Edwards' newest bloggers
In a comment to this post, Jim asks that I write something on Amanda Marcotte, former N.C. Sen. (and presidential candidate) John Edwards’ latest web hire.
Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon is one of two recent web hires. The other is Melissa McEwan, late of Shakespeare’s Sister.
She has only just gotten up and running at Edwards’ blog, but Marcotte has engendered a lot of hostile traffic on the conservative/Republican end of the blogsphere, who find her writings on the Duke Lacrosse case objectionable. She probably didn’t help her cause with those folks any when she deleted one of her more caustic posts from her blog, but of course not the Google cashe.
For whatever reason, McEwan has escaped the same push-back.
Jim says that since we wrote about Mathew Gross, Edwards’ senior internet strategist, we ought to profile all his other web staff to.
Well, after consulting with my bosses, we’re probably not going to file a piece for the newspaper on Marcotte. The only reason we profiled Gross was that he’s local: he lives in Greensboro, is part of the Greensboro blogging community, etc. . .
Marcotte is from Texas and doesn’t hold the same appeal for us. We haven’t, for example, profiled Edwards’ fund raiser or campaign manager or press person for the same reason. Were she from Greensboro (or Guilford or Rockingham counties for that matter) I’d probably be working on something already.
However, if you’d like to see what folks who are bothered about the hiring are writing, I can point you to the following:
There are more, but that should get you started. And if you’re interested in an opinion from the flip-side, Cliff Schecter at Huffington writes on it.
As always, the comments link is open.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Mark, you know I have no love for Edwards. And believe me, I don't particularly want you to profile all of his campaign hires. But many regard the coverage the newspaper gave Goss as very positively-slanted "puff" . . . something to boost Edwards' campaign.
On the other hand, this Edwardian decision (to hire Marcotte) has gotten quite a bit of negative coverage on the web. But your print readers won't see it.
Bloggers are from everywhere. Therefore, the bosses hiding behind the "she's not local" excuse is kind of lame.
And the decision not to cover a story that does not exactly frame Edwards' decision-making in a positive light does not help the "we don't have a liberal bias" argument.
Posted on February 5, 2007 7:33 PM
Mary:
Blogs may be everywhere, but bloggers have to hang their hat somewhere. Those that hang their hat in our neck of the woods are more interesting to us than those that don't. That's where that decision comes down.
As for the liberal bias thing, I somehow doubt anything I write is ever going to talk folks out of that one.
Posted on February 5, 2007 8:10 PM
It's ironic that people discuss what Marcotte wrote but not her blogging skills. From a content-writing POV, she's a great catch. Both her blog and Shake's Sis have huge followings. Sounds like good skills and a bit of publicity for the Edwards' blog. You don't have to agree with her personal opinions to respect her technical and writing ability.
Posted on February 5, 2007 8:53 PM
I believe what so many are put out with (and will not get past to consider her "content") is her expletive-filled "writing ability".
And then there are her opinions on the Duke case. Many wonder if they reflect those of Mr. Edwards . . . he being a "champion of justice" and all that.
Posted on February 5, 2007 9:28 PM
mark, I'm actually impressed you even talked to JR or whoever about it and even wrote as much as you did!!!
you have grown one -- not a pair, yet -- but one..
maybe by the time you've gotten Edwards elected you might actually have the cajones to do the tough pieces...
oh, in all of your coverage yet have you EVER pointed out that Edwards was provided no gain to the Dems in N.C. in 2004? that seems like a very relevant thing?
have you in PRINT???
Posted on February 5, 2007 10:11 PM
Jim:
Not sure what you're asking me with that last question.
In 2004, I wasn't writing about state and federal politics, so I didn't write anything about Edwards back then.
If your contention is that Edwards being on the presidential ticket didn't help Dems get elected in 2004, that's probably a correct assertion, but given they took the governor's office and both houses of the legislature it doesn't seem like they needed a whole lot of help. (They lost the Ag Commissioners race but that had to do with other things.)
And if you think my little piece of the media market has any influence on who is or isn't elected president, you're more of an optimist than I am.
Posted on February 5, 2007 10:25 PM
From a comment ("Andy Wooster") in the threads I cited at Overlawyered:
I don't know who in Edwards' campaign was responsible for Marcotte's hiring (some have suggested it was his wife), but I think it's clear that she's not on the payroll for her opinions or for her writing ability. Edwards is paying her because she's popular.
If he was only looking for someone to run a blog on his website, why would he pick Marcotte? Her prose is mediocre at best, poor at worst. It is my opinion that her excessive vulgarity and often angry tone gives her blogging a very crass feel to it. There are literally thousands of writers out in the blogosphere who are more eloquent than Marcotte.
Her stated positions also differ sharply from Edwards' opinions as well. She's an avowed socialist, she's very hostile to all religion (Christianity in particular), she supports abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc.
Ted's comment about judging a blogger based on the "most inflammatory of her thousands of past posts" reveals a gross ignorance of Marcotte's writings. Far from being an aberration, Marcotte's post on the Duke lacrosse is emblematic of her thought pattern, a pattern where males, particularly white males, are guilty until proven inn--errr, well I'm not sure if males can ever be let off the hook in Marcotte's eyes.
Posted on February 6, 2007 2:40 PM