« Friday Coffeeblogging | Main | Half-Blood Prince! »
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Schooling on Teachout
Zephyr Teachout's potential Congressional campaign has raised some eyebrows over at Politics VT. On Thursday, the anonymous politicos there "penned" an introductory post about Zephyr (with a photo) questioning her suitability as a candidate.
Here's the interesting thing, I think, her qualifications as a candidate aside. Reading their post, it looks like they've never met her, don't know much about her, and only recently heard about the whole "Dean paid bloggers" fiasco, which was a big story among national, tech-savvy Democratic activists. Weird, I think, considering her high profile during and after the Dean campaign. After citing two negative and puzzled quotes (from anonymous sources), they admit: "We could not track down anyone who knew of Ms. Teachout or of her plans. This is the only info we have on her, and all we heard was negative...which is not a good sign for a Democratic candidate."
Too bad they couldn't make it to coffeeblogging on Friday, eh?
Their unfamiliarity with ZT is a good example of the kind of Vermont's digital political divide. There's an entire class of tuned in, tech-savvy politics watchers — some of them Vermonters — for whom Zephyr is a celebrity, a household name. NTodd, for example. The establishment state Democratic Party still hasn't connected with these folks. This is no surprise. Does anyone remember Peter Clavelle's truly terrible flash Internet ad of the last campaign? Despite our former Governor's success with all things online, the state Democrats don't seem to really get the net.
This kind of unfamiliarity with an obviously influential, innovative thinker doesn't seem to happen with our state Republicans. They seem to be more in touch with the Internets, so to speak. Like Google ads. Did you ever notice how during the 2004 election, if you Googled Peter Clavelle, a little Google ad for Jim Douglas popped up in the right-hand margin? It's true. I asked Neal Lunderville, Douglas' campaign manager, about it, and he said it took him 10 minutes to do that on his laptop, and it drove a good amount of traffic to the Douglas website, and cheaply at that. I think this old school unfamiliarity with technology is bad news for Vermont's Democratic party. I think it might be one of the (many) reasons why our true blue state has a Republican governor.
UPDATE: Bernie gets it. He's podcasting.
July 16, 2005 at 05:43 PM in Got blog? | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/363645/2834832
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Schooling on Teachout:
Comments
I tried--and by "tried" I mean I spent a good 15 or 20 minutes searching online and asked a bunch of my liberal friends (a lot more than most people do, mind you)--to find a good reason to vote for Peter Clavelle for Governor that didn't rely on party loyalty alone. I searched the web sites of all of the candidates looking for a simple breakdown of their various political positions or ideological differences. Clavelle's response to a question about meds from Canada was slightly better than Douglas'. That was it. That was the most obvious thing I could find online. Douglas' site was pretty well laid out and clear. Clavelle's was okay, but had very little useful information. I was so ready... I was actively looking for a reason to vote for Clavelle--a reason other than Douglas' vocal, but hollow support of the Bush administration. Clavelle failed to get my vote, and if he couldn't get mine, that I would so willingly have given him, then something must have been pretty fundamentally wrong with the plumbing of that campaign.
/2 cents
Go Z!
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jul 16, 2005 6:29:05 PM
Well the post makes a point: there is a divide within the political cyberspace. The Party and the Activists.
I think that if Teachout worked to create bridge or someone on the Party side did -- then we could solve these problems. PoliticsVT brings up a valid point, though, that there is a lot of negative commentary from the party about the activists.
Dems should work to mend this rift. So Cathy, your right and PoliticsVT is also right. What are her qualifications for the job? You need to have some kind of elected experience (in my opinion) to serve as a member of the US House of Representatives.
On the other hand, PoliticsVT gave an example on the divide. They even admitted that they do not know her, never heard of her, but the amount of information that their organization could get was negative. Cathy, I am sure you have been in the same position from time to time.
Now, PoliticsVT's article may look skeptical but I can see the reason why. They talked to one Democrat who did not like the idea of another Democrat running. They are stating their opinions as Democrats. From the other posts I read on your Teachout post, the source that PoliticsVT cited are not the only ones that feel the same way.
I've exhausted my brain now, but I hope people get my point.
And Cathy, get over the annoynmous sources. The argument is old and the site clearly wants to protect people's privacy.
Now, lets move on!!!
Posted by: moderatedude | Jul 16, 2005 7:17:07 PM
You have a point, but I worked at State Dem HQ last summer and was there a lot during the fall and Peter Clavelle's loss had nothing to do with the fact he wasn't "internet savy." He lost because he ran a horrible campaign that lacked fusion. Jim Douglas won because A) He is the incumbent Governor, B) Better staff and C) Better Strategy.
So Cathy, I agree with you about the need for a technology boost at the Dems. Something needs to be done, but it did not contribute to Clavelle's loss even though he was a credible candidate.
Posted by: Bulldogscm | Jul 16, 2005 11:22:41 PM
well, I guess we know who our friend Cathy would like to campaign for. Way to be transparent with your support of Teachout.
By the way, I think the post by politicsvt was smart. They got the information that they could and posted it. Don't get all ticked off cause they posted something that contained information and quotes that you really don't agree with, then openly thrash them 'cause they don't "know what you know."
By the way, qualifications and accomplishments matter. If you don't have any qualifications for a job that demands it, you shouldn't serve. If she has never held public office, then she really shouldn't serve in Congress until she gets some more experience and creates a resume of results. That's my personal philosophy, and from what I saw...most people agree.
Posted by: seanpixstar | Jul 17, 2005 12:11:29 AM
Cathy is much more qualified to defend herself here, but I'll go ahead and throw in two more of my cents just because...
I think Cathy's point is totally valid, whether you are a ZT supporter or detractor or neither. That the guys at "Politics VT" don't know anything about ZT is a very good indicator of just how insular their world is. I know Zephyr's name not from VT dems but from CNN and NPR and Daily Kos and Eschaton. Where have they been?
A larger point about Politics VT in particular is this:
From the post in question...
"We later found out that in January 2005, Teachout sparked some controversy when she told bloggers that the Dean campaign had paid two popular web loggers to ensure positive coverage on their sites. The Director of Internet Comunications for the Dean campaign disputed those rumors, calling Teachout’s claims unfounded."
And from the ZT wikipedia entry...
"In January 2005 Teachout sparked controversy by blogging about how the Dean campaign had paid two popular webloggers, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, to ensure positive coverage on their sites. Dean's Director of Internet Communications, Matthew Gross, who several months later oversaw blogger outreach for the campaign, disputed Teachout's statements."
Um, that's very nearly plagiarism. That they don't cite wikipedia as a source completely undermines anything else that they write on their blog. That coupled with the anonymity thing and they have lost all credibility, IMO.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jul 17, 2005 1:15:04 AM
Sorry to disappoint the people who would like to believe otherwise, but I really don't support Zephyr — or anyone else — in this election. I mean, she hasn't even said if she's running, or what she stands for.
And even if she were running, my activist days are over. I'm a reporter. I think if you read my post more carefully, you'll see that I'm focusing on the digital political divide, which is real, and is part of this blog's baliwick.
I do think the lack of tech savviness played a part in Clavelle's loss. Yes, it was indicative of larger failings. But I think it's significant given that there were clearly technological resources in the state, like Democracy for America, and a swarm of Deaniacs, that the campaign never used. I mean, our former governor's campaign, headquartered a mile away from Clavelle's office, was one of, if not the most technologically savvy campaigns ever in presidential politics. Ultimately, the way he used technology was Dean's biggest success. So the Clavelle campaign's ineptitude with it is interesting.
While he lived in Burlington, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, nationally known political consultant and one of the smartest guys in the blogosphere, told me he offered to help the campaign and they never got back to him. That's the kind of mistake the Republicans don't seem to make. You don't have to be a partisan to notice that.
And anybody who's plugged in to those sources Bill mentioned above has heard of Zephyr Teachout. It's ridiculous to think that her potential campaign isn't a story. Of course I'm going to write about her. As for her qualifications, I agree that she hasn't paid her dues with the state party. No doubt. But she's no intellectual lightweight. It's not like she works at McDonalds.
As for not "knowing what I know," hey, if you're a reporter, you usually call the person you're writing about to find out what her plans are. It's not like this woman is that hard to find.
And I disagree that the anonymous nature of Politics VT is irrelevant, or that "the argument is old." Like I've said before, I don't think that invalidates their information, but I do think it's important to remind readers where their information is coming from. Does anybody remember what a fuss people made about Atrios being anonymous before he "came out" as Duncan Black? As long as I link to their posts, I'll point out that they're written and sourced anonymously.
Lastly, that's a curious comparison with wikipedia. I don't know that it's plagarism, but it's certainly awfully darn close if it's not. I wouldn't have written it that way. Incidentally, their quote is actually not quite right. As I recall, the controversy started after she blogged about paying bloggers, but really heated up after an article in the Wall Street Journal. It wasn't just a blogger thing.
Posted by: cresmer | Jul 17, 2005 11:14:53 AM
Bill, plagiarism is word for word copying. I have read that exact same thing that Wikpedia said on CNN and the Journal and on another blog. I can get the info for you, if you like.
It's close, but I am hardly worrying about So Bill, it is not plagiarism. It's not a very good comparison. Plagiarism is when you copy something word for word. This is not plagiarism and you know what, they offer very insightful information, sound rumors and valid information. How do you know, that they didn't get this information from other people?
Don't jump to conclusions like that, accusing them of plagiarizing because you didn't like their Techout post. They're trying to be objective, from what I see. Also, we never know it could have been an honest mistake by not citing it. It happens, REPORTERS IN DC make the mistake sometimes. I'm not sweating it and I will continue to read them.
Posted by: liberal-lady | Jul 17, 2005 12:42:57 PM
Cathy, I agree with you 100%. I see no problem in anonymous postings. Remember, Ben Franklin used a pen name when he started his own newspaper "Silence Doogood" I think it was. And liberal-lady is correct, don't jump to conclusions about what they did. I bet it was just a harmless mistake.
Other then that, Cathy you are absolutely right about the Clavelle campaign. They really should have teamed up, but they were coupled with the stigma that Vermont likes to keep its governors.
In terms of the PoliticsVT, they have done a great job informing me on what is going on. I read them every evening when I get back from work to know what is going on politically.
Bill, I agree with the liberal-lady, you are jumping conclusions. They have always been very good about giving credit where credit goes. It seems to me that you are just a little upset about their post on Zeyphyr. I mean, ha, they admitted that they have never met her. And they have not met found who knows of her. From what I see, they get their information from party sources not from blog guys. That should change, but I think the post wasn't a bad idea. It was news.
So Bill, before you jump the gun here a little bit, I would simply say that they likely made a mistake. I wouldn't go as far as plagiarizing, but Cathy is right it was darn close. It was in their own words though. It's a story. I mean, if you think about it, they knew that if anyone plagiarized, then someone would find out eventually. It's common sense. So I am sure it wasn't intentional. Besides, I am sure they are reading these posts and kicking themselves for not being more careful and citing that particular source.
From what I see, it was just a careless mistake, nothing more. So Bill, its okay, chill out. They have been very good about citing their sources and this happens to often the best of news reporters. I will not read into it much. But Cathy, you present some valid points and I also will continue to read PoliticsVT. They have proven to be a credible source of news and information. Good discussion. -> Bulldogscm
Posted by: Bulldogscm | Jul 17, 2005 1:06:48 PM
oh boy here we go again.I like what your saying Cathy, I am sure that if Clavelle had followed what you said, then he might have done better in the gov race.In terms of politicsVT, I read what they wrote, checked out MyDD and Wikipedia, and it just looks like an honest mistake. The writer of the post (I guy names Silas, I guess) acknowledge it too, they have posted that they screwed up and have rectified and cited the source. Bulldog, your right about Silence DooGood...some of America's best writers wrote by pen names. Other than that, I don't see this as a huge or monstrous deal...I see it as a mistake that the people of PoliticsVT are willing to admit they screwed up on. If that’s not credible, call me a code.
However, we're getting a little off the topic here. Tell me more about this Teachout character from what you bloggers know.
::skiguy54789::
Posted by: skiguy54789 | Jul 17, 2005 2:13:20 PM
I meant to say "call me a cod" not call me a code. Sorry about that.
Posted by: skiguy54789 | Jul 17, 2005 2:45:01 PM
Wikipedia is a peer reviewed, open source encyclopedia. It is written by a number of contributors who are very careful about accuracy and consider it the highest priority. I would like you to show me where these exact phrases are used in another reputable source. When news articles copy exact wording, it's because the article in question has been syndicated through a news service, like AP. When this is the case, AP or Reuters, or whatever is clearly marked as the source of the article. In the Politics VT piece, the Wikipedia wording is crudely rewritten using exact wording and verbatim phrases from the original, without citation. Read the wikipedia article I linked to on Plagiarism:
"Plagiarism refers to the use of another's ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source. Essential to an act of plagiarism is an element of dishonesty in attempting to pass off the plagiarised work as original."
This sounds very close to the mark.
Also, a couple of the commentors in this post sound an awful lot like each other (e.g., liberal-lady & bulldogscm). The "voice" of the authors is very similar. Since the commentors, like the VT Politics authors, are anonymous, I am suspicious that we are dealing with an individual who is posting using multiple pseudonyms. This suspicion is a very good example of why anonymity can make people question your credibility.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jul 17, 2005 2:58:24 PM
I actually don't know a ton about Zephyr, other than what I've read about her, and what I've learned the few times I've talked with her. I'm not very familiar with the specifics of her politics. And I'm not sure she'd be any good as a politician or an administrator. Who knows.
What I do know is that when I first talked to her in September of 2003, she recommended a few books that I found extremely interesting and useful, like Stephen Johnson's Emergence, and Howard Rheingold's Smart Mobs, which she called two of the Dean campaign's "bibles." Reading them, I started to realize why the campaign itself — rather than Dean or his politics — was so fascinating to me. Johnson could really put out another edition of his book, with an added epilogue about how the Dean campaign demonstrated his theories.
Anyhow, Zephyr's energy, enthusiasm and articulate explanations really piqued my interest in online social networks, and got me thinking about how to use the Internet to connect the online and offline worlds. That conversation was part of what lead me to start blogging, and to start charting what other Vermonters are doing online.
I don't think the ideas she shared with me were necessarily all her own — she was really clear that she was by no means the Big Brain behind all of Dean's Internet strategy stuff — but she struck me as a talented connector. She's obviously smart, has a passion for organizing, is able to communicate that passion clearly and inspire others to follow her. Again, not sure if that's a winning Congressional combo, but it's a rare and compelling mix. Plus, she has that cool name.
Honestly, I don't know that I'd vote for her to represent me in Congress, but I'm definitely interested in hearing what she has to say.
Posted by: cresmer | Jul 17, 2005 3:22:25 PM
Bill,
My name is Scott McCarty and I am a college student at UVM and have been majoring in Political Science and History and working two jobs to pay my way through college. I do not have the time or recources that are required to actually run a blog like that and actually keep track of what is going on. I'm flattered that you believe me to be a member of that group, but, honestly I have no connections to them other than the fact that I contribute to their comment board. I also have no idea who liberallady is, other than she also posts on the same topic.
Im flattered, but I do not work for them. It's a nice idea.
Bulldogscm aka Scott McCarty
Posted by: Bulldogscm | Jul 17, 2005 4:12:45 PM
Scott, I stand corrected and take you at your word, but do you see my point? Anonymity makes people suspicious of your motives and methods, particularly in this sort of venue. Anonymity in the blogoshere can be a grand thing if you're talking about deeply personal matters and using your blog as a vent, but when you stake your reputation on being a political insider, it's a big red flag.
I want to quickly say a few words and dial back my own snark in this thread: My comments under this post have been relegated to questioning the credibility of the authors of VT Politics, and while I still find the site hard to read for the reasons I've stated (poor writing skills, anonimity, not being careful about citing sources), I have to remind myself that it's just the blogosphere. I'm actually really glad that those guys are participating in the discourse and using the medium in ways that make their voices heard. Good on ya! Keep it up. If I don't like it, I don't have to read it.
I do see that the Politics VT post in question has been amended and now cites both MyDD and Wikipedia. It's a good first step. However, the statement "We would also like to credit Wikipedia for their information provided even though we wrote it in our own words," would not fly in an 11th grade English class. The paragraph was copied almost verbatim with only minor changes. In the future, I think they would be better off just linking to Wikipedia and using quotation marks. The same information would be conveyed without calling their credibility as writers into question.
ps
Go Z!
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jul 17, 2005 5:01:17 PM
Oh Dear,
I arrived at this blog to contribute my thoughts and ideas about issues and now I am accused of being someone else. Not just someone else, but I am actually many different people.
The fact of the matter is that I think that Bill is deliberately trying to cause problems. I will not, do not, have stand for this. I first ventured onto this nice blog to read about Vermont, her politics and her activities. Bill, that is very spiteful and wrong thing to say. I will no longer bring my thoughts and ideas to this blog because you are more interested in muckraking and pointing fingers. I hope that people like Scott and Cathy will continue to contribute their fine ideas to helping make Vermont politics better. And Scott, that was a very good thing to actually say your name to stand up to Bill.
And to just inform you, Bill, I am a 60 year old widow and grandmother. I will not share my name with you, because, it is none of your business.
I wish Cathy and her blog all the very best of luck…
Posted by: liberal-lady (my final posting) | Jul 17, 2005 5:01:29 PM
I like to think that the guys at PoliticsVT are just regular working people who love politics, in general. I find that that their posts are smart. This is the first post that I have seen, however, that was really poorly written in terms of what you said, Bill. If I was in charge (which I am not) over there, I would honestly let that person go who wrote it or move him somewhere else in their group.
Honestly, it just looks like a harmless mistake and I am sure that they are having a discussion with the author about it. Anyone who runs a group like that, would discuss how to not let something like this happen again. But, since I started reading their posts, I have always found that they give credit to all the major news papers, and media sources.
Honestly, they provide me with all that I need in a blog: info. I don't care about their writing skills because they have given me info that I need to stay up updated. I care more about the quality not the appearance. No harm done, Bill.
Posted by: Bulldogscm | Jul 17, 2005 6:29:53 PM
Hey all,
Thanks for all the thoughts, every which way! If you want to contact "this Teachout character" directly, feel free to email me at zteachout at gmail.com. More later --
Z
Posted by: Zephyr | Jul 18, 2005 11:53:36 AM
