Friday, October 22, 2010

At least they're mentioning bH now.

Blogger blogs....

(Chron: Scary "new" trend of big money in politics hits Houston! Kevin Whited, BlogHouston)
Now, we certainly wouldn't want to dissuade any Chron journalists from digging into campaign finance records and looking for conflicts of interest. Goodness knows, that would be a welcome change from the sorts of rah-rah stories that too frequently show up in the newspaper.

But "new national trend?"


Former newspaper of record (and current largest local blog) responds...

(Remainders on anonymous donations, Bradley Olson, ChronBlog)
Actually, yes, it is rather new, at least on the scale it has reached in this election, as these stories show. It's a big enough deal, in the estimation of some pretty seasoned journalists, that it could be the source of the next Watergate.

I encourage you to go read both posts, follow the links in both and see the sources each are using to make their case. Then, probably, you'll side with whomever is closest to your partisan leanings.

Hell, I'm just glad that ChronBlog has decided to join the conversation again, instead of banning certain blogs and bloggers from their site. Debate is good.


  1. ** It's a big enough deal, in the estimation of some pretty seasoned journalists, **

    The change in terms from one sentence to the other is interesting. I don't disagree necessarily with the notion that it's a big deal (the bigger and more intrusive government gets, the more money is going to chase favors, not to mention preferred policies). The proliferation of qualified orgs may be new; the mechanism isn't.

    I'm glad journos are finally catching on, but political scientists like myself (and more importantly, political operatives) have been there for a while in terms of how McCain-Feingold changed the campaign-finance game (and probably not, as it turns out, for the better).

    I'm not sure why anyone would interpret that as partisan observation, actually. It's just the political landscape, it seems to me.

  2. I should have added... I concur completely about the willingness to link instead of scrubbing and banning. I like Brad Olson's work for the newspaper. There's no good reason we can't all engage in a civil blog conversation so far as I'm concerned.

  3. After sleeping on this, one more comment and then I'll stop....

    In retrospect, my post didn't take into account the general audience of a newspaper (less poligeeky than the readers here or BH). In that sense, much of what Olson was describing probably was "new" to many. If I want newspapers to inform, then I probably should come off a little less critical when they do! (oops). In retrospect, I might have approached that post a little differently (while sharing much of the same info). So, kudos to the blog discussion for bringing this out.

    I will stop talking to myself in your comments now Cory (I promise). :)


Comment Policy:Any comment containing profanity or presonal attacks will be disallowed. Repeated violations will get you marked as SPAM. Real name is preferred, fake names will be carefully considered before being allowed. If your on-line moniker is so widely known as to be a clear identifier, that's OK too. If your comment doesn't appear, give it some time. I do have a day job.

Sports Section