-said fashion, Daily Caller finds a couple of obscure liberal bloggers to mention too, but they fully disclosed payment and one of them even shut down his blog while doing consulting work, unlike Robert Stacy McCain and Dan Riehl."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

759 comments

conservatives (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356674)

why don't you understand how you are being used by the rich moneyed classes and corporate interests?

if you ARE rich and moneyed or a corporate interest, congratulations on your successful manipulation of your larger herd of sheep

Re:conservatives (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356714)

And this differs from the Democrat party how exactly??

More U.S. government corruption (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356930)

The U.S. government is controlled by those who want corruption.

Re:More U.S. government corruption (0, Flamebait)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357046)

Wow. Amazing what wanting something to be true so badly makes you willing to believe the flimsiest unsupported lies.

Here's the TRUTH [minx.cc].

Now stop being so gullible.

i don't know that link domain (0, Redundant)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357280)

i'm not clicking that

(thank you slashdot, for overtly publishing link domains)

kindly point me to a reputable news source

Re:i don't know that link domain (0, Troll)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357324)

So don't click it.

It leads to the "Ace of Spades" blog, wherein there is an article that deconstructs this stupid Daily Caller story and also crosslinks to Dan Reihl's blog where he also responds to the Daily Caller story.

You don't want to click it, fine. Your loss and your choice to remain in ignorance.

lol (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357230)

your statement tells me a lot about your psychology, but little to do with reality. of course corruption exists. that it controls me or that it is insurmountable is not true. however, if corruption is ever going to succeed in this world, it needs the complicity of people like you: those who won't fight it, but simply accept it. so the more people who think like you, the more corruption there is: you are an accessory to the crime in your lack of action and lack of resistance

so congratulations on having the psychology of a slave. but i'm sorry, i'm not a slave, so i'll be fighting that corruption, and i'll be rejecting your helpless hopeless self-fulfilling defeatism. your psychology defines the parameters of how your life will suck, but not mine

the united states government is composed of the will of the people. to some extent (but not the whole way, and not insurmountably), that isn't true, such as with corporate money rousing conservative rabble with faux news propaganda. and to that extent that the us government, defined to represent the will of the people, fails that definition and fails to represent the will of the people... well, to me, that is merely the extent to which we have some pus filled pimples to pop

i am not an ignorant idealist: corruption will never go away completely, and corruption will always grow back like the fungus it is. the simple truth is that it is a constant clean up process, that will never end, and will go on forever. no one truly wise understands this problem in any other way. cleaning up corruption is merely an ongoing maintenance function, like taking out the garbage every week. it shouldn't scare you, it shouldn't depress you. it is merely a fact of life you accept and constantly guard against, and always will. there exists no utopia where corruption does not exist, and no utopia, composed of human beings, can ever be founded that would be free of corruption. it is what it is. accept its existence, but never stop cleaning it up. the best you can do minimize it, but it is far worse to stop fighting it, and let it grow and do more injustice and damage

so pick a broom and join me in cleaning things up, or shut the fuck up, you useless ignorant mindlessly negative piece of shit

Quickly!!!! (2, Funny)

wireloose (759042) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357108)

Post something conservative and send them a bill.

Re:Quickly!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357240)

This fee was determined by the free market and I only accept gold.

That will be 1 ton of gold (American not metric - taxes not included)

Re:conservatives (5, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356798)

Well, I think referring you to Gibbs' recent statements would give you a clue: The Democrat party doesn't fund leftie bloggers, it prefers to insult them.

Re:conservatives (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356846)

It doesn't, but this is slashdot where agendas are more important than unbiased news.

Re:conservatives (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357058)

It doesn't, but this is slashdot where agendas are more important than unbiased news.

Agenda meaning an opinion.

Re:conservatives (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356864)

And this differs from the Democrat party how exactly??

Well, for one, the Republican Party is a major national party in the US, very much like the Democratic Party. The Democrat Party, on the other hand, is an imaginary party invented by Republicans.

That's the main difference. Hope that helps.

Re:conservatives (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356872)

The last resort of a conservative supplicant, "The DEMO-RATS are just as bad". Really, is that your only excuse? How very lame. Odd how so many of those comments get voted 'insightful'... One might even think that some people try to use mod points just for to shove a political point. It's too bad that meta moderation doesn't seem to catch them. What's the real stats on it?

Re:conservatives (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356884)

Democrats are just crazy right-wingers. Republicans are damn crazy right-wingers. That's the difference.

Re:conservatives (3, Interesting)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357126)

Democrats want to "fundamentally transform" the USA. That's not right wing, any way you slice it. That being said, Republicans spent about seven years doing the same thing REALLY SLOWLY.

Re:conservatives (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356992)

If corporations are "conservative" how come almost all their TV Media outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN) are pro-big-government and anti-individual liberty? It appears the corporations are actually the opposite of conservative: Progressive (aka liberal).

And in other news:
- Payola is still alive and well.
- Developed film at 11.
- Color me unsurprised.

Re:conservatives (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357106)

If corporations are "conservative" how come almost all their TV Media outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN) are pro-big-government and anti-individual liberty?

Well, they're pro-Big Government, because they now are the government. And there anti-individual liberty because that cuts down on profits. Sheesh, where ya been the last few years?

Oh, and nice strawman btw. Almost missed it.

Re:conservatives (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357138)

If corporations are "conservative" how come almost all their TV Media outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN) are pro-big-government and anti-individual liberty? It appears the corporations are actually the opposite of conservative: Progressive (aka liberal).

Because Media Outlets are staffed by people with Journalism and Media majors, not by the actual members of the board of directors. Now let me think...What school in most colleges typically offer those degrees...Hmmm... Oh yeah! LIBERAL arts!. Presto. All media outlets, by default, will tend to be to the left of center. That said, there are conservatives with these degrees, so it's perfectly possible to create a right-leaning media organization if you cherry-pick your people (or make the lefties afraid for their jobs...).

Re:conservatives (5, Informative)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357146)

Do you even own a television? Have you watched any of these so-called liberal media outlets? They all supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spoke about taxes on the top 5% of the income distribution as hurting public school teachers, and never pointed out that "death panels" and other bullshit lies about the health insurance reform were bullshit lies. They also seem to believe that Republicans just happened to develop all sorts of principled objections to middle-of-the-road policies around January of 2009.

Re:conservatives (3, Insightful)

jschmitz (607083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357250)

I couldn't agree more the myth of the liberal media is just that - something the GOP has told so many times people think its true - there is nothing liberal about the MSM - cheers

You're thinking of liberalism, not conservatism. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357180)

There's no fixed definition for the term "conservative". It all depends on the current situation in the given frame of reference.

If we're talking about America today, "conservatism" is all about protecting the status quo, where the government is run by corporations.

The ideology you've incorrectly associated with "conservatism" is actually called liberalism [wikipedia.org]. It makes sense why you don't know that, of course. Western, corporate-controlled media and corporate-controlled government have gone out of their way to make most people think of anything with the word "liberal" in it as being a horrible thing.

Re:conservatives (1)

BergZ (1680594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357300)

How do you figure? I seem to recall this conservative "Bush" fellah racking up some big debts and crushing individual rights.

Re:conservatives (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357032)

Or different from any other political party in the world ?

Projects and Ideas don't win political campaigns. Money does.

Re:conservatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357070)

He said conservatives, which in my book includes the Democratic party too.

Re:conservatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357076)

And this differs from the Democrat party how exactly??

It differs in that Republicans pretend to represent conservatives even though they don't enact conservative/pro-freedom policies, whereas Democrats don't pretend to represent those people and positions.

Democrats are against freedom too, but without nearly as much hypocrisy.

Everyone can state what the imaginary Republican platform and predict what a Republican will likely say about an issue. Nobody can state the Democrat platform and you can't always predict what their politicians' lies will be. The people who vote for Democrats are much more diverse, so it's harder to craft the perfect lie that will get their support. Obama did it brilliantly by being vague and abstract, e.g. "Yes We Can."

Re:conservatives (0)

odies (1869886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356796)

why don't you understand how you are being used by the rich moneyed classes and corporate interests?

if you ARE rich and moneyed or a corporate interest, congratulations on your successful manipulation of your larger herd of sheep

Why do you think they don't understand it? Maybe, MAYBE, it could be that they want to use this to better their situation, either financially, politically or for any other reason, so that they gain something about it. Unless you're the son of some very powerful or rich person, you have to leverage your way to success. Sometimes that includes licking some other guys ass, who already is on the top.

Re:conservatives (3, Insightful)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357056)

Where I work, our main receptionist is a 60yo republican. She doesn't make that much, and her husband has been a truck driver for years, so they can't make all that much money. Her car is at least 10 years old. For some crazy reason, she has "Joe the Plumber"-itus and seems to think she'd be better off with republican policies. Somehow the republicans have managed to convince people that increasing taxes on the rich (over $250,000/yr) and lowering everyone else's taxes is the wrong thing to do. I just don't understand it.

I almost wish the republicans were in office and put social security into the stock market. The resulting fallout might have been enough to wake people up. Also, it just irks me to death that high-dollar traders can make millions just by having a faster connection to the stock-market. That's basically stealing money from all the little folk who are also investing in the stock market -- money doesn't come from nowhere!

Re:conservatives (0, Troll)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357338)

People who earn $250,000 a year are not rich, and the current administration has already raised taxes on people who make far less than that: tobacco, tanning, and anyone who doesn't want health insurance. It's almost certain that taxes will be raised on nearly EVERYONE next year, as the W tax cuts will expire and Congress has not moved much on extending them. Even if the Republicans got out of the way as Obama wishes (I'm not sure how a minority gets IN the way), the Democrat plan does not extend the cuts for the top two brackets. This means that people making as little as $171,000 a year-- again, NOT RICH-- get a tax hike.

We'd all be a lot better off if we realized two things: one, that wealth comes from building assets, not earning wages-- thus "rich" people aren't people who just make more than you; and two, that money isn't a zero-sum game. We can ALL benefit from a capitalist, but lawful and ethical society.

Re:conservatives (4, Insightful)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356940)

Protip: It is near impossible to change people's political ideologies, and it is completely impossible to change the ideology of people when you insult them.

But I don't want to step over your point, which is accurate. The conservative's main voter base (blue-collar, working class, middle-americans) are the ones hurt the most by Republican policy. And yet they vote for the same policies time after time out of a belief that liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.

Re:conservatives (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357006)

used by the rich

if you post on slashdot YOU ARE the 'rich'

the fact that you don't know that is a measure of your ignorance

Re:conservatives (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357184)

Or at least your parents are. One of the best sum-ups of the 2008 presidential election I heard was "Dad takes money out of his bank account and sends it to McCain. The kids ask him for money, then send it to Obama..."

Re:conservatives (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357118)

You do realize that the "rich and moneyed" overwhlemingly vote for Democrats, right? That the richest people in politics in the U.S. are Democrats?

From the "no shit" department? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356684)

Seriously this is news? The Bush administration pre-packaged a propaganda piece on their Medicare changes for news stations to run unedited. The Ministry of Information is alive and well at the GOP.

In other news... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356696)

The sky is blue and astroturf is green.

Re:In other news... (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357016)

and astroturf is green

Poor Boise State, even a preseason #3 can't get them the recognition they deserve.

Yawn (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356704)

Conservative activist welfare is not news - just Google Richard Mellon Scaife.

Short version: The Old Guard thought they were losing the culture war (damn hippies!), so they ponied up cash, endowments, entitlements; set up think tanks and commissions in order to control spin that never really existed in the first place.

And here we are today, with the fruits of that labour being the shallow end of the Teabagger nonsense.

Ain't rich people grand?

Re:Yawn (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356816)

Tea Party Nonsense?

And liberals aren't paying lefty blogs?

Who's drinking the tea now?

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356958)

If you have evidence, perhaps you should present it.

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357216)

Liberal activist welfare is not news - just Google George Soros.

Short version: The New Guard thought they were losing the culture war (damn neocons!), so they ponied up cash, endowments, entitlements; set up think tanks and commissions in order to control spin that never really existed in the first place.

And here we are today, with the fruits of that labour being the shallow end of the Angry Left nonsense.

Gee (5, Insightful)

Snodgrass (446409) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356722)

What a balanced and unbiased summary. I will be sure to read the linked article and participate in what will certainly be a level-headed and thought-provoking discussion.

Re:Gee (5, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356790)

It actually is a fair and accurate summary of the article. I know, it's Slashdot and we're all a little shocked, but it is.

Whether or not you think the article is fair, maybe that's another story.

Re:Gee (2, Insightful)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356806)

If it's common practice only on one side, how would a "balanced and unbiased" summary look like?

For me as an outside observer it looks like you have one party that attracts all kinds of loons (aka the GOP, you know, even thinking of Palin as somebody who might be let near the white house strikes the rest of the world as silly) and another right-wing party (aka the democrats) that is despised by these loons. Just go to conservapedia.com. I used to go there for a laugh, but the stupidity seems too real nowadays.

Re:Gee (1, Redundant)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357030)

If you think the Democrats have a shortage of loons in their party, you aren't looking at the two parties in an unbiased manner. There are a LOT of nuts in both parties. You should primarily judge the party by the majority of the members, which are not insane in either party. They simply disagree.

Re:Gee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356984)

When someone says the world is round, there really isn't any "balance" to add to the discussion. Truth has a liberal bias.

Are you kidding? (2, Interesting)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357214)

All you have to do is read the comment section in the Washington Post on any article with Obama's name to find dozens of comments that no unpaid partisan would bother posting. It saddens me how much the republican party is buying popular opinion and I'm not sure that they're all that unsuccessful at it. The problem is that the democratic party is mostly fighting fair, (way less propaganda postings and emails) and as such is being destroyed/overwhelmed by the current republican agenda.

Re:Gee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357272)

What a balanced and unbiased summary. I will be sure to read the linked article and participate in what will certainly be a level-headed and thought-provoking discussion.

Posting anon since I moderated. If you are going to go to all the trouble and read the linked article and then join a flame war... why not just RTFA first?

Yes...this will end well (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356730)

News flash: People lie, cheat and steal on the internet. Just like in real life.

It's sad that this needs to be news.

Re:Yes...this will end well (5, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356800)

The real news flash is that only Republicans are mentioned. Clearly, Democrats are lily-white citizens of the political world. ;)

Re:Yes...this will end well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356860)

Procure some evidence to the contrary, you nitwit, instead of just assuming both sides do it.

Re:Yes...this will end well (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356892)

If one "side" is continues doing it because it has proven to be an effective practice, I can assure you the other "side" is doing it as well.

People seem to forget the way our one-party system works here in America.

Re:Yes...this will end well (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357002)

I can assure you the other "side" is doing it as well.

While that's a great theory and all, and I subscribe to it myself, have you seen the Democrat party lately? Those fuckers couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, so I have a hard time believing they could have some sort of compensated blogger/journalist setup anywhere near as big or as effective as the GOP.

Re:Yes...this will end well (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357112)

The politicians couldn't, that I agree with you on...but it isn't the politicians who do these sorts of things. They are nothing but faces. You and I will never see the people who truly run things. /tinfoil hat of truth

Re:Yes...this will end well (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357020)

Not blogging, but: how about bribing senators in actual legislation (e.g., healthcare bill)?

Referring to blogging itself, this is probably going to be a "biased" blog, I'm sure, but, hotair [hotair.com] has a piece on it. He doesn't mention "payola blogging" and Democrats specifically... but how about, ohhh... ACORN?

And to cap it off, this "news" lists a few "supposed examples" according to this guy [professorbainbridge.com], which does not even show any sort of rampant "GOP pays friendly bloggers!!!!!!!!11!!11" thing. Gasp, there are corrupt people who are Republicans? Shocking. And here I thought the Republican party were all saints.

Of Course Not! (4, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356732)

This article is completely fabricated by the liberal crazies.

No one would pay some hippy bloggers for friendly reports or statistical analysis on reader responses.

This is just another countless example of how the democrats want to confuse the populace on popular issues. Issue such as, should you vote for this republican or the other republican. There are also non-political issues as stake such as which is the better music genre.... country or western. (We have both kinds of music here)

Yeah, right (4, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356740)

A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that 'at least half the bloggers that are out there' on the Republican side 'are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales.''

And the bullshit meter goes off the scale! Half of the intersection between the sets of "Bloggers" and "Republicans" are being paid for their postings? Yeah, sure they are.

Even if the GOP (or the Dems for that matter) are dumb enough to pay for that kind of coverage, who cares? Advertising has become much more subversive lately anyway, and often times you have to try pretty hard to figure out if what you're seeing is even an ad or not.

Daily Caller finds a couple of obscure liberal bloggers to mention too, but they fully disclosed payment and one of them even shut down his blog while doing consulting work

Ah, what kind and honest people all liberals must be, and especially their bloggers and politicians!

Careful there, your bias is unzipped.

Re:Yeah, right (1, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356910)

Ah, what feckless and naive people all liberals must be, and especially their bloggers and politicians!

Fixed that for you.

Re:Yeah, right (2, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357090)

Bribing bloggers is illegal. It is illegal for bloggers to accept compensation from political parties without disclosing it. Everyone is not doing it, unless you can find evidence that everyone is doing it. If there is evidence that one party is doing it, but no evidence that the other party is doing it, then that party is the only party that should be shunned for doing something highly immoral. If that party happens to be the party you like, you could try to improve that party by complaining to your party officials. On the other hand, claiming that the other side is doing the same thing, without any evidence, as an excuse for the side you like, just makes you look childish imo.

Capitalism Bayybeee! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356748)

Everything is for sale, except my body, because if the conservatives wouldn't drop their principles, the fundie branch of the Republican Party would revolt.

Quick! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356752)

Quick, someone tell Pudge! He can make money off his batshite insane posts.

Not just the GOP (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356758)

All political parties utilize bloggers and forum posters to spread positive messages about their agenda (or negative messages about their "opponents" agenda.) Yup. Talking shit about ourselves...just one more way our country is doing its absolute hardest to fuck itself over from the inside.

PS: I realize that this sort of thing happens all over the world...but I was born, raised, and live in America, so I can only speak for my own country.

Re:Not just the GOP (5, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356896)

All political parties utilize bloggers and forum posters to spread positive messages about their agenda (or negative messages about their "opponents" agenda.)

Yes, but...

Basically, the article explains it as, on the liberal side, there are all kinds of foundations and think tanks and what not that hire/support liberal bloggers who of course write mostly liberal things, whereas on the conservative side, because there is not that same support network to pay for conservative bloggers in general, conservative bloggers are essentially paid by specific candidates. So, in other words, they're not as much being paid to blog about conservative things in general but in favor of a specific primary candidate who pays them.

If that's correct, it doesn't necessarily say that one model is more honest or better than the other, but they are a little different.

Re:Not just the GOP (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356986)

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not so sure about the claim about the lack of conservative think tanks.

The Heritage Foundation [heritage.org] and The Cato Institute [cato.org] are widely known and have a fairly abundant amount of pull in the conservative community. Those two alone are MASSIVE, and capable of more than most people realize.

Re:Not just the GOP (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357036)

I don't necessarily disagree -- what I'm stating above is the point the article is trying to make, as I understand it.

Re:Not just the GOP (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357162)

Sorry, should have been more clear: I'm disagreeing with this specific part of the article, not your relaying of its message :-)

Probably but... (5, Interesting)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356766)

That's small potatoes compared to outright fraud.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michigan-Tea-Party-party-looks-like-real-astroturfing-Freep-calls-for-criminal-probe-101383014.html

Re:Probably but... (2, Informative)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356994)

I've seen more instances of astroturfing for the Dems - here in Central GA, there have been several instances of people being paid to show up and hold signs at Dem rallies. Which are usually pre-printed beforehand. Tea Party signs seem to more often be handwritten.

Re:Probably but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357134)

I call bullshit. Cite your evidence.

Re:Probably but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357152)

Tea Party is funded by Koch.

Covert Operations - The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all [newyorker.com] ...
A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It's like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud--and they're our candidates!" ...

Wow, this election should be interesting (3, Interesting)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356812)

I would not have expected Slashdot to have a story like this but oh well!

MSNBC is telling us how the Tea Party is raciest and the designated tours of Washington DC are designed to avoid black areas.

Fox has had show after show about two new books on how Obama has circumvented the Constitution and sold us down the river.

All I have seen on CNN is how the markets are collapsing and everything is circling the drain

Personally I think we should send Washington, as well as both the parties a simple message

YOUR FIRED! Clean out your desk and get in the unemployment line like the rest of US!

It really is time for some new blood in Washington.

Re:Wow, this election should be interesting (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357092)

MSNBC is telling us how the Tea Party is raciest and the designated tours of Washington DC are designed to avoid black areas.

If the Tea Party is really raciest, they're just focusing on the red-light districts.

Re:Wow, this election should be interesting (5, Interesting)

strangelovian (1559111) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357270)

The simplest method of cleaning house in DC would be for millions of enraged citizens to simply surround the capital with pitchforks, firearms and signs reading "GTFO Now!" and give every politician 24 hours to evacuate. This is direct popular action that routes around media spin machines, the punditocracy, political engineering, voter fraud, etc. The old, tried and true methods of political action are still the best, imo.

Summary misleading (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356818)

The summary suggests that pay for bloggers is more a conservative phenomena than a liberal one -- ie "at least half" conservative bloggers are paid as opposed to "a couple of obscure liberal bloggers". While this may or may not be true, this is not what a fair representation of what the article says. From the article:

"
On the left, many of the once independent bloggers are now employed by, or receive money from, liberal organizations like Media Matters, the Center for American Progress and Campaign for America’s Future.

Some critics allege that the funding sources have distorted the once vibrant voice of the liberal blogosphere, discouraging dissent in favor of staying “on message” to help President Obama and Democrats in Congress pass their legislative agenda.

Indeed, many of the groups now employing liberal bloggers meet with White House aides for a weekly strategy session on Tuesday afternoons organized by the group Common Purpose. It was here that Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously told independent-minded liberals that they were being “fucking retarded” for straying from the party line.
"

More balance in the story summary would help everyone appreciate how the influence of money on independent media sources is a general problem, not a partisan one.

I'd suggest that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356824)

...the article writer checks out the funding for ultra-left/liberal blog sites a little more carefully rather than just doing a hit piece on "conservatives" - in the interest of fairness of course. Where the heck do you think that liberal echo-chambers like Moveon.org, Huffington Post, Indymedia and a large supply of smaller liberal blogs get their funding from? Servers don't just buy themselves. Infrastructure costs money - and there's a lot *more* of it behind the "progressive" sites than conservative ones. I love the hit pieces put up on /. that front themselves as "news"...

Liberal bloggers do the same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33356830)

But they are more likely to get paid in hemp baskets and batteries for their electric cars, where conservatives prefer money.

Never understood the problem with this (4, Insightful)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356866)

As I see it, the average reader should only care if the person writing the blog is writing things they don't believe in exchange for pay.

If someone self-identifies as a "Conservative Blogger" then I would expect that most of their readers are also conservative.

No one can force a person to read their blog. If what they have to say does not resonate with enough readers, the problem takes care of itself.

The whole idea of "exposing" these sorts of things smacks of avoiding the arena of ideas and reveals a lack of confidence in one's positions. Trying to paint conservative bloggers as paid henchmen is more about smear-tactics than trying to inform people.

This is just providing pre-justification for ignoring criticism and your own responsibility to back up your positions in the face of dissent.

Re:Never understood the problem with this (4, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356950)

The article is making the case that conservative bloggers aren't just paid by conservatives in general to blog about conservative things, but that further they're paid by specific candidates (in Republican primaries, for example) to blog in favor of that candidate and bash opposing candidates.

If correct, that's a little different than the situation you're describing.

Welcome to slashdot, YMBNH (4, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356874)

Question: "Does the GOP pay friendly bloggers?"

Answer: "Does anyone NOT pay friendly bloggers? And if not, how stupid are they?"

How many of us regulars here can honestly say we've never encountered a paid shill right here on this little corner of the web? There are agents from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and the US government. We encounter them all the time, and they're always easy to spot. If you think this is unique to this one website, you're insane.

So I say again, welcome to slashdot - or indeed the Internet - you must be new here...

Re:Welcome to slashdot, YMBNH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357298)

You can always tell who the paid shills are because they're the ones who disagree with you.

Full court press time (2, Insightful)

MaxBooger (1877454) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356934)

As the mid-term elections draw closer and closer here in the US, expect to see more of these "rally the troops" type of half-baked stories. Typical election season chow.

Hopefully, the editors of /. will avoid falling in with the heard and... oh who am I kidding. Bring on the spinmeisters!

What do you think? (3, Insightful)

babboo65 (1437157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356944)

I could start by simply asking "Is water wet"?

It would be far easier to say, "Yes, and so do the Independents, and the Liberals, and the Democrats, and the Republicans, and the Socialists . . . " Get the point? Of course any group with an agenda to popularize is going to sponsor / pay a blogger to say friendly things.

It's no different than advertising - it's no different than a billboard or a web ad.

It's a fools mission to try and argue this or to even belabor it with any discussion. If you don't see that the liberal agenda is popularized by the liberal media, and likewise a conservative agenda, and so forth you are sadly mistaken. No matter how you slice it it comes down to a propaganda machine. The media and advertisers try to push and pull your opinions in any way they can to sway your decision. If they can cause even the slightest shift in your POV they have been successful. So don't be surprised by it.

Re:What do you think? (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357306)

"You're wrong. People who agree with me are enlightened beings. Everyone else is a brainwashed sap and the poor suckers can't even tell!" -- most people throughout history, no matter their point of view.

Ah Yes (5, Interesting)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33356946)

And democrats would never resort to such questionable tactics [freep.com] would they?

Here's a news flash, both sides suck and neither represents the general voting public. If the fanboy idiots of the political world would just realize that, we'd all be better off.

And yet... (1, Troll)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357052)

I doubt a single one of the people self-righteously attacking the GOP right now has the integrity to attack the Democrats and the way the mainstream media covers for them.

In the last 2 years alone, there have been scandals involving the Democrats that would have crippled the GOP by the time the media was done harping on them. Take, for instance, the scandal involving the Black Panthers. Now that Obama's in power, he's not considered a whistleblower. He's considered a "disgruntled ex employee of the DoJ." The left and mainstream media have largely taken the same "no evil here, move along people" stance on that issue that the Bush Administration did over the NSA wiretapping and its whistleblowers.

The media is even being prohibited from going near even clean up sites on the beach in the Gulf under penalty of imprisonment--under a statute that BP helped create. Where's the media? Where's the outrage over a majority Democratic Congress and President shackling the press? I could go on, but I think I've made my point for those who've been paying attention these last 2 years.

Re:And yet... (2, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357226)

No offense, but who takes the Black Panthers seriously?

Before the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, that wouldn't have even qualified as a story. You seriously can't even put that on the level of warrantless wiretapping.

A better analogy is comparing warrantless wiretapping that's going on now to warrantless wiretapping that was going on before, and there you DO have a story that's largely fallen out of the news and shouldn't.

Professional online media optimizer (2, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357136)

I believe that is the new name for the profession that I saw the other day in a jobs-and-careers magazine. Basically lots of companies are hiring people to "manage" what people say about them online. If that doesn't involve any funny business, I want a citizenship and passport from Disneyland, where we live.

Where do I sign up? (1)

herojig (1625143) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357170)

So where do I sign up? I get paid to write SEO content for dog trainers, wart removers, and tin-foil hat conspiracy believers, so writing GOP gorp would fit right in. Please contact www.phoenixstudios.com.np for more info. thx!

Well, that would explain... (1)

BergZ (1680594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357172)

why there are so many retarded comments posted on internet news articles.

Readers get what they demand (1)

guanxi (216397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357178)

If you didn't anticipate it, you were being naive. How many people would turn away the money, when there is almost no risk associated? If someone at the NY Times took the money, they'd risk losing their job and if it was a systematic thing, the NY Times would lose readers, so there's an incentive. For bloggers, there's almost no incentive -- little chance of getting caught, and little chance of consequences if they are. How many do you think are so altruistic that they'd turn away the cash? (And I'm sure liberal bloggers do the same.)

Even major media gets away with it. News Corp (owners of Fox and the Wall Street Journal) just agave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. They are open advocates for the Republican party. Yet Fox News is the most popular cable channel, the Wall Street Journal is the most popular newspaper (or 2nd to USA Today?), and people like Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck utter falsehoods and slander consistently, and are rewarded with the highest ratings on cable. Much of what bloggers write is just as bad. Why would taking some cash matter to their readers?

Readers get what they demand.

With a political climate like this... (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33357210)

...I understand why the US seems to be a hotbed of conspiracy theorists. There's no way to actually see what's going on, so commenting on politics as a private citizen becomes something like making weather reports?

Wikipedia too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33357358)

Somebody is paying editors to scrub the Fox News article.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...