Shot In The Dark: It's About Speech

January 10, 2006

It's About Speech

First things first: my allegiances. I back Michael Brodkorb in his defense against Blois Olson's lawsuit. I'll be ponying up a buck or two for his legal defense fund, come payday.

I've also been acquainted with Blois Olsen for a long time - eight years, maybe? He's always been fairly moderate for a DFLer - as befits someone who consults in public relations and realizes that not all the public are committed DFLers.

So far so good.

Unfortunately (for him; it's been a goldmine for bloggers in the Twin Cities), he stuck his head in a meatgrinder last week when he filed suit against Brodkorb.

Olson responded in the Strib on Sunday. Gary Miller at KvM beat me to the response with, as usual, a great piece, to which I can add only little.

Olson starts:

Truth and free speech should matter to Minnesota politics. The media's role is to ensure that our candidates and elected officials are held accountable. Such should also be the case for the emerging medium of news dissemination, web logs or blogs.

"Such" has always been the case with blogs.

And it's the perception that the media assigns accountability in a lopsided, politically-biased manner that has launched more blogs than any other phenomenon. Most of the political blogs I know - almost all of the NARN blogs - started with the express intent of throwing brickbats at the local media, especially the Star/Tribune, which has a long history of shading their "accountability" pretty strictly to one side. Some - like the excellent Rambix and the Red Star - exist exclusively to dog the Strib.

Olson:

It is important that, to protect individuals and companies, bloggers practice some standards in the dissemination of information, and that bloggers, anonymous or not, be held accountable when wrong.

We have those standards. They're called "laws"; a few of them pertain to things like libel, slander and defamation. If a blogger has defamed one, one can file a suit.

As, we note, Blois Olson has. If he's right, and MDE's claims were untrue, malicious and damaging to Olson's company, Olson will collect a buck or two.

What other "standard" does one need? The same ones the media use...

...oh, wait - they defend nobody from defamation by the media.

Olson continues:

Blogs are best known for their role in breaking and shaping news stories in the political arena. During the 2004 presidential race, the locally run blog www.powerlineblog.com received national attention when it became instrumental in proving that National Guard records given to CBS News' "60 Minutes" had been forged. Powerline is viewed as credible because the authors identify themselves and are willing to decline funding sources that might influence their posts while standing behind the accuracy of their content.

No. Powerline is credible because their stories are well-written, generally impeccable in their research, and reliable. Those of us who've bet on Powerline over the past four years have been burned only once (the Schiavo Memo case), a much better record than, say, most newspapers or television networks.

However, not all blogs hold the same credibility. After the 2004 election in South Dakota, it was revealed that anti-Tom Daschle bloggers were actually paid by the John Thune campaign, a fact that the public should have had the right to know. Apparently the bloggers who were advocating for "free speech" weren't working for "free."

Hard to know where to start with that:

Neither of the "anti-Daschle" boggers, Jason Vanderbeek and John Lauck, were anonymous.
There is no contradiction between advocating free speech and getting paid.
Vanderbeek and Lauck's only mistake was in failing to disclose; nobody has impeached any of the facts they put forth

Now, Olson moves toward the sound of the guns - or, more appropriately, the flipping dollars:

Now, as Minnesota gears up for a competitive campaign season, anonymous blogs are emerging as a tactic comparable to the 527 groups of the 2004 election. The difference between the two tactics is that anyone can start a blog in 10 minutes, while not just anyone can buy millions of dollars in television ads.

One wonders if Olson actually believes this, or if it's just another piece of rhetorical candy dropped on the public sidewalk for whomever is gullible enough to pick it up.

One can, indeed, set up a blog in 10 minutes. At the end of those ten minutes, one has...a blog. A blank page. A blank page that nobody will see, because it's a brand new blog that someone just started.

One can get on that blank page and write "John Marty Wears Women's Underwear!", and nobody will care - because you're just another new blog, one of thousands that flash in and out of existence every day. It's not until one builds up some credibility with an audience that that blog matters. The millions that a 527 group can spend, however, can get that message on radio, print and TV now.

It is, indeed, harder to get a message out via a blog; one can gather a thousand people, collect a hundred dollars from each, and produce and air a commercial that will reach tens of thousands whether they like it or not. Building a blog audience - and credibility - takes months and years and effort.

Another piece of rhetorical junk food - one that every blogger is cursed to defend for all time:

Another difference is that television and radio stations reserve the right to refuse ads that aren't supported with documentable facts; there is no check to balance the mistakes of a blogger.

This is bald-faced buncombe - the sort of thing which plays with the Strib front office, of course, but it has no basis in reality.

In the world of blogs, fact-checking is instant and brutal; most blogs have comment sections; all blogs have competitors in the marketplace of ideas. Everyone is constantly fact-checking everyone else. The Accountability Curve is infinitely faster and tighter than it is for the media, even when the media's fabled "checks and balances" are working (which, as Brian "Saint Paul" Ward takes delight in showing us, they don't).

Olson cuts to specifics of his case:

On the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed, a former GOP research director has written anonymously for the last year and a half attacking Democrats at every turn. Only recently did he reveal his identity. His actions came after he posted defamatory statements about me and my company, New School Communications. We took legal action after he refused to retract the statements or even have a dialogue about them.

None of this is about partisan politics, or liberal and conservative ideology. It is about the truth and making sure that free speech isn't threatened by speech that is untrue. The facts too often get glossed over in modern politics, but ultimately they are what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment.

It shouldn't take a lawsuit to keep bloggers accountable for the truth, just as it shouldn't take press coverage to keep politicians accountable, but sometimes it does.

Why should it not take a lawsuit to keep a blogger accountable? What would Olson prefer, a government regulatory body?

That's unfair, of course, putting words in Olson's mouth like that - but why should it not take a lawsuit to keep Michael Brodkorb accountable? He thinks he has a story. Under threat of suit in federal court, he's sticking to his guns. He's either irrational, or he's on to something, or - it's possible - he's wrong.

In any case, the simple fact is that bloggers are vastly more accountable for accuracy than the mainstream media are; we are not covered by "Press Shield" laws, for starters; being unmasked as a complete liar also has a way of gutting one's audience (anyone heard of The Agonist lately?).

Which is something bloggers learned a long time before, say, Dan Rather or Mary Mapes did...

Posted by Mitch at January 10, 2006 05:50 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Mitch,

If a blog mistake goes uncorrected for more than a couple of hours, it's only because nobody is reading it.

Try writing "Tom DeLay of Tennessee" and see how many minutes, hours, before someone corrects you in the comments section, calls you an idiot, or accuses you of trying to protect the President's home state from the "shame." In your case, you have hundreds and hundreds of editors, several who would love to find a mistake, and do.

Posted by: RBMN at January 10, 2006 10:25 AM

All of this will become irrelevant after the United Nations takes over the Internet.

Posted by: Kermit at January 10, 2006 10:26 AM

Kinda off topic but I shall always remmeber when I was listening to Rush many years ago and I almost fell of my chair when he reported that he had received a fedex from, as Rush guessed the pronunciation of that odd name as "Blow-us" Olson regarding some scoop or another, I forget exactly, but I was on the phone right away to let Blois know he had hit the bigtime.

Towle and Olson are egomanics. There is a bit of a dust-up going on between them. As a matter of fact, Towle recently posted to the effect that he has never respected anythihg Olson has ever done.

Another suit?

Posted by: Wog at January 10, 2006 12:57 PM

It is funny though, that someone who would willingly subscribe U.S. Citizens to survailance by our own assets - without warrant or proof of probable cause presented - is upset about "free speech" infringements.

Convenient would be my word, Mitch, you have ethical qualms only when convenient. You defend virtually anything Bush does, changing from it was legal under FISA to it is legal under the Constitution (which is not really supported outside your own political sphere), and now you want us to give money to a blog?

I'm assuming then since you feel blogs represent speech (as in a media source) and for that matter free enterprise, you wouldn't be opposed to them being required to adhere to factual reporting standards and further to being constrained as commercial entities from openly advocating (unless declaring contributions) for any one political party's agenda?

No?!? I'm shocked.

If not, then the speech is private opinion, and then only if the individual defames someone, they suffer the consequences (or if they make improper threats).

We provide protections to the Press to ensure free access to information, we provide similar (but not the same) protections to individuals, because they should be allowed to say pretty much what they want, but not ANYTHING.

I Bordkob defamed him, then he can be sued (assuming blogs simply represent independent, non-commercial, free speech), but if/when they cross into representing themselves as another form of "media", they should be, and probably will eventuallly be, held accountable to the same laws. I recognize you wholly oppose this proposition, because it would require you to be more careful about what you write, and actually present validated facts and that scares you, and as well you MAY be concerned about the exercise of your 1st Ammendment rights, but given your track record of ignoring the rights of others, I'm a little skeptical - oh, except for commerce clause rights to make and own machine guns, you seem pretty upset about that one.

Posted by: pb at January 10, 2006 03:01 PM

PB,

Set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.

"It is funny though, that someone who would willingly subscribe U.S. Citizens to survailance by our own assets - without warrant or proof of probable cause presented - is upset about "free speech" infringements."

Having your name found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Sidekick isn't probable cause?

"Convenient would be my word, Mitch,"

A fine word. And spelled correctly!

" you have ethical qualms only when convenient."

No, I have ethical qualms when there are ethical problems.

" You defend virtually anything Bush does, changing from it was legal under FISA to it is legal under the Constitution (which is not really supported outside your own political sphere)..."

...a statement I've shown via several cites to authority to be false - but keep repeating it if it makes you feel better!

" and now you want us to give money to a blog?"

Huh?

"I'm assuming then since you feel blogs represent speech (as in a media source)"

It has nothing to do with my feelings. Blogs are speech. So is speech.

"you wouldn't be opposed to them being required to adhere to factual reporting standards"

"Required"? By whom? The same body that "requires" the exempt media to adhere to those standards? Quick, Peeb - what body "requires" any such adherence? Name it! Now!

Our court system provides relief to anyone harmed by malicious, defamatory speech.

" and further to being constrained as commercial entities from openly advocating (unless declaring contributions) for any one political party's agenda?"

Again, no. My only "contribution" from this blog is the speech itself. I don't raise money for parties, at least not in the guise of this blog. It's not a commercial entity.

"We provide protections to the Press to ensure free access to information, we provide similar (but not the same) protections to individuals, because they should be allowed to say pretty much what they want, but not ANYTHING."

Yes, ANYTHING, as you put it, subject to applicable defamation laws.

"I Bordkob defamed him, then he can be sued (assuming blogs simply represent independent, non-commercial, free speech), but if/when they cross into representing themselves as another form of "media", they should be, and probably will eventuallly be, held accountable to the same laws. I recognize you wholly oppose this proposition,"

Peeb? You have departed controlled intellectual flight. Your fingers are moving and putting word together, but you're not making any sense. Your previous sentence contradicts itself.

Defamation is defamation. Doesn't matter if it's the New York Times or PB from Minnesota.

" because it would require you to be more careful about what you write, and actually present validated facts and that scares you"

Peeb, I say this with all due respect: You are a blowhard. You are ranting and raving, and you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I present *some* reporting, but for the most part this blog is opinion; it draws frequently on others' reporting and analysis. I have never presented a single thing on this site I wasn't willing to stand behind legally. I have never, for that matter, presented *reporting* on this site that I wouldln't stand behind (as, indeed, I do).

Which is more than you can say, oh anonymous slinger of barbed mud!

Posted by: mitch at January 10, 2006 03:49 PM

PB is rapidly becoming a rediculous distracting side-show.

Posted by: badda-blogger at January 10, 2006 05:09 PM

Mitch,

Since I've known you, I can't say you've effectively knocked anything down but beer bottles.

Once again, with the bragging though. But, since you insist on using what is considered HORRIBLY POOR argument style (that is, picking short parts of a post and replying rather than working with the entire context of the post) (oh, btw Badda, you became less than redicewlouse long ago, all you can do is insult folks), anyway Mitch, I'll follow your lead (even though it's crap).

Having your name found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Sidekick isn't probable cause?

Mitch- once again, you ignored the point - the point is that MOST of the information collected WASNT on folks on that list, but even if it were (and it wasn't), it still was of HIGHLY dubious legality, meaning your profession that it is LEGAL, given you are neither an attorney (especially not a Consitutional one), nor apparently very well read on the subject, well, it means you presented a falacious opinion, presented as fact.

"Convenient would be my word, Mitch,"

A fine word. And spelled correctly!

(And Mitch certainly, you have NEVER made a mistake in spelling or grammer or anything else, because you certainly doesn't just write off the cuff - oh wait, but allowing for mistakes just isn't something permitted - and cheap little digs like that certainly point out your superiority Mitch - and are far less worthy of criticism than a spelling mistake).

" you have ethical qualms only when convenient."

>No, I have ethical qualms when there are ethical problems.

Once again, Mitch attempts to refute an argument with "because I say so." Let's see, Mitch has no issue with suggesting that jailing Jose Padilla is perfectly ethical, and then suggests the "system is working" when the Bush administration skulks away and files for criminal court transfer, despite the fact that Mitch defended keeping Padilla imperpetuity. So he both advocates FOR keeping him without charge, and says the system is right to recognize habaeus corpus.. but sure Mitch, you have a sound moral compass, it's just that pesky problem of knowing if it's the red arrow or the white arrow you read, some days it's red, others...

" You defend virtually anything Bush does, changing from it was legal under FISA to it is legal under the Constitution (which is not really supported outside your own political sphere)..."

...a statement I've shown via several cites to authority to be false - but keep repeating it if it makes you feel better!

Your "sites" are other right-wing nutjobs. Post after post doubting the legality under FISA has been provided, futher, FISA experts have stated repeatedly that the limit is 15 days, and oh by the way, then there's the pesky fact that the FISA court required the Administration to prove FISA rules were not broken by using this data - which would have occured had ANY warrant been obtained in FISA from it.

So you just keep posting your buloney...

I've attempted to post ACTUAL news stories, but your filter now prevents most of those..but yeah, you're all about truth (oh, and ethics, but truth and ethics... they're only marginally related apparently).

" and now you want us to give money to a blog?"

Huh?

Sir, you asked us to contribute to somebody's defense recently on a similar case (gosh I thought it was this one, but what the heck, it was the same issue).

"I'm assuming then since you feel blogs represent speech (as in a media source)"

It has nothing to do with my feelings. Blogs are speech. So is speech.

And papers, are speech, but they are also media, btw, caramel is caramel, and vanilla is vanilla, perhaps you can make other pointless comments. I made a minor point regarding your assumption that blogs are a media source, you reacted to the word speech, are you really that shallow?

"you wouldn't be opposed to them being required to adhere to factual reporting standards"

"Required"? By whom? The same body that "requires" the exempt media to adhere to those standards? Quick, Peeb - what body "requires" any such adherence?
Name it! Now!

Go make demands of your kids, the answer is that reporting that is not sourced puts the media source at risk for a filing of defamation. They ARE in fact held to a higher standard than a private citizen because their words are so widely read. Get over your psuedo knowledge and condescension (sic), it's rude and beyond that boorish.

Our court system provides relief to anyone harmed by malicious, defamatory speech.

AND it provides LARGER relief if the post is more broadly in the public view AND the violator has knowledge AND experience to know better. It was the Reagan years that saw the end to the "standard" of double sourcing, and oh btw, the requirement to actually PROVE the things you claim in advertising.. You see Mitch, many folks, not just me, are pretty well familiar with libel and slander law, as well as the rules by which media sources operate. A standard is not a regulation, perhaps you need to go LOOK UP the word, and COMPREHEND the difference, please go look it up NOW!! :).

" and further to being constrained as commercial entities from openly advocating (unless declaring contributions) for any one political party's agenda?"

>Again, no. My only "contribution" from this blog is the speech itself. I don't raise money for parties, at least not in the guise of this blog. It's not a commercial entity.

However, you take advertising and support for your work, thereby making it an enterprise. BTW, where did you say "no" above?

Yes, ANYTHING, as you put it, subject to applicable defamation laws.

Well, only if said publicly, which is what brings the defamation issue to bear, further, real harm has to be provable. My stating it, on a street corner, if I'm some drunk, causes no harm. However, media sources, are defacto accepted to cause harm, and further, expected to have validated information (sourcing) or they can be assumed to have been negligent in not fulfilling basic standards, which is a standard joe average, is not held to.

Peeb? You have departed controlled intellectual flight. Your fingers are moving and putting word together, but you're not making any sense. Your previous sentence contradicts itself.

Mitch, you've yet to regain controlled intellectual flight, but yes, it should have started IF.. my fingers do very often get behind my thoughts. The laws to which blogs will be held are those opportunities for civil penalties for failing to source thier claims. Saying GWB is a jackasss is opinion, saying he committed murder is slander, saying it when you are a media source, and not having any proof, almost always is going to be trouble.

Defamation is defamation. Doesn't matter if it's the New York Times or PB from Minnesota.

Actually, it matters a lot, my ability to harm is far less than NYT, but let's use some more appropriate examples, it doesn't matter if you are the National Inquirer or Rush Limbaugh, if you slander someone, you have some issues, but saying "I've departed controlled intellectual flight" certainly isn't defamation, is it?

" because it would require you to be more careful about what you write, and actually present validated facts and that scares you"

Peeb, I say this with all due respect: You are a blowhard. You are ranting and raving, and you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Mitch, there was NO respect in that comment, and those words are almost always followed by crap. As for bloviating blowhards, you're the one with sufficient ego to think you can present jackassed opinions predicated on nearly nothing, brag about books that you don't appear to have been near let alone comprehended, and then go post a blog about them. I don't mind being called a blowhard, but at least I don't deny it. It's irony in the extreme that you consider me the blowhard on your page suggesting that the President has no legal issues (and every other piece of crap that pretends to be informed opinion). How's that for respect for ya' :)?

umm... you're reporting needs more fact checking, perhaps you could hire a chimp? (and No, I'm not avaiable :).

Which is more than you can say, oh anonymous slinger of barbed mud!

Whatever, in one breath you say you are "holier than thou", the next, you sling mud..

As always, I think the answer to nearly everyone of your posts needs to be.

Get over yourself and grow up.

Posted by mitch at January 10, 2006 03:49 PM

Posted by: pb at January 10, 2006 06:41 PM

"...there was NO respect in that comment."

Well, yeah PB, Mitch probably misspoke there. He should have written "Peeb, I say this with all due pity..."

Posted by: Steve G. at January 10, 2006 06:48 PM

The only ones needing pity are those who actually take ANY of this tripe seriously, mine or anyone else's, especially the originator.

Mostly opinions expressed here are utterly devoid of the necessary research to be considered credible. If we want to talk recent U.S. Army weaponry, WWII to an extent, insurance laws, well I guess I'd be an expert of a sort, but that's it.

What's funny is that you all who are adherents to Mitch actually think he knows a real crap about anything. I've talked with him, take my word for it, or don't, he's no more or less than any of the rest (or at least most of the rest) of you.

But, Steve, save your pity for the person who professes to:

Have Never lied,
Never insult (intentionally)- and then proceeds to do almost nothing but.
Never be rude (intentionally) - and again..

Those sorts of bombastic absurdities. The pity needs to be reserved for those incapbable of seeing or admitting their own faults or counter-points.

Mitch makes ludicrous statements, appears to not even remember what he's done or said in the past, advocates for ignoring inconvenient facts, makes statements regarding his own conduct that are so extreme their impossible, and then points his fingers at me (and folks I do this mostly just to rile folks (like Mitch), but with the small hope that someone will put aside the bombast and actually talk), so I'm hardly taking any of this seriously.

Mitch, otoh.... I think he takes it just a wee bit too seriously, and then pretends not to.

but, for yucks sake, I'll try again,

So Mitch, I don't doubt you have greater experience in media restrictions than I do, so perhaps you can enlighten folks on what double and single sourcing represents, how the standards changed in the 80's and what differentiates media resources from Joe Average in their fact-checking requirements (including their risk of civil liabilities for failing to fact check). You claimed I didn't know what I was talking about, please enlighten me in how media sources don't face negligence claims, as well enlighten me on the single and double source standards evolutionary changes.

The real topic in the end though will be, if you take advertisements and funds to operate your blog, are you any longer a private citizen, or have you become an agent of a party or even corporation? You see, once you are then "media", failing to fact check means failing to follow protocol.

If it happens to be true, you are safe, but if not, you face greater likelyhood of punative damage penalty, no matter what Mitch may say.

In the end, if Wells Fargo's President was given funds by Wells Fargo for his blog, advertised for Well's Fargo on his blog, but owned the blog and posted it's contents, is it in fact independent? Are those contributions not in-kind contributions for political advertisement, are the research actions of the author not benefiting the candidate or party?

This has not been very fully explored yet by the courts, and undoubtedly the "blogosphere" as a public communication vehicle with very broad reach, may face appropriate scrutiny with regard to improper intrusion into politics by corporations (who btw, don't and can't and shouldn't, vote IMHO). Mitch doesn't like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't right to ferret out reasonable policy.

Posted by: PB at January 10, 2006 08:27 PM

I've become convinced that "PB" is in fact the disembodied brain of Larry the Cable Guy, floating in a jar of "MD 20-20" wine..to which has been fitted an ethernet port and high-speed 'net connection.

Care to comment Larry?

Posted by: Swiftee at January 10, 2006 08:58 PM

Believe me, PB, you insult very regularly, whether through your sheer pomposity or your utter lack of humor, or both.

The insult to us lies in your own perception of your intellectual and moral superiority to all who aren't PB.

Practically every time you click "Post," chances are good you're insulting.

Posted by: Ryan at January 10, 2006 09:17 PM

PB...

For.
Eff's.
Sake.

Swiftee,
That was an insult to Larry the Cable Guy... at least he's funny (and can spell better than PB). ;)

Posted by: badda-blogger at January 10, 2006 09:52 PM

Hey Mitch - were the Powerline guys out of the closet at the time of the Rather memo? I tend to think they were still going by Hindrocket, Deacon and (I forgot Scott Johnson's moniker). I don't think they switched over until after they were celebs.

Of course, it wasn't hard to figure out who they were. But that's different from being out in the open right up front, which is what Blow-wah seems to want.

Yeah, it's a minor point. As RBMN pointed out, you have hundreds and hundreds of fact-checkers.

Oh, one more thing: can you impose a rule that PB and Eva must put their initials at the top of every post, so I can scroll past them without having to read any? Thanks, that'd be helpful.
.
.

Posted by: nathan bissonette at January 11, 2006 07:50 AM

Trunk, Rocketman, and Deacon were nicknames. The powerline guys linked to their photographs and Claremont Institute bios from day one.

Posted by: Peter at January 11, 2006 08:55 AM

Yep. All the Powerguys' real names were on the site from the word go.

And *alone* among blogs *anywhere*, they put their *daytime work phone numbers* on the blog. On the one hand, it shows that they are MORE accountable than any member of the mainstream media; quick, what's Mary Mapes' office number? On the other hand, it left 'em open to a lot of gratuitous abuse when the Kossacks struck.

Posted by: mitch at January 11, 2006 09:32 AM

Peeb,

Tell us - I mean, before you write anything else - exactly what form of accountability you'd favor, to which blogs aren't already subject?

It's a simple question; I'm asking for a straight answer.

Posted by: mitch at January 11, 2006 11:30 AM

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.

Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:33 AM