that Lowell, as the primary embed blogger, was allowed to choose one or two alternate bloggers and he picked Ben. Is this correct?

I'm not going to get into the details, but as things stood earlier RK was selected as the state blog to be embedded with our delegation and four individuals, Lowell, myself, Ben, and James Martin, were to be participating in the RK coverage.

Given the events that occurred in Hampton, and posts such as this, it is unknown what sort of coverage we will be doing or who that "we" might be.

And RK took the lead on it, because they have more people who need to attend than NLS (which has become a one person shop this year with NGB in law school).

The idea was since we have one state credential, and some other credentials, that we will take turns sitting with Virginia Delegates, sitting with the media and sitting in the blogger lounge.  That way, everyone will get coverage from everywhere.

The discussion at the DPVA Steering Committee centered on concerns by a number of national convention delegates, elected officials, party officials, and even some bloggers that it is inappropriate to embed bloggers from RK and NLS with the Virginia delegation to the Democratic National Convention.

Several steering committee members who will serve as delegates reinforced the argument I raised, which was to give RK and Ben credentials to cover the convention, but don't let them sit with the Virginia delegation. It was DNC National Committeeman Lionel Spruill, who told the Steering Committee he didn't want any bloggers embedded with the Virginia delegation and there were others who agreed with him.

There was no resolution offered by me before the Steering Committee. I started my short statement by noting that as a former journalist, I hold freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly to be sacred.  I also stated that RK and Ben Tribbett had a right to cover the Democratic National Convention and in no way did we want to take away their credentials.

What we do believe is that it is wrong to embed them with the Virginia delegation.  The arguments why Ben should not be embedded were made clear in this diary by Flipper, who highlighted some of his sexist rantings and his slash and burn tactics against Democrats.  (Note that he continues to attack Connolly even though he is now the Democratic nominee, and he has attacked many General Assembly members when they were not involved in elections.  Remember when he said Del. Vivian Watts didn't support women and his repeated attacks on Del. Dave Marsden and Senator George Barker?.  What about his proclivity for citing the hottest, the best and worst dressed women at an event, or Ben's obsession with women's breasts?)

As for RK, Lowell has often linked RK articles to outrageous Tribbett diaries, including the 60-part, over-the-top Gerry Sucks series (that the Byrne campaign told me they didn't condone).  Lowell also published and perpetuated in the final days of the 11th CD primary campaign the absolute lie fabricated by Ben that Tom Davis was going to endorse Connolly.

I agree that these two blogs have a right to publish and a right to cover the convention, but they have no right to be embedded with the Virginia delegation, particularly since neither the DPVA or the governor's office approved it.

A number of elected officials and party officials have jumped on the bandwagon on this cause and for good reason.

Lowell enables Ben and his outrageous antics and lies and he made it clear on this blog that Ben was going to Denver with him.  Furthermore, are we going to see Lowell cover the Obama delegates, but ignore or ridicule the Clinton delegates?  Will politicians that Lowell dislikes (like Connolly and apparently Kaine) get no coverage while Lowell's chosen ones get massive coverage?

There are many issues here and good reasons to keep Lowell and Ben from sitting with the our national delegates.  At the same time, NO ONE is trying to keep them from covering the convention like the rest of the press or other bloggers.

That you want to punish Lowell and Ben because of the content of their blogs, so I'm not quite sure how, as a journalist, you can square your current position with  your professed love of freedom of the press.

My understanding is that the DNC organized this whole thing, and as someone who prefers to get his news from blogs rather than an inept mainstream media, the idea of having bloggers embedded with the delegates is really appealing.

This isn't a defense of Lowell or Ben per se. I don't know either personally, I've had my arguments with Lowell here at RK, and to be honest, NLS doesn't particularly appeal to me for a variety of reasons. But that is beside the point. Can you think of two other Democratic blogs more important in the state of Virginia? If so, let the DNC know, for there has been a serious error made.

what about James Martin and me as the rest of RK's group that may be (or is that might have been?) embedded?  

While I was certainly supporting Leslie and against Gerry, I haven't heard such strong allegations against my efforts.  Yes, I do believe I linked to Ben's "Gerry Sucks" series once and I was generally not favorable toward Gerry.  While the "series" might not have been the most upstanding of example of blogging, certainly linking by either myself or Lowell is not a major sin.  

And it's a very big (and incorrect) stretch to say that Lowell is enabling Ben - or any other blogger for that matter.  Most bloggers, although they'll work together sometimes, are very independent minded so it's silly to attribute one blogger's behavior to another.  

Back to my point...

James, as far as I know, never linked to the NLS series in question.  And probably not too many other posts on NLS.  In fact, James is a big Connolly supporter and has a number of pro-Connolly posts.  Before and after the primary.

Every step along the way, the logic you present gets weaker and the odds that this is merely some payback against Ben increase.  And for good measure Lowell has been swept up in the revenge.  And then RK in general.  Perhaps all the pro-Byrne blogs (which the vast majority were) should be included by association?

Eric,

There are no mainstream media "embedded" with their delegations by the DNC.  What makes bloggers any different (except that they are less objective, they sometimes level libelous attacks, and, unlike reporters, they are often paid to support a candidate and attack their opponent)?

This is not just about Lowell and Ben (who, as Ben noted in a posting above, applied together to the DNC).  It is about the two brands, RK and NLS.

We are not trying to stop you from going to the convention and we will fight, if necessary, to make sure you get credentials.  We just don't want you sitting with the delegation and there is at least one blogger, who is a delegate, who feels the same way.

Besides the sexual antics by Ben and the attack dog language used against both RK and NLS's enemies list, there is also the concern about eavesdropping.  Case in point: Following the 11th CD debate on my TV program, you were in the studio (in the role of a cameraman or something), you overheard a private conversation between two of the candidates, and then you reported it on RK (inaccurately, in my opinion).

Don't you understand that the delegates don't want to be looking over their shoulders every minute to see if you are listening to their private conversations, fearful that they will end up on your blog?

This is not about Connolly and Byrne, this is about RK's body of hits (I mean body of work) against so many good Democrats who fought hard to get elected or fought for years (before you, RK, and NLS were even on the scene) to help turn Fairfax County and NoVA blue.

As for James Martin, how many pro-Connolly front page diaries did he write that were eliminated by Lowell or one of you before hardly anyone had a chance to read them. I saw at least one in the middle of the night that was gone by morning and I believe there were more. (I know the "community" can vote to eliminate comments.  I didn't know that the RK powers-that-be could eliminate an entire front page diary by another front pager.)

I will say it one more time to RK and NLS: WE WANT YOU TO BE CREDENTIALED, WE JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO BE EMBEDDED with the Virginia delegation on the floor where you have the potential to embarrass and hurt good Democrats you may not agree with, insult good Democrats you may not like for whatever reason, or eviscerate good Democratic candidates who refuse to pay you to write favorable stuff about them.

Are you saying that RK and NLS have demanded money from candidates and if they refused to pay up then went negative on them on their blogs?

I mean, if that's true, it would be pretty scummy.

Do you have a specific candidate to whom this happened?  

scummy here is that George is completely making that up.  He won't be naming any names because there are no names.  

Another example of just how dirty George is willing to play.  He knows such phony hints will provoke question and doubt - and your reaction is exactly what he was looking for. That tells you all you really need to know about him.

Look, I got no dog in the fight that happened in 2006 or whenever the events that caused all this bad blood occurred.

As for writing negative stuff about Democratic candidates, that seems to me to be exactly the point. RK is a Progressive Blog, not a Democratic one. The reality is Democrats and Progressives will overlap in many cases, but not all. The very credibility of a blog derives from the fact that it is not a tool of the party, but independent.

I have no problem with this conflict. In fact, further conflict between party organizations, which depend upon limited and orderly participation at the organizational level according to an established set of rules, and blogs, which organize folks at a broader level and operate under evolving and flexible conventions determined on an ongoing basis by its own participants, is inevitable.

But my purpose here is not to write a treatise.

I think if one is going to throw out an allegation like this, they ought to be ready to back it up, or have the decency to admit that their zeal got out in front of their evidence and take it back as publicly as they hurled it.

In a case like this, silence from 11CD would be telling.

 

He's got nothing to back up his lie but I guarantee he won't apologize for intentionally misleading readers in an attempt to further manipulate them to be against us.

until your true intent and true colors started coming out.  

How can you complain about "RK's body of hits (I mean body of work" when that in itself is a "hit"?  You're trying to present your position as factual when you play just as dirty with the word games.  And I won't bother with de-constructing all your subtle attacks in this one post.  Everyone can see for themselves.  Kettle - Black.

If this was about RK's "body of hits", then you and all those in favor of kicking us out seem to have missed the vast majority of "hits" in favor of many Democrats (local, state, and federal), in favor of every issue that Democrats support, and against our common enemy and what they support.   But I guess only a small percentage of our total effort, focused against people who you support, is the only factor that matters.  

And again, your last paragraph gives it all away.  This is a payback.  It's revenge.  

First off, no one needs to be embedded to embarrass, hurt, insult, or eviscerate "good" Democrats, bad Democrats, or anyone else for that matter.  That can be done from anywhere.  You're projecting falsehoods (which don't even make sense) to generate fear among the delegates.  How Rovian of you.  It's simply not going to happen on RK - whether we're home, at the convention, or embedded with the delegation.

As for the "candidates who refuse to pay [us] to write favorable reviews", would you care to name one?  I didn't think so - because there isn't one.  Yes, a few of us do paid work for good Democratic candidates.  No, we don't ever shake down any candidate in return for "favorable stuff".  You being a former journalist, I would have thought you'd hold yourself to a higher standard than such complete fabrications in order to support your argument.  Isn't that what you're attacking RK and NLS for?

Again... Kettle - Black.

I will agree with my critics in this diary that I was wrong to use the "candidates who refuse to pay" language in my comment above.  It was a poor choice of words and I apologize for insinuating that RK shakes down candidates. (There Eric, you were wrong in your "guarantee" that I would not apologize.)

My intent was to point out that those candidates who do pay RK get favorable reviews and their opponents often get attacked.

The fact remains that in the world of news, journalists who are found to have received money from politicians or other interest groups are fired immediately.  It is an absolute ethical no-no for the media, regardless of whether they "disclose" the money.

A quick check of FEC records shows that Lowell Feld has receive $11,500 from Judy Feder's campaign since September 2007 and he received $500 from the Leslie Byrne campaign in January 2008.  These payments are not for ads, they are for netroots, web, and administrative "consulting" fees.

No one can question that RK gave very favorable coverage to these two candidates and far less (and often nasty) coverage to their primary opponents.

I believe that there are other "consulting fees" paid by politicians to RK and other bloggers that can be found in both the FEC and Virginia state election disbursement reports.

I hope this clarifies my previous comment that some of you jumped on.  

I also hope that Eric will address the ethics of eavesdropping on congressional candidates' private conversation after the 11th CD TV debate and that someone will address the ethics of RK and NLS reporting a few days before the 11th CD primary the absolute lie that Tom Davis was endorsing Gerry Connolly when everyone knew Davis had endorsed Fimian.  (Talk about "Rovian" actions!)

Finally, it is perplexing why RK and NLS feel so strongly that they must be embedded with the Virginia delegation when Eric made it clear that "no one needs to be embedded to embarrass, hurt, insult, or eviscerate "good" Democrats, bad Democrats, or anyone else for that matter.  That can be done from anywhere."

RK is getting convention credentials and I support that.  Why do delegates have to have the RK bloggers and Ben Tribbett sitting in their midst.

These delegates were elected to nominate our Democratic candidate for president and they don't deserve to have RK and NLS breathing down their necks and privy to their offhand remarks and nuances?

I appreciate the clarification.

I would point out that blogs are not governed by the same ethical rules as mainstream media, and everyone knows that. Blogs are not "objective" in the sense of not having a point of view, and everyone knows that as well. And bloggers frequently act as consultants. Everyone knows that, too.

IMHO, disclosure is sufficient for a blog. If Lowell wants to take $$ from Judy Feder or Jon Bowerbank, as long as he discloses it, I'm not quite sure I see the ethical dilemma. Frankly, the fact that he is on the payroll is a fair fact to consider when evaluating whether one agrees with him or not.

In this way, in fact, I would argue that blogs are way more honest than traditional journalists, who harbor all sorts of biases that they hide behind behind an often inane and malleable set of ethical standards, and I say that having spent 18 years in the journalism business as a reporter, editor, product manager and executive.

Whether bloggers or media of any kind should be embedded in the delegation is another matter. I think it is a great idea for the sake of transparency and to allow those of us back here to get a perspective on the convention we otherwise might not get, but I can understand why some delegates might not be comfortable with the arrangement.  

Well, first off, I too can admit when I was wrong - you did apologize despite my guarantee.  A welcome surprise and one which I readily admit being wrong.

As for the paid work issue, you're coming at it backwards which, of course, makes us look suspicious.  It's not that we're being hired by someone and then we find allegiance, it's that we agree to work for people we like and believe in.  Had Gerry approached us with an employment offer we would have turned it down.  We would not have taken Gerry's money and gone after Leslie as your assertion implies.  

In fact, we had many kind words and praise for Doug Denneny during the recent 11th primary (although there was a little ugly behavior from some of his staff).  Doug was running against Leslie and, by your logic, we should have attacked him as well.

So yes, if you spin it that we were paid first and then took sides you'd have a point.  But that's simply not the truth.  Again.

Ethics of eavesdropping.  You couldn't leave well enough alone, could you?  I intentionally skipped that one before to focus on other issues - I literal gave you that point for free.  But since you must fuss about it, I'd be happy to address it.

1. That wasn't a private conversation.  The fact that there were only a few people around had nothing to do with it and did not make it private.  Neither party attempted to hide the conversation, move it to the side, whisper, or take any other action which would imply no one else should be listening.  It was held in a public place with all parties well aware a number of other people were present.

2. Despite your claim, I presented that conversation fairly from what I heard.  Gerry has a reputation for flying off the handle, belittling people, even cursing at them.  I was careful to point out that he did NOT do any of those things.  I did use the word "condescending" to describe Gerry's response because that is how it sounded to me.  But otherwise, I was completely fair and accurate.

3. As you well know, there is a little more to the story and I did not present that other part.  It was completely inappropriate to report and I used proper discretion in not saying anything.  The rest was an animated conversation between two public figures and was certainly news worthy.

4. And lastly, you'll note the time lag.  The incident happened on Sunday evening and was not reported until late Tuesday morning.  Why?  Because I was debating about posting, and leaning against for the very reasons you attack me.  In fact, I originally wasn't going to say anything at all.  But it all came down to one simple question that I couldn't shake - what would you, or Gerry, or Linda have done had it supported your side?  The only answer is that it would have surfaced.  Oh, you probably would have leaked the story in a different manner (perhaps one so your name wasn't directly associated), but it would have made the rounds for sure.  Hell, if your group was willing to falsely attack Charlie the way you did, certainly a little dust up between candidates would be fair game.  

So, I reported a news worthy dust up between two public figures in a public environment.  That is far from the fear of spying and invasion of privacy by RK you're trying to instill in the delegates.

And that's another nice twist of my words there at the end.  My point, and I know you got it, was that excluding a blogger from a certain location has no bearing on what that blogger can write about someone else.  But somehow when I read your version it sounds like we're planning on attacking the Virginia delegation.  Which, for the record, we're not planning on doing.  Those fear tactics again.  

of credentialed bloggers and try to convince me that Raising Kaine doesn't deserve to be there!  http://www.demconvention.com/c...

"The credentialed blogs represent a large and diverse collection of voices and perspectives."  In the 11th district primary, that voice was heavy for Leslie Byrne.  So what?!?  That's anybody's perogative.  Look at that list of blogs and see a number of others that also got extremely excited for their candidate.  That's the lefty blogosphere for you!  Something the DNC at least understands and appreciates.

I will be very ashamed of any of the powers that be if in their ignorance work to prevent Lowell from being credentialed at this event. They will have displayed themselves to be old farts from the 19th century.  

Eileen,

Never before has any media (mainstream or "lefty") been embedded with a state delegation at the national convention without their approval.

Why is it different this time, particularly when some of the delegates and others are uncomfortable with NLS and RK?

You are lowering the quality of debate on this topic by name-calling and trying to create a Connolly-Byrne us-versus-them argument.

Again, no one is saying they should not get credentials and go to Denver.  But too many people in the Virginia delegation don't want to sit next to them on the floor, that's all.

I don't know exactly what it was that Burke supported at the DPVA convention, so my post here is outside of the context of that (other than to say that I don't think blogger coverage should depend on Spruill's desires).

That said, I'd be hard pressed to come up with two poorer picks than NLS and RK's management to provide VA focused coverage of the DNC.  While NLS far outstrips RK in the Most Irresponsible and Ridiculous Things Posted competition, I also believe (as previously expressed here) that RK has done substantial damage to Democrats in Virginia with its childish and over-the-top approach to primaries (and politics in general).  Frankly, it's embarrassing that RK is seen as the top Dem blog in VA.  On a personal scale, it's easy enough for me to walk away and decline to participate in this community.  But for those getting more excited about politics in VA this year, it bothers me - as a Democrat who believes that we'll be better off with a stronger party - that RK may well be the sum total of their online experience with it.

So it's with that take on RK that I'd love to see a more mature and objective blog cover the VA delegation at the DNC.  I don't know who applied (and I wouldn't drag their names into it, if I did), but there are at least a half dozen other VA writers that could do a much better job than  the one I think we can reasonably expect out of some RK + NLS team.