This Kos affair has gone too far, and once again we are hip deep in the stupids. Joe Trippi gives an interview, Jim Geraghty responds, and then somehow we are supposed to believe Kos is engaging in wrongdoing for not disclosing he used to work for Dean now that he endorses Dean for chairman. Geraghty’s comments:
I still think this incident leaves some egg on the face of one of the most prominent and popular lefty bloggers. Kos can state that anyone who Googles his connection to the Dean campaign would find plenty of news stories about it. Indeed
Scott Harris
Last year I read a lot of political blogs, right, left, libertarian, indifferent, wailing wingnut of every stripe. I think bias is innate, and not a really bad thing among the civil, and anyway… eventually some commonly argeed upon “facts” will fall out.
In all of that blizzard of pixelated wordsmithing, I do remember the DailyKos disclaimer. And I factored accordingly.
Mitchell Morris
I too don’t see what the big deal is. Now that we know he’s a paid shill for Dean, everything can go directly into the “unbelievable crap said by flacks in their press releases” department. At the point he took Dean’s nickel, Kos resigned from the “political analyst” position and hired on as “mouthpiece.” Unfortunately, perhaps, you can’t migrate back the other way since your audience will always be asking (even if not out loud) “who’s paying you to say *THAT*?”
jpe
Now that we know he’s a paid shill for Dean, everything can go directly into the “unbelievable crap said by flacks in their press releases” department.
Implicit in this is the notion that you would’ve given authority to Kos’s comments absent the Dean connection, which is hard to believe given your tone.
At any rate, I’ll continue to evaluate his posts the same way I do for anyone else: are the arguments good? compelling?
praktike
This little series of yours is great fun.
RW
Everyone on the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET knows he worked for Dean.
Apparently, uber-blogger Hugh Hewitt didn’t. Perhaps people who didn’t get on the blogging board until later in the year or who knew of kos well after his semi-disclosure hadn’t a clue. After his “screw ’em” comment, a lot of people on the right stopped discussing any of his substantive posts and someone who started reading blogs in….say, August, may not have ever known about his affiliation.
I’m not arguing, just noting that not everyone knew, based on Hewitt’s comments, and he seems to be an honest fellow.
J3
I don’t understand what the big deal is here. kos never claimed to be an impartial commentator.
Kimmitt
who knew of kos well after his semi-disclosure hadn’t a clue.
Semi-disclosure? Kos had a goddamn section of his front page devoted to it, and he only talked about it every twentieth post or so. With all due respect, you may wish to have your eyes examined.
If you aren’t assuming that a given political activist may or may not have worked for a fairly large suite of candidates or causes in the past, you’re being a dweeb.
Oliver
Uber blogger Hugh Hewitt? Jesus Christ, the hack just discovered blogging and if he didn’t have a radio show nobody would even pay attention to the twit.
Chuckg
“Everyone on the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET knows he worked for Dean. Does he have to say this every thirty seconds. IF he does, he is going to sound like Kerry discussing Vietnam.”
Isn’t there a reason that political ads must say, /every time they are shown/, exactly who is paying for them?
“I’m George Bush, and I approve this message.”
“Paid for by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”
“Paid for by the John Kerry for President campaign.”
etc, etc, etc.
So yes, Kos really should have disclosed his official campaign affiliation at regular intervals and/or on the front of his webpage, not just mention once or twice in 2003 and then assume ‘everybody knew about it’. The same way that Blogs for Bush disclosed *their* affiliations, or lack thereof, on their home page.
RW
Semi-disclosure? Kos had a goddamn section of his front page devoted to it, and he only talked about it every twentieth post or so. With all due respect, you may wish to have your eyes examined.
Sorry, “technical” working relationship doesn’t equal posting for payola.
If you aren’t assuming that a given political activist may or may not have worked for a fairly large suite of candidates or causes in the past, you’re being a dweeb.
So, today’s excuses are ASSUMING? Look, I wasn’t coming down on Kos, only saying that not everyone knew of the disclosure. I did. Apparently, Hewitt didn’t.
Not everything is a partisan bitch fight, you know (even if the low fruit trolls are now on board).
Oliver
It is a partisan bitch fight once the Rickwad comes to town.
Kimmitt
Sorry, “technical” working relationship doesn’t equal posting for payola.
Ooh, sorry, didn’t realize you were a crank. Backing off now. Go back to Redstate.
RW
Oliver, please set up your web presence for your losing job with someone else.
Kimmitt, all I was trying to do (third try) was note that not everyone knew of the disclosure and that he certainly didn’t disclose what Zephys said they paid him for. That was all.
Go back to Redstate.
Never posted there. Apparently, the rest of the universe feels the same way about your site. Aren’t personal insults easy?
Maybe you’re ASSuming too much about yourself, Kimmitt. Take a deep breath.
Bugz
Like a lot of people, I scan blogs for independent analysis. I don’t read KOS often, certainly not often enough to have noticed his disclaimer.
So, if I happen to bounce over to his site to get some insight on the relative merits of the dem candidates in the runup to the democratic convention, and KOS is gushing about Dean, how am I to know that he is just a paid flak, and not presenting an honest, independent opinion?
Kind of defeats the reason for going there in the first place, doesn’t it? If I wanted to know what Dean thinks about Dean, I’d go directly to his web site. I don’t need to hear Dean talk using KOS’s mouth, so to speak.
The disclosure should have been made prominant and continuous just so casual readers like myself will be aware of the bias present.
Marko
John, I appreciate the reasonable tone – there are lots of reasons to criticize KOS but this isn’t one. I followed blogs closely during the run-up to the election but had missed his disclaimer – once I saw it, I was satisfied.
Then again, maybe I haven’t followed the blogs as closely as I thought since I missed OW’s transformation from reasonable voice on the left to spittle flecking hack. That makes the case for “partisan money corrupts bloggers” better than the KOS affair, no?
Kimmitt
he certainly didn’t disclose what Zephys said they paid him for.
Well, since Zephyr said that the plan was to influence his opinion by hiring him — a statement which has been thoroughly repudiated by multiple other sources in the Dean campaign — then he can hardly be responsible for failing to disclose that there was a putative secret plan to influence his opinion.
Which you would know, if you weren’t too busy lobbing bombs to take five minutes to actually read Zephyr’s post in the first place.
Ricky
Kimmitt, I didn’t come down on Kos. I said quasi because *I* used to have the guy on my blogroll back then and I’d read his site and I saw the disclosure and *I* sent him a friendly e-mail asking an html question because his disclosure said “technical”, which I thought to mean “technical”. So, if someone like me thought it was something akin to helping out with the web site(s), I can see why others who didn’t read the guy back then would actually be offput. That’s it.
That you come here and call me a “crank” (a very brave gesture, I must say) and then say that I’m lobbing bombs when I haven’t said anything averse speaks volumes about how you’re coming at this discussion, though.
Nice try, though.
Kimmitt
You accused Kos of supporting Dean in exchange for money — in short, of selling his opinion and credibility. That’s something of an averse statement, and it’s not one which is even vaguely backed by the evidence.
RW
No, I didn’t. I think that Kos wholeheartedly supported Dean and saw that he was working for him. I stated that a “technical” working relationship doesn’t equal posting for payola”, which meant that Dean’s staff was hoping that Kos would be more inclined to give favorable coverage on his site if he was on the payroll as opposed to someone else’s payroll (source: Dean’s staff). And, there *is* a difference.
That he was shady in what he did leaves him open to “quasi” notation. If you disagree, fine. I really don’t care as I’m not looking to garner your approval, only trying (apparently, in vain) to get you to understand the elementary: that some people didn’t know that Kos was working for Dean and even some who did weren’t aware that he was looked upon for positive blogging coverage over the other candidates (again, source: Dean’s staff). If you don’t “get it”, fine. If you think it’s best to recite what you read on fringe blogs and assume that it’s the gospel, fine.
Life will go on. Have a nice day/life.
Kimmitt
Again, Kos cannot disclose what he doesn’t know, and what appears not to even have been true. Zephyr’s account was explicitly contradicted by Trippi, Gross, and others involved in the campaign, and even if it were true, the entire point is that Kos was supposed to be unaware of being manipulated!
Yes, life will go on, but you’re still engaging in a smear campaign, trying to make Kos look like Armstrong. And it’s working, but don’t pretend that it’s anything other than defaming someone in order to score poltical points.
RW
No, I’m not. Armstrong was explicity wrong (as was the ed dept) while Kos disclosed, he just didn’t disclose everything.
I said “quasi” because the guy wouldn’t go into detail on what he actually did for Trippi and you think that’s “defaming”?
Dude, if I want to score points Kos, I need only state “screw ’em” (which gets him props from his wingnut followers). Lastly, you would be better served putting forth your argument instead of attempting to state the stance of the opposing interlocuter. I know what I state and what I mean better than you.
Perhaps there’s a reason you needed to do that…..
Kimmitt
Sorry, “technical” working relationship doesn’t equal posting for payola.
You clearly stated that you believed that Kos was posting about Dean in exchange for money.
I’m not trying to state what your stance is — I’m trying to hold you to what you say your stance is. If you misspoke, great.
RW
Let me try this again, using my words once again:
“Kimmitt, all I was trying to do (third try) was note that not everyone knew of the disclosure and that he certainly didn’t disclose what Zephys said they paid him for. That was all.”
Now, I mistyped Zephyr’s name, but I didn’t misspeak. If I were charging outright payola, I wouldn’t have stated “quasi” disclosure but would’ve said so outright. Move on.
Kimmitt
Sir, I am quoting you when I post the bit on “posting for payola.”
Again, if you misspoke, fine. But this section:
he certainly didn’t disclose what Zephys said they paid him for.
Is absurd! How can Kos disclose that Zephyr putatively had a secret plan to influence his discourse by hiring him to do technical work?
RW
And I am correctly summarizing Zehphyr’s comments when saying “posting for payola”.
Ah, so the most valid excuse is that Kos is an idiotic dupe.
Duly noted.
Kimmitt
Cranktacular.
RW
That’s what all the electoral losers say.
Well, that and “screw ’em”.