So when is a blog not a blog? Or when is a blog entry not a real blog entry?
George Clooney blogged for Huffpo yesterday or maybe he didn’t. (the post has since been pulled down from Huffpo, here’s what it said:
George Clooney: I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!
I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I’m proud of it.
Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you’d
whisper "I’m a Nazi." Like it’s dirty word. But turn away from saying
"I’m a liberal" and it’s like you’re turning away from saying that
blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women
should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy
was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no
ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?).
But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can
agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on
is the idea that we’re all allowed to question authority. We have to
agree that it’s not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to
speak out.That’s one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow.
When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn’t confuse dissent with disloyalty"
and "We can’t defend freedom at home by deserting it at home," it’s
like he’s commenting on today’s headlines.The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way
so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us
were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does
Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it
drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled."
It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren’t misled. You were
afraid of being called unpatriotic."Bottom line: it’s not merely our right to question our government,
it’s our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can’t demand freedom of
speech then turn around and say, But please don’t say bad things about
us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.I am a liberal. Fire away.
Is the Clooney "entry" a real blog entry if it was a) created by someone other than George b) comprised of quotes pulled from various interviews George has done? Does it matter that Clooney did not sit down, like you and I sit down, and write a blog piece? Does it matter that it was published in the same way the other Huffpo blogs are published without a tag line indicating George did not actually write the piece?
What matters here? The presentation? The content? The lack of transparency and/or disclosure of Huffpo? What if the majority of the Huffpo blogs are written/created in this way, (**edited to add that Arianna has provided information regarding how her bloggers blog. If you click that link it will take you to her post, including that update) does it matter to you? Does Huffpo lose crediblity or gain it?
*** Editing to add this great post by Tish and another one from Tish who links off to Michael Weiss
***Adding Arianna’s next step – isn’t the blogosphere powerful???
***Adding a link to Snead and one to Drumsnwhistles, too. (both were in my comments speaking on the topic)
***One last update, Arianna was wrong and has learned her lesson
I’d love to know what you think.
Technorati Tags: blogs, blogging, clooney, clooneygate, huffpo, transparency
Man, I have to say — HuffPo is really dumb for doing this.
I personally believe a blog is only a blog if the person who owns the blog actually WRITES the blog. I mean, if I am not writing it, then it’s my stalker’s version of what he or she THINKS I would say.
That holds true (for me anyway), also if I write a few things about something I like or dislike, and you decide to string them together and show me what a blog would look like, then PUB that said bogus entry.
For shame!
It astounds me to find someone who needs help in sorting this out.
Look: there were dozens of commenters on that post who believed that Clooney had written it. At no time did Huffington attempt to let them know that he hadn’t. She just let them ring-in with comments personal to him as if he was the person behind the keyboard.
Is it really true that you cannot see the problem in this?
Snead is the only person who has commented on my blog and she seems to see problems in this.
So who said “they cannot see the problem in this” and who do you think needs help “Sorting this out”? I asked what other people thought and didn’t give my opinion at all either way, Billy. But thanks for posting your opinions, since that’s exactly what I was asking for. 🙂
I think they should have been upfront about how it was put together from the start. And according to the LA Times, while he didn’t object to the content, Clooney asked them to clarify how it came about–which they didn’t do. And then he got more specific–and Huffpo lost face and credibility. A shame.
It reads like he wrote his opinions for Ariana to publish. It’s full of “me” statements. It should’ve been disclosed, because some savvy person could have figure it out with a targeted google search anyway.
But it doesn’t mean every single blog post, even those that are ‘ghosted’ are necessarily wrong, evil or misleading.
I think any time you toss up the “L” word on an extreme conservative blog with the idea to throw that “L” person to the wolves, it’s worth disclosing the true source.
“But it doesn’t mean every single blog post, even those that are ‘ghosted’ are necessarily wrong, evil or misleading.”
OK when are ghosted blog posts NOT necessarily wrong, evil or misleading? and when ARE they wrong, evil or misleading? That’s what I want to know. When is it ok and when isn’t it ok?
It is not ok to sell it as if it were written by the person and posted by the person. They should have had a disclaimer or note saying that these were quotes from different times and sources.
It is simply misleading anyother way, IMO.
Usually I like their stuff, but lately they have been looking rather stupid.
I haven’t given this too much thought yet, but my first impression is that this would be entirely different if it were in a newspaper or magazine. When you put your name to it, it’s yours. Your writing. Your article. Your blog.
She did a dumb thing, but she’ll get the traffic on her site which she apparently doesn’t need as she’s a heavy hitter as it is. Maybe she’s trying to get those (like Clooney, who didn’t even “get” blogs) readers out there who have yet to rely on the internet for their information.
I won’t be reading her. I mean, she never talks about farting or eating too much and getting bloated. So she has nothing to say for me. 😉
Hi Denise! This whole thing had me so bugged almost all weekend. How *anybody* could think that a faux blog like this is ok–and I don’t care what lower life form in the publicist’s office “approved” it–it’s just wrong, wrong wrong on so many levels.
It’s bad enough that so many of the general populace think HufPo is a real blog. C’mon! it’s a celebrity blog! those folks got plenty of outlets. they certainly don’t need blogging–that is unless they really, really need faux blogging. The whole incident’s just a new level of absurity.
Ack Tish – now you’ve brought up another set of questions by mentioning the celebrity blog.
While I found it all totally screwed up, I also found it fascinating to watch. The comments in all of Arianna’s posts were interesting. The response of the blogosphere is what I really appreciated about Clooneygate – and in a sense, she might have done us a favor by screwing up like that. There are a lot of fake blogs out there, the more we speak out against them, the better, right?! 🙂
Hey, Denise – I’ve been so out of it lately that I missed this whole brouhaha (other than the first LA Times report on it), but in a way I’m glad I did because this post and all the ones you linked to did such an excellent job of reporting the situation and putting it into perspective. Thank you!