++ relapsed catholic ++ religion politics culture blog

*** Scroll down for 9:40 AM EST update ***

Remember that CP/CTV story?

"But in recent weeks, the [blogging tories] sites have run the same media talking points as those issued by senior officials in government.

"And they have mounted fierce public-relations campaigns against government programs that later wound up being axed or downsized, including the Court Challenges Program -- a fund that paid for legal challenges that won new rights for women, minorities, the disabled, and gays and lesbians since the 1970s."

Lots of us made fun of that story. One reader complained to CP. Here was the reply he received from Alexander Panetta (email format not cleaned up:

Thanks for writing. I wanted to address some of your objections to our article -- namely, your accusation that we glossed over relevant details without relevant background, and your suggestion of bias.

Let's begin with some of the details we hinted at but didn't include in the article, which was intended to be a news brief:

For instance, we've seen some of the blogs react with scorn to our suggestion that Blogging Tories sites share talking points with the PMO. (To paraphrase a main counter-argument: Well OF COURSE we do, we share many of their beliefs.)

Shared political opinion can only account for so much, though. It does not explain in any way how, for instance, Blogging Tories sites (including stephentaylor.ca) managed to pinpoint and post, within hours, identical paragraphs from cached and revised portions of Garth Turner's rather exhaustive writings which the Prime Minister's office was
circulating to reporters to justify his expulsion from caucus. Don't get me wrong -- many of us enjoy Stephen's blog, which is well respected for the thoroughness of its legwork and the fairness to its subjects. But unless a reporter forwarded him those snippets after getting them from the PMO,
and barring the overwhelming mathematical improbability that Stephen happened to zero in on the same exact paragraphs from Garth's sea of ramblings that the PMO did (including those that have been yanked from his site),
it would seem pretty likely that the blogs and the government have
collaborated on messaging.

Then take Status of Women Canada, and the Court Challenges
Program -- which were suddenly subjected to the full-on blogburst
treatment shortly before they were slashed. Suffice it to say, either Blogging Tories have monumental influence on government policy, or some
are taking their cues from the Centre. Let's put it this way: The
''unseen hand" theory sounds absurd. And simple coincidence (the idea that among thousands of government programs, the Blogging Tories magically zeroed in on the two most controversial ones about to be cut) seems
mathematically implausible. Co-operation with the government, however, seems like a far more plausible explanation.

The same thing can be said of the blog reaction to the cuts,
when several websites were stocked with lengthy and similar talking points moments after the cuts were announced -- which either suggests plenty of folks
have really, really fast fingers, a bit of free time during the day, or the uncanny ability to share quasi-identical thoughts, or they have advance knowledge of what the government is working on.

Which is all fine and dandy.

Political parties should -- in fact, they must -- take advantage of new technologies to spread their message and engage the citizenry. Journalists, like many other citizens interested in our
political process, love blogs, follow them closely, and many could
scarcely imagine a day going by without indulging their growing
addiction to scanning the web for their favourite online pundits.

That being said, political parties can't have it both ways.
They can't expect to use blogs to spread a message, then get all
flustered when someone starts reporting the partisan messages that are posted on the messaging vehicles they work with.

Case in point, last Friday. Before shutting down for the evening, someone in our office opened up www.bloggingtories.ca and was
amazed that four or five consecutive posts on Belinda Stronach carried the same message: She's worse than a dog.

A number of Tory bloggers have shared different perspectives
over the last week, but all we could find at www.bloggingtories.ca
around 5 o'clock Friday were things to the effect that Peter MacKay should apologize to dogs.

When the government remains mum on a controversial news
story, as it was last Friday, and the Tory blogging community appears to be heading en masse toward a common message -- the same Tory blogging community that foreshadowed program cuts and posted identical messages
to those being distributed by senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office -- we have absolutely no reason to apologize for considering it news. In this case, we produced a news brief.

Oh, and that suggestion of a Conservative bias? Anyone who
suggests the Liberals don't get the same treatment might be advised to Google ''Mike Klander," ''Olivia Chow," and ''dog."

Very similar controversy -- only this one involved an unknown political operative and a former Toronto municipal councillor,
not the minister of foreign affairs and a former minister of the Crown.

And that one got extensive coverage, too, only at a more politically damaging time to the Liberals: right in the middle of an election campaign.

Write back anytime.

Cheers
Alex

I replied to Alexander:

Dear Alexander,

I was a participant in both blogbursts you mention, against SoW and CCP. I was approached to take part in the SoW blogburst by BigBlueWave, a pro-life blog.

The second blogburst was my idea. Had you contacted me before making your accusations I could have cleared that part up.

I am a member of the Conservative Party, in the sense that I sent them a check for 20 bucks or whatever it was before the last election. But I have no contact whatsoever with elected officials, their staff, etc. I was not directed to take part in or begin a blogburst by any such person.

You talk about the Blogging Tories as if it were some old fashioned organization with members and leaders and Roberts Rules of Order. My blog is picked up by the BT aggregator, because a few years ago someone at Blogging Tories emailed me and asked if he could add my blog to their blogroll. That is all. I have never met Stephen or that other guy (I don't even remember his name). It is an impersonal, automatic blogpost aggregator.

You are attributing human intelligence to a handful of HTML code.

I was inspired to start the CCP blogburst because I'd seen a CUPE sponsored website campaigning to restore the CCP, and decided to do something about it. The first anti-SOW blogburst had been an unimaginable success (at least in our minds -- can I prove it really was responsible for that cut in funding to SoW? Of course not. It probably played a role in the sense that it gave the government the idea that many of us objected to the existence of SoW and had for some time)

So I wanted to try to follow up on that initial "success". Are you really so cynical that you doubt an ordinary person can convince other ordinary people to take part in a no cost, no overhead, minimal effort internet campaign, and maybe, just maybe, get results? The CCP had already been eliminated; my purpose was to send a message to those in charge that we supported their decision, and not to bow to CUPE pressure to reinstate it.

I resent (to put it mildly) your completely baseless suspicion that I am somehow being manipulated by the government of Canada. (I have no connection with the Manning Centre either.)

Next time, please produce hard evidence when accusing me or any other blogger of taking our marching orders from higher ups. I consider that a pretty serious smear on my independence and reputation.


***
Note what is to me the most important bit: he says we did the CCP blogburst before the program was slashed. That is the exact opposite of the truth. As I said in my response, and as anyone can see by looking at a calendar -- the CCP blogburst was inspired by my discovery of the SaveCourtChallenges.ca website, funded by CUPE. The demise of the program had already been announced, hence both the CUPE effort (to get it reinstated) and our own (to keep it dead). That's why so many of the CCP blogburst posts had a zombie theme (it was also a cute tie in to the month of October) which wouldn't have worked if the CCP weren't already "dead".

***
Alex responds this morning:

Hi Kathy,

I've often read and enjoyed your work, which is why I especially regretted receiving your note this morning.

If I'd known of the role you played in both blogbursts, I would have loved to chat before producing that brief.

Do you mind if I store your address, and contact you if I ever plan to write again about the Blogging Tories -- or, for that matter, about blogging in general?

I suspect that as blogs become an increasingly influential communicating device in our political system, they will draw more attention from the MSM. This represents an opportunity to both of us, as well as a challenge.

I'm not sure it's any good for anyone if we end up commenting on each other without actually understanding each other. In this case, I imagine that it would only have informed my story and gotten your points across to a wider audience if I'd we'd actually spoken before I wrote. My offer to chat is open-ended, and I hope you'd also find time for me if I ever had a few questions for a story.

Also, please believe that I never intended to smear you, or any of your colleagues. As I suggested in my earlier email, many folks in my own profession are quickly becoming blog junkies, and I'm no different. I'm not into taking malicious potshots -- especially not against people whose work I appreciate -- and I can assure you that was certainly not the case here.

Oh, yeah, one last thing: please also believe that I never ascribed human intelligence to HTML code. I merely ascribed it to the human beings who express themselves through HTML.

Cheers
Alex


***
Additional updates: Stephen Taylor writes in to point out that Big Blue Wave (the site behind the initial SoW blogburst, isn't even a Blogging Tories member ("although she is welcome to join").

Kate responds here.