Comments on bluegal’s Post at Crooks and Liars [LONG POST WARNING]

I’m glad I’m not shitting on another Cernig post, as I really did appreciate his bothering to reply to my previous criticism, however I do have a serious issue with another post on C&L I read today.  But first, I want to make sure people understand why C&L is a bit over represented in my blog critiques…

FIRST ALL THE CIVILITY AND SHIT:

(SKIP THIS PART IF YOU DON’T PLAN TO ATTACK MY MOTIVATIONS)

C&L is the only remaining purely-Liberal blog I visit daily.  There were a few others that I’ve frequented during the past three years however only C&L remains now, which I hope is considered as a compliment to the quality of posts and posters they have (at least relative to a few other major unnamed Liberal blogs).

Of course, as I believe I have made clear before, their blog is far from perfect.  I believe C&L (and most of the more popular political blogs) suffer from this apparent need to be a player for their party.  Perhaps its just zealous support for their party, but I do believe there exists a large component of wanting to help steer their party as well.  I do not blame them for the desire, as anyone who posts their thoughts online is seeking to influence (myself included), and that can be as much a noble pursuit as an ignoble one.

Sometimes this need to have a role at the table means creating, intentionally or unintentionally, a readership that could be considered a faction of that party’s base (this is probably a defining feature of a clearly Liberal/Conservative blog).  This can lead to some fairly one-sided posting, which is hard to avoid even with effort and fairly understandable (albeit lamentable).

Sometimes this need to be involved in their party manifests itself in becoming a hub for party activism (organizing large e-mail writing campaigns to demand an apology or explanation, for instance) and fundraising.  I only notice this on the larger political blogs and I can certainly understand wanting to support the party and candidates you believe in, but just as Bundlers — who collect small sums from many individuals that add up to amounts far greater than the $2,300 limit per election for any individual — can acquire substantial influence and perhaps obtain returned favours from a candidate or party, so can a blog.  Of course this is largely the point.  When a ‘journalist’ (I do want to hold political bloggers to the same criteria as journalists) has a candidate in their debt, they have a vested interest in that candidate’s success regardless of policy.  How can they report on the candidate or election fairly when they have a real investment in the candidate?  What separates the bloggers from the infamous “Bush Pioneers” and such, I’m not sure.  This is an area where I feel we have to vigilantly scrutinize so that our internet Bundlers don’t become like the IRL Bundlers (those in the business of a candidate’s campain).

The most serious issue I have is when a blogger decides to act as a surrogate for a campaign or candidate, doing their dirty work for them.  As opposed to offering commentary, analysis, or news, they opt to exercise perhaps a controversial or underhanded route of attack on an opponent as an unofficial voluntary arm of a campaign.  That is what I SUSPECT (I wish to make clear that I am NOT CERTAIN) bluegal is doing at this post at Crooks and Liars entitled “Sarah Palin and Issues of Pregnancy, Abortion, Abstinence, HIV“.

I do not have any issue with bluegal.  I cannot say I have noticed a particular style that stands out from her on C&L (the only poster I really recognize beyond the Late Nite Music Club entry posters are those from Nicole Belle as she tends to inject autobiographical content in most of her posts).  I believe bluegal has been posting at C&L for more than a year, and I don’t recall have many major issues with anything I’ve read from her in all that time (and I have read very nearly ever C&L post since August 2005).

NOW THE ACTUAL CRITIQUE:

bluegal (her post can be found here) starts on a fairly typical and superficially promising note:

“This blog deliberately did not cover the internet rumors that have absorbed so many this weekend. None of the children of any political candidate should be held under vicious and unfounded media scrutiny.”

All well and good.  Sounds a lot like what I just spent the last 600+ words doing, except without my characteristic abuse of internet real estate.

She, of course, as there are few places she could go after that opening disclaimer, proceeds to discuss Bristol Palin immediately.  She decides to summarize the situation at the center of the controversy immediately as well (which, I believe, she did not have to do.  If anyone doesn’t know already, then they really don’t NEED to know and would be better for it).  So the issue is now officially on the table.  Of course, if Sarah Palin is adding to the issue by blaming Liberal blogs for the controversy, than bluegal certainly has a legitimate basis to address it.  I believe the high ground would actually be to ignore the accusation from Sarah Palin as well.  As much as it may be unfair to Liberal blogs to be accused of it (if it is untrue.  I will not comment on that as I know nothing of it), it is still unfair for Bristol Palin to CONTINUE to be made a center of undue attention.  Even if the fault primarily lies with Sarah Palin for reinvigorating the controversy with her (perhaps legitimate, once again, I don’t know) accusation, why must bluegal put aside her supposed sympathy for Bristol to respond to Sarah Palin?  To me, it appears that bluegal decided defending herself, her blog, or Liberal blogs in general was more important than allowing a teenage girl who is in a, to say the least, trying circumstance to live her personal life outside of public scrutiny.

That was a choice I didn’t agree with (and perhaps hypocritically, as here I am posting indirectly about Bristol further… though I am trying not to describe her PERSONAL AND PRIVATE MATTERS).  However, in isolation, I can see why it was made.

If the post ended after the 2nd paragraph, my response certainly would not exist.  However… bluegal continues on and ties Bristol’s situation to Sarah Palin’s policies.  I am not commenting on Sarah Palin’s policies or beliefs (not in this post anyways), but just bluegal’s post.  bluegal appears to tie Sarah Palin and the Republican party’s policies about sex education (reproduction and STDs) to the controversy.  In a way, I believe she is implying (albeit with some care not to state it outright) that Sarah Palin and her party’s policies are to blame for Bristol’s circumstance.

I would summarize her post up to this point thusly:  “C&L does not want to discuss Bristol Palin as it is an inappropriate topic.  However, Sarah Palin says we started it and she is a liar.  Btw, did you know Sarah Palin’s policies lead to the exact situation that Bristol found herself in?”

And in case there was any uncertainty, bluegal repeats that final point and the implications of her opening disclaimer, once again, with delicacy:

“Is it a surprise to anyone that Sarah Palin is an advocate of abstinence-only programs, and opposed sex education in Alaska’s schools?

The New Republic reports that earlier this year Palin “used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.”

Again, this is not about Sarah Palin’s daughter. Although it would be if she were homeless, Governor.” [emphasis in original]

I cannot cite a particular statement that unequivocally holds Bristol “under vicious and unfounded media scrutiny”, however I believe that is only due to tactful writing.  I believe the spirit of the post is entirely to tie Bristol’s circumstance directly to the legitimate policies held by Sarah Palin, thereby making Bristol fair game.

And to those, and I’m sure there are many, who disagree with my interpretation of bluegal’s post, please understand I don’t do this to start a fight or because I’m secretly attracted to Sarah Palin or something (I am secretly attracted to Tina Fey, so it would definitely be a fair accusation).  Before you send me your best insults, please tell me:  What did Sarah Palin’s accusation have to do with her policies about sex education EXCEPT Bristol Palin?  And is making Bristol Policy a posterCHILD for the results of her mother’s policies anything but injecting Bristol Palin’s circumstance into the campaign?

I hope even those who disagree with me (and managed to invest the 30 minutes necessary to read this longass post) at least understand why I interpretted the post the way I did while not being crazy.

And who else thinks Bristol Palin is off limits?  As linked to and commented on in a previous post of mine, found originally at Polizeros:

“I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.”

-Barack Obama

… and the cow goes moo