(10:40 AM: Wow, people — is this topic so radioactive that no one is willing to comment on it? I’d actually like some feedback.)
I’ve laid off commenting about the dustup regarding the announcement of the 55 blogs selected for the DemConvention State Blogger Corps over the last few days in the hope of receiving more information regarding the program and handling of the fallout. There were actually two points of contention about the selection process that have been covered unevenly in the blogosphere.
1) Lack of racial diversity in the state pools selected (given the overall composition of the Dem party), and the fact that there is a different level of access to the state delegation given to these blogs on the floor at the Dem National Convention versus the general blogger pool, which will be announced this week;
2) The charge that there were political factors that went into the decision-making process for state blogs that resulted in highly qualified state blogs not making the final cut. This was the suggestion that state parties were consulted and were able to give thumbs up or down to specific blogs that may have been hard on the state parties.
Item number two has already been heavily covered in the progressive blogosphere, while outside of black blogs, the first item has been largely and curiously ignored by the top-tier blogs. As is the norm on such things, my position seems to straddle that group of progressive blogs. On the one hand, I think the problem is due to 1) an inability of state blogs to include more minority contributors; 2) some may not have thought about a lack of minority perspective on state and local issues as important; 3) those state blogs have truly tried by haven’t seen interest from POC who are well-versed in state and local issues who are able to/want to contribute to a state blog.
On the other hand, some of the black/brown bloggers have seen the selection results and have tossed “Jim Crow” charges out there — meaning overt, purposeful exclusion. I don’t see purposeful exclusion, what I see is a DNCC that wanted blogs represented at the convention in an unprecedented way, but was unable to see or fully address the minority representation problem (and we’re not only talking about racial minorities) it was going to create with its selection system.
The bottom line is that the lack of minority participation at the state blogger level is real, and it is a problem for the Democratic Party as well as the blogosphere.
However, both reactions aren’t particularly helpful in terms of improving dialogue long term — the defense shields go up, and nothing positive usually comes of this. It’s been frustrating to see it all unfold.
I was contacted by Aaron Myers, the director of online communications for the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, and spoke with him a couple of days ago to ask him about the credentialing process, the details in level of access, and some logistics, in an effort to get some information on the record. My notes are below the fold.
My phone call with Aaron was cordial; my goal was not to assign blame or defend any faction on the matter. I wanted to get facts on the table so that any further writing on this topic is guided by the latest official information out there.
There was no discussion or plan to change the state blog pool selection as it stands, mind you — Aaron Myers conveyed that people of color will have very open access (though not not precisely equal) to delegates to report on the convention goings-on, and that the general pool will be more representative of the diversity of the party without a need for a quota of some sort in the state blog pool.
Here’s the current status as described to me on Friday. I’m just the messenger:
* Differences in credentials for state blogs and general pool bloggers. The major difference — and the one that has caused much consternation to date — is that the state blog credential allows one blogger to physically sit with the state delegation on the convention floor and liveblog. There will be hardwired Internet access as there will be no wi-fi in the convention hall (because of signal conflicts with all of the MSM hardware).
Aaron said that the floor access for the general pool bloggers (that includes the MSM), will given in 30-45 minute blocks of time via floor pass credential, which will be obtained at a specific table/area in the hall. There will be no limit on how many times a general pool blogger can receive this pass during the convention. The general pool bloggers will also have a designated area to obtain the pass separate from traditional media so they aren’t competing with them for floor access.
Aaron noted that many of the state bloggers will, in fact, likely spend a lot more time with the rest of the general pool in the media filing center, which will be set up in the practice basketball court in a room adjacent to the main floor. This is not unlike many events I’ve liveblogged from — you’re off in a separate room that has big screen TVs so you can see/hear the action, and have better workspace for blogging, access to refreshments, etc. The pols, delegates and other figures wander in to do spinning, though I’m sure a lot of that is more likely occur on the floor.
* Number of people attending under a credential. State blogs will be able to send as many people as they want to Denver, but only one person at a time can be on the floor with the delegation.
For general pool bloggers, it’s a dicier matter. The general decision has been one credential means only one blogger per blog can attend. However, there are exceptions.
Huge, multi-contributor blogs like Daily Kos, for example, will obviously receive a credential, but Aaron noted that a blog of that size will be allowed to have more than one person attend. I made a point of saying that I understand the logic of that decision, but what about a multi-author blog that has a diverse focus and audience (not to be self serving, but PHB is a good example of this) that doesn’t reach the traffic level of a DKos or Americablog? How does the DNCC then decide which general pool blogs are allowed to bring more than one blogger to the convention? Aaron didn’t have an answer to that one, but he agreed that it was a matter that has to be addressed. Basically, the DNCC has to make some calls here, and I’m sure in the end that they won’t make everyone happy when the pool is announced this week. The blogosphere is an ornery bunch who simply want to see the party do this historic convention and coverage right.
* Open access to delegates: Aaron wanted to convey that prior to 4PM at during the convention there is actually a great deal of access to delegations that require no credentials at all, such as offsite breakfast meetings, and other caucus sessions where bloggers and reporters traditionally confer with pols and delegates.
* Other access issues. One plan is to have a special blogger area just off the main podium, adjacent to the print photographer space, where people can obtain good video/photos, and interviews with speakers as they come off stage. One problem that immediately comes to mind is how will it be determined which bloggers are able to be in that space when the most newsworthy speakers are at the podium. Is there going to be a lottery, a sign up area/system? Aaron said the logistics were still in development, and there would be more details later on a process that will ensure fair access.
* Finding accommodations. This was one of many concerns raised by Afrospear bloggers, including Francis L. Holland. It was addressed by Aaron in the call; he said that the DNCC has set aside hotel rooms for the media and bloggers, and the same housing information will be released at the same time to all credentialed entities at a convention-locked price. Will there be enough rooms? Given the size and scope of this event, I’m sure there will be a scramble for rooms regardless.
***
So that’s what I’ve learned so far. The situation is far from ideal, but the initial error has occurred — a model for the state blogger corps selection process that didn’t take into account the lack of diversity in state blogs most likely to be selected, creating full floor access that is not representative of the diversity of the Democratic Party. That said, continually flogging the process now doesn’t seem productive.
But — does the explanation of the logistics and measures above ameliorate this problem? Partially, but the situation and the tensions it has raised are unlikely to go away with the announcement of the general pool this week. All I can say is that the communication channels must remain open and the process of making it work should remain fluid.
***
UPDATE: OK. You’ve read the above post. A good illustration of how the above was seen by a respected Afrospear blogger is here. Francis and I agree on the importance of the exclusion problem, but have very different interpretations of the information conveyed and views of the problem. He believes that an assertive approach to negotiation is the correct path to resolution, I have chosen a less confrontational one.
Mind you, I don’t see them as incompatible — obviously an assertive activist approach to political change has proven to be effective — as has a diplomatic approach. They effectively work in concert over the long term - because an essential part needed for progress is bridging the communication gap. It has placed me in quite difficult positions fairly often in the blogosphere, as I said to CelticDiva in the comments of this post over at PHB. Celtic Diva:
I don’t think this issue is “solvable” for this Convention…My response:
…not in this short of a time, not with space limitations and not in a way that’s going to satisfy anyone.The best the DNC can do is remove any restrictions that may exist with the General Blogger Pool. It sounds like that is what they are working on. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start and it’s also pretty much the extent of what the DNC can do. The rest must be done within the blogosphere.
The only way to fix this is to continue to pursue integrating state-focused blogs with POC voices, to continue de-mystifying blogs for others (I did a lot of that this past weekend at the AK Dem Convention) and encourage more folks of all walks of life to join the blogosphere, especially encouraging minority bloggers. Also, encouraging more folks to approach blogging from the “50-state strategy” is important for maximum impact in state elections.
We also need to pressure our Local, State and Federal representatives to find more and better ways to provide Internet access to EVERYONE, regardless of urban/rural location or economic status.
Through all of this, I’ve learned that having a discussion on race is extremely difficult and most Progressives (especially white Progressives) completely shy away from it. Some of them have a wicked case of denial of the problem. However, I believe…I know…that a whole lot of folks are afraid that they will be labeled as “racist” just by discussing their thoughts.
I can attest to that one. My POC boss, friends and family were pretty blown away when that label was thrown at me.
I’ve discovered that it’s easy to get riled and it is easy for misunderstandings to occur on all sides. It is also common to have one’s words twisted by folks with an agenda and then pushed for their own personal gain. No matter what is true, some folks will see what they want to see, even if they have to alter reality to do it. That applies to folks of all colors.
The DNC can no more effectively and efficiently integrate the 2008 Convention by itself than white America can fix the racial inequalities in the US by itself. Any of this requires constant dialogue, unwavering teamwork and give-and-take on all sides.
Name-calling halts that process in its tracks.
It makes one wonder what folks who can toss those names around so easily and inaccurately at fellow Progressives…fellow Obama suppporters…are really trying to accomplish?
It also makes one wonder who benefits?
no one benefits, in the end
I’ve taken the slings and arrows from both sides.I get blasted by some white progressives for pointing out their lack of coverage of Jena 6, then I receive the most rank and horrible emails from some POC (selling out, wanting to hold a brother back) for holding Obama accountable for the McClurkin nonsense. It seems to come with the territory for me. I just wish there were more willing to step into the public line of fire with me to try to bridge these gaps.
I agree with what you’ve said - the PR damage has been done, and thank you for saying how difficult it is to discuss race for the reasons both of us outlined. Admitting this is how you start to break down barriers — by acknowledging the damage caused, inadvertently, by politically correct culture that makes it difficult to speak frankly with curiosity about our differences (particularly out of benign ignorance) without having the minority group jump down your throat.
On the other hand there is also a strain of willful ignorance in some about issues of concern to minorities results in “it’s their problem to solve” because progressive whites see nothing in it for them — loathing the thought of being perceived as racist even as they try to speak up. It leads to lack of acknowledgment of the very white privilege they enjoy in their silence, and the vicious circle of poor communication, misunderstanding and lack of inclusion or outreach continues.
16 Responses to “My call from the DNCC on blogger credentials for Denver convention”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The thing that’s getting mixed into Francis Holland’s criticism is that his problem with “state bloggers” stems from the fact that Daily Kos links to many of them them, which to him totally overwhelms and renders meaningless any discussion of actual content differences between state blogs, general blogs, and issue / ideological blogs.
I had an exchange with Francis where I mentioned that my state was sending a 50/50 white-nonwhite group to the convention, and that our state blog was owned by a black blogger. It didn’t matter, we’re the whiteosphere anyway, because we cover the state legislature and don’t have him in our blogroll. OK.
My experience has been that state blogs reflect the population of those who want to be involved in state-level party politics but are marginalized for one reason or another – which in some cases adds up to broader minority participation and in other cases doesn’t – but most start from a critical position towards the privilege and behavior of the party’s leadership. That’s the source of the second issue — that some states would rather not let the groups they’ve been marginalizing back to the table.
If the issue is unexamined privilege, reviewing state blogs would turn up a lot of people who are fighting that fight locally, and illustrate a handful that genuinely do bury race, gender, and sexuality in their writing. A thoughtful reading would bring out those distinctions among local political blogs, and could generate some real valuable dialog.
But that’s not what’s on the table — it very much appears that Francis just wants to slag off anyone within six degrees of Kos for as long as he can keep the megaphone. A thoughtful reading was never in the cards. Francis is dressing up an (at best) ideological or (at worst) friends-of-my-enemy argument in the language of racial suppression and intimidation, and in the process is broad brushing a lot of allies — not just “rah-rah we’re all Democrats” allies, but the we have serious problems with the exclusionary nature of our media and political institutions allies — in really grotesque and dishonest terms.
I had an exchange with Francis where I mentioned that my state was sending a 50/50 white-nonwhite group to the convention, and that our state blog was owned by a black blogger. It didn’t matter, we’re the whiteosphere anyway, because we cover the state legislature and don’t have him in our blogroll. OK.
And that’s fair from your POV; I do think there are a lot of unfair assumptions being made about a real problem on all sides. But there is silence even when I’ve presented the topic in what I feel is a reasonable and pragmatic way from my POV. That is also ignored, and I believe that’s because there is a large slice of the progressive community that is so intimidated of being tagged as racist by one subset of minority bloggers, that all discussion is off the table no matter how it’s framed.
I think another issue is at play here, and it’s not one easily solved, and it is also ignored by both sides.
One state blogger said at a conference he asked some POC attending if they know any POC were writing about his state’s issues, and said that he would love to add them to the roster. No one ever contacted him. Perhaps state issues haven’t been as much of a concern for black bloggers (as opposed to general interest or national politics), for many on the list, therefore the pool is smaller and harder to identify. We’re talking about blogging state politics, and getting minorities interested in blogging local, not national issues — how their legislature works, how city government works, knowing candidates involved in local and state races. How many minorities are blogging at that level? I have no idea. Clearly there are plenty of minority grassroots activists, but only a slice of them have the time and energy to devote to developing a regular online blogging presence in conjunction to all the hands-on work they do in their communities. Until those people are Net-activated, you’re going to see that gap. Blogging, as I know full well, involves a lot of time, and if you have a day job and are an local activist in the field, I cannot imagine having the time to blog as well. That’s why outreach by state group blogs needs to continue; those with infrastructure for diaries (many on the selected list do), make it possible for offline minority activist, pols, and groups contribute on occasion, rather than create a blog infrastructure they cannot keep current.
The DNCC is trying its best to do something new and because it doesn’t make everyone happy they are racists? Please. It is this kind of nonsense that makes everyone consider all blogs as second-rate.
Not just a subset of bloggers — the DNC!
A huge obstacle to discussing this is that this is largely an argument over an unproven premise. I’m comfortable defending the group we’re sending to the convention, but I have *no idea* whether or not the other state blogs are similar to us, or if they are sending six straight white male twenty-somethings from California or something. The state blogs are actually different from the Daily Kos’ of the world, and nobody has ever gotten them all into a room to size up their (our!) racial makeup.
When you say this:
… what is that based on? Just BlueNC, a bunch of state blogs that you know, or what? In Connecticut, they picked the diverse, black-owned blog over the all-white blog. What’s the ratio of whites-chosen-over-blacks that we’d need to see to say that there’s a pattern?
Also challenging is the different dimensions of the issue — you might be simply talking about whether or not there’s a roughly fair makeup of people in terms of POC, male/female, glbt, etc among the bloggers on the floor, but a lot of the criticism isn’t about the “status” of the bloggers (the party-rules description of “characteristics upon which one can be discriminated”), but rather whether there are enough bloggers who blog primarily about race — or, as FLH says, writers who specifically offer a black self-determination perspective.
You’re making a vastly different argument from the same premise, so the same prescription won’t address both the problem as you frame it (the DNCC could subsidize additional members of a blogging community if it were an access issue, as you describe), and as FLH frames it (they’d need to actually do an ideological assessment of who’s writing from what perspective).
Another issue is that the state-level bloggers are pretty much the B-list already (in terms of access to the better mailing lists, information from key Congressional sources / pollsters / etc), so there’s 1) a certain degree of defensive pride for being recognized over the general political bloggers for once, and 2) a pretty strong desire not to get into a fight with other people out on the margins.
—
For me, the real issue isn’t the honorific, though I guess I understand if people are upset by being left out in that regard. It’s the question of “what is any given blogger going to even cover from the floor that a national blogger won’t be able to cover from in front of a TV set at home?” I mean, the amount of time a U.S. Senator will be in their assigned seat is going to be pretty small, so this is really going to be someone’s big chance to get the treasurer of some rural county party on the record about the issues of the day.
I’d want a blogger who has some clue and prior knowledge about that CDP treasurer or the head of the UFCW local or whoever else is a delegate to be retrieving information for the readers back home to be in that seat. Who wants to read “so, did you like that speech” video coverage and ham-handed “So, uh, UFCW is part of Change to Win, right?” interviews? And what’s the point of putting someone on the floor who’s going to be eyes-front inside a group of strangers, writing about whoever is at the podium at any given time?
The DNCC is trying its best to do something new and because it doesn’t make everyone happy they are racists?
And where in any of my posts did I call anyone racist? That’s the defense shield going up. I know the charge of that word, and it’s ability to shut the door to any or all conversation. That is not the equivalent of saying that white privilege, something we all live under the spectre of — whether we want to admit it or not — and it causes blind spots. We’ve discussed this many times before on Pandagon.
You’re correct in noting that this is new for the convention and the DNC, and I fully expected there to be bumps in the road. In fact, the DNCC’s Aaron Myers fully admitted the impact of the blind spot in our conversation, so I’m not just blowing smoke here. The issue is that they are trying their best to accommodate the fact that the natural evolution of the blogosphere reflects the offline socieconomic factors as well, and that by default, the selection process. The fact that the facts I conveyed from the call don’t please some in the Afrosphere is not surprising to me either.
what is that based on? Just BlueNC, a bunch of state blogs that you know, or what? In Connecticut, they picked the diverse, black-owned blog over the all-white blog. What’s the ratio of whites-chosen-over-blacks that we’d need to see to say that there’s a pattern?
You’ll have to ask Francis that; I’ve not suggested the selection was race-based at all, but a circumstance because of the makeup of state blogs. That the end result is not a good representation of the Democratic party’s demo is unfortunate and not unexpected. From my perspective there need to be more minority bloggers writing about state issues period, and they should be writing for those blogs likely to be selected. How that is accomplished, I haven’t any solution, but even talking about it starts getting people worked up or feel they cannot comment. That’s not promising.
That’s why I agree that there’s little to be done for the Denver convention. You can increase minority participation, but certainly it’s more advantageous to have someone well-versed on local issues there, as opposed to someone who doesn’t even know their state pols. That’s where I part with Francis and some other bloggers, because he wants a set number of floor bloggers of color, regardless of what they bring to the table, out of principle.
That’s also why I have no problem with the selection of BlueNC to represent my state; I purposely didn’t want to apply to the state pool (btw, I’m probably one of the only POC regularly posting there), since I only blog about state issues in relation to race or LGBT. The problem has been this tug of war over access and what’s “special” about the state credential vs. general pool credential — thus I received it from the horse’s mouth (Aaron Myers) and put it out there. As you can see, I am not railing about there being a conspiracy to keep POC out of Denver, or creating some purposeful apartheid; I just see a long term problem - a blogging divide — that has manifested itself with this result. I don’t see the difference in the privileges as that significant functionally speaking, but the horse is out of the barn for those who wish to see this as a concerted effort to ensure inclusion.
I find the discourse isn’t helpful at all, but I find more people of all colors agreeing with me in private, but are reluctant, for whatever reason, to say anything. I’m left hitting the third rail on my own, no surprise, but it’s sad.
BTW, I will be on NPR’s “News and Notes” blogger segment tomorrow (1PM ET) to discuss this topic. Also on the show: Richard Graves of DJ Black Adam’s Blog and Debra Dickerson.
I actually don’t think that asking that the DNCC show that there will be at least 15 bloggers of color on the floor is that unreasonable, actually — what’s objectionable is that FLH wants the ability to say who does and doesn’t count as a POC.
I’d be willing to bet that there are already 15+ from the list of state bloggers already credentialed, and I bet Aaron et al would be delighted to get a list together if it meant the end of “Jim Crow Democrats” stories in the Washington Post for the rest of the summer.
Pam,
I will just say as an observer, I really respect how you are going about this. By pointing out the problems in selection, you illustrate some problems that need to be addressed. It means some white folks are going to have to do more work searching out POC bloggers, frankly. I’m sorry you’re getting this reaction, because I think you’re being extremely respectful (and you’re right that this works hand-in-hand with someone who is more in-your-face about issues). I’ve always felt that if POC point this stuff out, they are going to extra effort to bridge a gap, and the proper response is usually reflection and appreciation if you’re a person of goodwill. Meaning, if we really agree that more voices from diverse points of view really make for a better ‘product.’
Underrepresentation of many POC in these new ‘technologies’ isn’t new and is widespread throughout our society, as you also point out, so it’s really something the Democratic party should be interested in in a wider way. I imagine this is only too familiar a scenario to a black lesbian IT professional!
“by a respected Afrospear blogger…”
I am thinking you meant “afrosphere” not “afrospear”?
I don’t really understand what they are doing, but what about 2 state bloggers from each state, one chosen for blog size, the other for diversity? After all, I’ve heard complaints before about minorities’ blogs (and women’s blogs) being less likely to be linked to, and therefore having more trouble finding readers. Being the official blogger of a big event could help a smaller blog grow, and therefore make it easier to find diversity in popular blogs in the future.
No, I believe she meant “afrospear”. If you Google that term, you will find the Afrospear blog and explanation of that term. You should probably Google a term before you correct someone’s usage of it…
There are “state blogs?” Off the top of my head I’m only aware of TexasKAOS (a Kos/MyDD spinoff) and maybe Burnt Orange report, and those are blogs I sporadically read at best (I’ve only checked out Burnt Orange once or twice, ever). That’s in the Great State of Texas.
Could it be that the lack of participation in this thread is due to people not really knowing what all the fuss is about, since they are unaware of “state blogs” in general?
What is a “state blog?”
After perusing the list at the link, I’ve heard of probably three of the 55 blogs listed (Burnt Orange Report being the Texas “state blog,” I guess I’ll have to start hanging out over there more). I don’t think I’d be able to convince my mom to read “My Left Nutmeg” (Connecticut’s blog), and “Blue Mass. Group” is probably a candidate for a future lawsuit if they ever hit the big time.
One of the three bloggers from the Maryland blog, centerforemergingmedia.com, is apparently a woman of color. I asked:
http://www.centerforemergingmedia.com/forums/current-events/cem-democratic-convention-blogging-corps
Knowing some of the founding members’ credentials, I was not surprised that they didn’t forget women and nonwhites.
I apologize for my comments in another thread. I think you’re an awesome blogger and I’m sure the DNC could use more diversity. This is the only political blog that I read, and part of the reason why is because the people who run it are women and queer (well, Amanda is queer in her own way).
And it would be a shame if Pandagon were not represented at the DNC given the size of your readership, the quality of your analysis, and the massive scale of the SCANDALS that your bloggers have triggered. (That is meant to be a compliment).
I don’t know who to contact to request more diverse coverage, but I would be happy to sign a petition or e-mail someone, or phone them.
I dislike the Huffington Post because it seems like the posters and commentators all think alike. I never bother with Daily Kos. Pandagon or bust, for me. I hope they will reconsider and let more people in.
loathing the thought of being perceived as racist even as they try to speak up
I am sure this is a concern for some folks. In my experience, an even more common concern for white progressives is that they will be perceived as troublemakers or scolds for forcing everyone to pay attention to the fact that something might not be fair. We have a powerful urge to believe in equality in this country, which is mostly wonderful but has the downside of making people feel uncomfortable and defensive when actual instances of inequality are pointed out. That creates dissonance between our ideals and reality, and dissonance is uncomfortable.
There are a lot of ways in which “making a fuss” is viewed derogatorily. Some of them are about prejudice but IMO a lot of them are about extra work. People follow the path of least resistance, whether that is referring a friend for a position on the board of directors, choosing “known” names for a panel discussion, or picking insiders for an op-ed page.
I don’t know anything the selection process for bloggers’ credentials. I do know that one important part of helping people in positions of power to restructure their power is by trying to illustrate to them the consequences of their decisions, and I think your post does that with superhuman diplomancy. (The assertive/aggressive tactics are needed, too, of course — they work in tandem as you pointed out.)
Anyway, thanks. This is not an issue that gets solved overnight — it needs chipping away all the time.