Sunday, October 01, 2006

The Language of LL

Vain Scott raises this question. It might be interesting to ask Dan Gerstein whether, in fact, the challenge posed by blog was so different that professional spin doctors have struggled to meet that challenge. Spinners are accustomed to spinning -- that is subtly changing the tilt on a message or trying to get the MSM to see a new angle to a story. The blogs were like flamethrowers. They weren't spinnable because they eschewed subtlety. The normal campaign communication approaches were not going to work, because it wasn't a matter of picking up a conscious or unconscious slant hidden in a David Lightman piece and trying to get Lightman to correct for that. (Additionally, the bloggers started to do that job in their own way, beating up on reporters they thought were tools.)

3 comments:

dsterner said...

Another article on Netroots:
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/farrell.html

(The article was linked at My Left Nutmeg:
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3612)

scottahb said...

Here is an interesting post on Lieberdem about the political blogosphere.

"The blogosphere's elite claims to be part of a people-powered movement seeking to introduce a new kind of politics into the American political system. But their tactics of "highlight if it helps, ignore if it doesn't, and spin everything"

By pulling that quote, I think I'm doing the same thing CNN did..oh well.

scottahb said...

a.k.a. Matt over there seems to think that Blogs can, and do spin, when Colin seems to suggest that spin is a much more subtle thing that rides beneath the actual text.