Candidates may regret their rush to world of blogs
Whether or not the staid world of national politics is ready for these undisciplined rants and diatribes remains to be seen. But if there were doubts about the perils of relying too much on these newest of media darlings during the coming campaign, there is already ample evidence to change one's thinking. When it comes to bloggers, what the candidate buys he may not be able to live with, given a general insensitivity to political correctness, accuracy and decent language.
Take the recent case of the potty-mouthed bloggers hired by the former senator and vice-presidential nominee, John Edwards, for his seemingly perpetual campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. One of those, Amanda Marcotte, whose writing has been viewed, among other things, as anti-Catholic, recently resigned, although Edwards had decided against firing her despite obvious qualms. Edwards had ended several weeks of indecision by saying he was keeping Marcotte and another female blogger on his staff, despite the fact he, too, had been personally offended by some of their writing, which was so profane and tasteless that few presidential hopefuls could be caught endorsing it.
Her biting sarcasm, as reported, also extended to the controversial Duke University rape case, which still is pending but has been severely damaged by evidence contradicting the alleged victim's claims.
"Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair," she is quoted as having written.
Confirming how unwise the former senator's decision to keep her was, Marcotte ended her brief foray into national politics in typical fashion, lashing out at "right-wing shills," chiefly from prominent Catholic organizations, for forcing her resignation. Predictably, liberal bloggers dashed to her defense. So far her cohort, Melissa McEwan, has not resigned.
By its very nature, the art of blogging offers a measure of freedom and reach beyond anything in the past. And because it does, it should carry with it a degree of responsibility that matches that scope and privilege. It, of course, does not. In fact, just the opposite is true, giving broad access to every nut case with a cause and permitting nearly anyone to say nearly anything about anybody, often anonymously, without a shred of proof and without fear of liability.
You can be the first to comment on this story.