Blog Wars

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006 11:03 AM

I knew a few days ago that the New York Times was planning a piece on big companies like Wal-Mart using friendly bloggers to get their message out.

The reason I knew this, of course, is that some of the bloggers posted preemptive pieces after the paper contacted them for comment. (I have very mixed feelings about that, since no reporter wants to get scooped on his own story because he's trying to be fair by calling people. Welcome to life in the blogosphere.)

More interesting, though, is how Michael Barbaro's Times story paints the practice by Wal-Mart and others as faintly disreputable, when you could argue that it's just classic PR, no different than trying to find the right newspaper reporter (or radio talker or cable host) in an effort to get a fair shake.

It's a very different story, obviously, if a blogger runs the corporate spin verbatim, without disclosing the source, just as it would be for a garden-variety reporter to reprint a handout. Whether bloggers are doing that remains in dispute.

What's not in dispute is that what was once dismissed as a pajama-clad brigade is becoming increasingly influential, to the point that giant companies have to worry about what they say. Dell got tarnished, for example, when it dealt shabbily with Jeff Jarvis over his lemon of a laptop. And as I reported the other day, the Pentagon has created a unit to seek good coverage and knock down bad coverage among bloggers.

The better bloggers are going to have to figure out their own standards for dealing with corporate and political flacks, and those who blindly carry water for outside groups will probably lose credibility over time. But I expect them to be in the minority.

Here's the New York Times piece:

"Brian Pickrell, a blogger, recently posted a note on his Web site attacking state legislation that would force Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health insurance. 'All across the country, newspaper editorial boards -- no great friends of business -- are ripping the bills,' he wrote.

"It was the kind of pro-Wal-Mart comment the giant retailer might write itself. And, in fact, it did.

"Several sentences in Mr. Pickrell's Jan. 20 posting -- and others from different days -- are identical to those written by an employee at one of Wal-Mart's public relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers.

"Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

"But the strategy raises questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence, should disclose to readers. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and its public relations firm, Edelman, say they do not compensate the bloggers.

"But some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from."

And now, for some real-time equal time, is Brian Pickrell of Iowa Voice:

"Looks like my hunch was correct when I said [Barbaro] was writing a hit piece . . . only it was hit piece directed, for the most part, at me. . . .

"I get a ton of email from a bunch of different sources. If I run a post specifically using information contained within an email, I will say so (you can see numerous instances of this being the case). Likewise, if I quote somebody or something, it's in a quote box. That's how blogs work (apparently, he didn't understand that). . . .

"Notice the part in question is in a . . . quote box . That means that I didn't write it . As for who sent it, I don't recall. . . . I knew that Michael Barbaro was going to write this piece of dung called a news article. I was reluctant to even talk to him, given the history of the NYTs and blogs/bloggers. I see I was correct in my reluctance. Never again, brother."

On the other hand, Pickrell, who attributed one item from a Wal-Mart flack to a "reader," was quoted by the Times as saying: "I probably cut and paste a little bit and I should not have."

Bob Beller at Crazy Politico's Rantings was also involved:

"When the article was in the works I pointed out to Mr. Barbaro that just like newspaper sources, Wal-Mart was going to a place they felt they'd get a sympathetic ear. . . . The WalMartWatch.Com folks didn't send the info the Washington Times because it probably wasn't going to be sympathetic to their cause.

"The news business has run this way for years, find a paper or reporter that will listen, and bomb them with tips, hoping a few percolate into print. The difference with blogging is that there isn't as much editorial rework in our writings as happens in news papers, I don't' have a word count to worry about. Admittedly, I could probably use an editor at times. . . .

"The portion of my story that didn't make it into print, and I feel is relevant, is that though I shop at Wal-Mart regularly, I don't blog about them because I agree with them on everything. I blog about them because I disagree with groups like Wal-Mart Watch, and the unions who fund them. I don't think the mainstream media, in any form, has taken to exposing who's behind them as hard as they should."

The aforementioned Jeff Jarvis , Buzz Machine blogger and NYT consultant, has some views on this:

"First, I suggest you read the story and substitute the name of your local newspaper for any reference to bloggers. Remember that PR companies have been reaching out to reporters since they were born; that is why their industry exists. Today we have search-engine optimization companies; back then, we had press optimization companies.

"Remember that reporters do not tell you every story idea that came from a flack -- and so stories do start with PR pitches that I've often said if I ran a paper, I'd have flack-free days: Every story in today's paper came from actual reporting! (It'd probably be a thin Saturday.)

"Reporters may be smart enough to rewrite the verbiage in press releases (unlike the hapless blogger in the Times story caught quoting Walmart's flackery without attribution -- a practice Edelman, smartly, warned them against). But they don't tell you all the and facts and viewpoints they use from flacks.

"Reporters do not tell you about the meetings, lunches, drinks, and help given them by flacks.

"There is no scandal in the Times story. And in fairness, the Times doesn't directly present it as a scandal. It points out how Edelman is transparent about its activities and even advises bloggers to be open. No, The Times is merely reporting how PR works. Only the object of this PR is the public, not the press. And some of these people, these bloggers, aren't as slick as reporters in knowing how to deal with this.

"So my first response is to help bloggers with advice: If you write a post inspired by what you get from a company or its PR agent, say so. If you use facts or quotes from a company, politician, PR agent, or press release, say so (better yet, link to it). If you get anything from a PR agent -- things, business meetings, social events -- say so. Your public has a right to know where your information comes from so they can judge it accordingly."

Want to know Edelman's view? CEO Richard Edelman has his own blog:

"The blogosphere is an excellent new source of story ideas for mainstream media. It can be a refreshingly open marketplace for candid exchange of views. It enables the online editions of traditional media, such as bbc.com, to build communities of interest around specific subject areas and to retain and involve readers for a longer period. But the blogs have also challenged the authority of mainstream media, by holding reporters to account on factual errors, by claiming scoops on stories, by becoming personalities and by exercising their right to opinion.

"We encourage all our clients to reach out to the blogosphere. It should be part of any smart communications program. We also encourage our clients to blog themselves. . . . Of course we give information to bloggers, just as PR people for generations have done with print media, and I'm a little surprised that the print and broadcast media are surprised.

"Bloggers can take care of themselves in this evolving world. They should be careful to disclose receipt of product samples, membership on advisory boards or any other financial consideration that might affect their impartiality. They, just like journalists, do not need to disclose their sources, but they should attribute specific content to a company or another blogger if used verbatim."

The ports deal looks to be sinking: "Republican House leaders last night split with President Bush and said they would derail a Dubai-owned company's bid to take control of operations at six major U.S. ports," says the Washington Times . "'It is my intention to lay the foundation to block the deal,' said Rep. Jerry Lewis, California Republican and House Appropriations Committee chairman." Clearly, it's an election year.

Byron York , the National Review guy who's been writing more for the New Republic, dissects the GOP unhappiness with Bush:

"Republicans are angry for political reasons. . . . For them, the port deal is symptomatic of the high-handed way the White House treats its congressional allies. For years now, many lawmakers have been willing to put up with such treatment, because they believed there was a finely tuned political machine in the White House that would ultimately prevail. Now, they no longer believe that, and they're worried.

"It's not that Bush's approval numbers are bad, although they are (34 percent, according to a recent CBS survey). In their view, Bush is not a political liability because his approval ratings are low. His approval ratings are low because he's a political liability. Shortly after the ports controversy blew up, I called a strategist who often works with top GOP lawmakers and asked whether the Republican revolt would be happening if the president had a 60 percent approval rating. That's the wrong way to look at it, he said. Presidents have high approval ratings because they avoid the dumb mistakes that Bush made in the ports affair. 'When you're at 60 percent, you don't do these sort of things,' he said."

Is this a cave-in by the White House: "Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days," reports the New York Times .

Or a cave-in by the Hill: "Senate Republicans yesterday rejected a full inquiry of the domestic spying program that was secretly authorized by President Bush, but they said they would push to impose new limits on the administration's ability to eavesdrop on Americans' phone calls and e-mail messages without a warrant," reports the Boston Globe .

What a difference a lead makes.

It's mixed-message time on Iraq, notes the Philadelphia Inquirer :

"Vice President Cheney said yesterday that conditions in Iraq were improving steadily, but the American ambassador in Baghdad has said the U.S. invasion opened a 'Pandora's box' of ethnic and religious violence that could inflame the entire Middle East."

Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters really seem to nail Barry Bonds in a new book charging him with extensive steroid use, beginning after the 1998 season. There aren't enough asterisks in the world to qualify his home-run record now.

Is there a link between sexual repression and violence? Andrew Sullivan thinks there probably is.

Ed Morrissey seems to applaud the latest assault on Roe :

"South Dakota apparently set off a trend in state legislatures with its comprehensive abortion ban, signed into law yesterday by Governor Mike Rounds. Since Roe, no legislature has dared to so openly flout the Supreme Court's dictate on abortion rights. Now, however, states have queued up similar legislation in an effort to follow South Dakota into the battle against judicial activism."

Excuse me, but if a state passes a law that flies in the face of a long-settled high court precedent for the expressed purpose of trying to get it overturned, why isn't that judicial activism?

Sign of the Times: The NYT is blogging Jim Cramer 's CNBC stock picks under the guise of "We Watch So You Don't Have To." But watching Cramer rant and rave is half the fun!

Air America, in trouble in the Apple?

"Air America is close to losing its New York flagship station - knocking Al Franken and his liberal colleagues off the air on their second anniversary," says the New York Post.

"The network has a two-year lease with WLIB (AM 1190) that is reportedly set to expire April 1 - and at least one reliable report says it is 'extremely likely' the deal will not be renewed.

"Losing its New York outlet would be a serious blow to the fledgling liberal radio network. 'Radio Equalizer' blogger Brian Maloney - who blew the whistle on questionable loans to the lefty network last year - published the first report that WLIB was on the verge of evicting Air America some time soon."

Finally, being Fed chairman is more lucrative than I thought. Alan Greenspan is getting more than $8.5 million for his memoirs. Will he need a translator?