Campaigns Focus On Blogs

Washington Post: Campaigns Monitor And Use Political Blogs To Get Out, Control Their Message

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Howard Kurtz.

---

Last spring, two hours after he used his Des Moines Register blog to ridicule a suggestion by a Hillary Clinton aide that she skip the Iowa caucuses, David Yepsen's phone rang.

It was the former first lady.

"Senator, why are you calling me?" the veteran political reporter asked.

"I read your blog," said Clinton, who quoted from his posting while insisting that of course she wasn't going to skip Iowa.

The mushrooming number of political blogs on newspaper and magazine Web sites has altered the terrain of the 2008 election. Campaign officials have learned to feed the bottomless pit of these constantly updated compilations, leaking favorable tidbits -- a new poll result or television ad -- and quickly disputing negative items.

In short, journalists and political strategists find themselves sparring more and more over smaller and smaller items on shorter and shorter deadlines.

When he worked for John Kerry's 2004 campaign, says Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, "we were essentially at the mercy of the so-called Old Media. You had to struggle to get something into the paper. With the advent of these blogs, it's much easier to get your message out through accredited newspaper channels."

Danny Diaz, a Republican National Committee spokesman, agrees: "They provide another vehicle for operatives like myself to get out a message. They help further a story line."

The Washington Post ("The Trail"), New York Times ("The Caucus"), Chicago Tribune ("The Swamp"), Los Angeles Times ("Top of the Ticket"), Boston Globe ("The Primary Source"), Time ("Swampland") and the cable news networks, among others, have A-team writers contributing breaking news, analysis and lighter fare to their blogs. And these journalists write with more attitude online than in tradition-bound publications.

"The campaigns really care about blogs, and I hear from them a lot more often about smaller things, not just big-picture stories," says Tribune reporter Jill Zuckman. Campaign aides also pay attention to the blogs on Politico.com and from such magazines as National Review ("The Corner") and the New Republic ("The Plank" and "The Stump").

The high-velocity approach is not without pitfalls for journalists who now must divide their time between print work and blogging. The constant pressure to update blogs, thereby drawing more Web traffic, leaves less time for reporting and reflection. Churning out items throughout the day increases the chances of errors and puts a premium on bite-size chunks fed by a single source. On the plus side, reporters writing online can file updates with comments from rival campaigns and correct any mistakes in real time.

---

CBSNews.com's Campaign Blog: Horserace

---

Chris Cillizza, a washingtonpost.com reporter, says he constantly had to explain what he was doing when he launched his blog "The Fix" two years ago. Now, he says, campaign aides pitch stories to him every day.

"The bar is lower than getting something in a newspaper," Cillizza says. "On the Web you could do 25 items in one day."

While the blogs obviously appeal primarily to an audience of political junkies, they mesh well with the quick-hit culture of the Net. At washingtonpost.com, blogs on subjects ranging from politics to sports to celebrities account for nearly 10 percent of overall traffic, and the Trail and the Fix each attract more than 1 million page views per month.

In the pre-Internet age, campaign officials routinely slipped reporters negative information about opponents, sometimes over drinks at the local watering hole. But they had to wait at least until the next morning for it to be published. That process now unfolds around the clock.

[usaprophet]

I want to report a major fire, friends. CBS isn''t reporting it. Our Constitution is currently on fire. And it''s being burned in Congress. See H.R. 1955, a.k.a., Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I couldn''t believe it. Apparently, activists with Web sites are really begining to anger the elite insofar as they are publically holding officials accountable for their evil. The bill passed the house on Oct 23, in spite of Congressman, Ron Paul''s opposition. The right to free speech on the Internet is gone, my friends. Look it up for yourself, and weep for your country as I have that our rights have eroded this far. Here''s a short excerpt from the bill''s DEFINITIONS statement: "The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism." Here''s another excerpt from the bill''s FINDINGS statement: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." And guess who get''s to decide what is "terrorist-related propaganda" is? You got it! The Department of Homeland Insecurity, an agency that''s answerable ONLY to The President. If Ron Paul isn''t elected, our country is doomed!

[rowdytexan2]

If the legislation means money going to the people, he wields his golden veto pen. If it means money going to his war profiteer and oil cronies, he wields the golden signature pen...and there''''s not ONE THING we can do about it. Checkmate!

And then listen to him crow, the democrats haven''''t sent any legislation for him to sign, like it''''s their fault. They know he will VETO it, and send it back and make them re-write it to suit HIM, not us! So what''''s the point?

Our legislature should send a minimum number of bills across his desk to fund the US for the next 15 months. Don''''t send any important legislation to him. We don''''t want it written his way.

Lay low for the next 15 months and just drive the car we''''ve got. THEN VOTE THEIR THIEVING ARSES OUT and get to the business of shoring up our Constitution, taking care of our people, and dealing in an honorable manner with the rest of the world.

As for funding his &(^%)war...THE BUCK STOPS HERE...we''''ll give you enuff to bring our troops home, NOT ANOTHER DIME!

If there''s no legislation for him to threaten you with then he loses power.

STOP THE MADNESS of bickering over legislation with this administration! You can make a good name for yourself at another time, instead of a sniveling defeastest name.

I HOPE SOMEONE READS THIS!

[likeitis5050]

simonsez40 Keep in mind...she is campaigning and will do just anything to win a vote. Bush could care less. When Bush campaigned the big issue was BJs on the job and of course his campaign platform was "restore personal accountability and integrity to the White House"...so they all lie when they are trying to get what they want. Hillary will begin the back stabbing and rampage toward government funded programs, that everyone with a credible social security card will be obliged to pay for, exactly 2 weeks into office.

[simonsez40]

Well at least Hillary reads the paper and scans the media - something Bush admittedly NEVER DOES. But then again he has that let them Eat Cake Mentality.