Is This Attitude Good For Blogs?

h/t TPM - actually the quote kind of bothers me, though I've seen some bloggers doing it. And Dan Bartlett seems to be only talking about MSM blogs, to which I'm not sure his claim applies. See bottom paragraph. In my opinion, simply regurgitating what professionals give you isn't blogging, not blogging I respect, anyway. And the best bloggers just don't do it.

Q-What about the blogs?

We had to set up a whole new apparatus to deal with the challenges they pose. Are they real journalists? The Washington Post, for example, has journalists who are now bloggers. Do you treat them as bloggers? Do they get credentials?

Let’s think of it as a practical matter. If one of those journalists-turned-bloggers, Chris Cillizza, e-mails you to say he needs an interview, and at the same time one of the Post’s print reporters—say, Dan Balz—e-mails you and says he needs an interview, and you can do only one . . .

Balz.

Q-Because the print edition of the Post has more of an impact?

Because Balz is on multiple platforms. He’s booked more easily on television. He’s read by more people. He influences people a bit more. Now, the question might not be as much Chris versus Dan as maybe, “Is it Dan Balz or one of the guys at [the conservative blog] Power Line?”

Q-Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?

That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.

Q-Well, they reach the president’s base.

I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

Comments

[J'hn1]

I read this as "there are a pool of weblogs that will not shave sentences to get the desired quotes, who put up entire transcripts of an inter view," ect. Not "We get the desired blind parroting of the party line".

[scarshapedstar]

LOL. Uh... sure, J'hn. I'm sure that's exactly what he meant...

[Phoenix]

"It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."

This is laughable. They didn't 'cultivate' anything. They fell in line.

[GOP08_DOA]

Wow. Talk about a bad week for the "base."

This one will leave a mark too.

[daveinboca]

Sadly, the entire Bush operation's outreach to its own base mirrors its inability to explain itself in Reaganesque or even Clintonesque clarity & concision.

GWB operates as though he has a base vocabulary of about 5000 words, and his limited range of communication skills really sets the tone for an administration which often acts as though they are a deer in the headlights.

The press conference on Iran & the NIE shows he cannot in clear and simple terms communicate with the American people, preferring to try to woo the hostile press or to state principles. Give the people red meat to either chew on or reject. But the mealy-mouthed shrugs and smirks just don't convey much besides frustration. And if George could just rouse up the conservative troops like an articulate cheerleader, rather than claiming to be a quarterback [I'm the decider..."]

GWB is no Tom Brady, and he certainly isn't a two-fer like Reagan.

[Al in St. Lou]

I have to agree that the only reasonable thing Bartlett could have been trying to say is that the conservative blogs post transcripts. Of course, if that's what he meant, then he's an incompetent communicator.