Patrick Campaign Testimonial Policy Updated
by The Editors, May 31st, 2006 at 07:04am
While Hub Politics has yet to be officially thanked for our role in forcing the Deval Patrick campaign to update their web based testimonial policy, they have nonetheless settled on a new policy based on suggestions at Blue Mass Group.
Thanks for the policy. We accept it in full as follows:
“The speaker’s full name, hometown, occupation, and formal affiliation with the Patrick campaign (if any) will be disclosed by the person speaking. It’s not necessary to disclose the fact that someone is volunteering for the campaign, unless they actually have a title (like “volunteer coordinator,” or “campaign co-chair” - “envelope stuffer” doesn’t count). If for some reason the speaker doesn’t say that information, then it will be disclosed on the blog itself.”
We have taped a few testimonials prior to receiving this where the speaker did not speak these items, so for those we will include the information on the blog as you suggest. All future testimonials (such as ones done at the event on Thursday night with Senator Obama or at the convention) will include that information or they will not be run.
There is some merit to most of the new policy, and we applaud the Patrick campaign’s newly discovered interest in transparency. Still, it seems like it should be required for the average campaign volunteer to disclose his or her involvement in the campaign–even the envelope stuffers.
How much different is the campaign volunteer with title from the campaign volunteer without one? Do we really want the Patrick campaign to post testimonials from people who are basically political operatives answering phones or stuffing envelopes? The people who generally volunteer for that kind of work are people with a passion for politics, and the candidate they are working for–it’s only fair that the web surfing public know if the only people the Patrick campaign can swing for these testimonials are campaign volunteers.
A testimonial of support would mean more from the average Joe on the street working three jobs than someone who spends their nights and weekends at Deval Patrick’s campaign headquarters and is constantly interacting with the campaign. The optional nature of the disclosure of one’s status as a volunteer suggests that the Patrick campaign may want to hide the true number of testimonials they publish that come from within the bubble of their campaign.
If the Patrick campaign wants to post testimonials with campaign volunteers that is fine–in fact, it would be more interesting if they did–but the testimonial ought to be about why they are volunteering for the Patrick campaign, not pretending to be a random citizen who is explaining why they support him.
The new policy may be a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t quite achieve full transparency.
More at Boston Herald’s Daily Briefing Blog
Entry Filed under: Deval Patrick
Similar Posts
- Hub Politics Causes Deval Patrick’s Campaign To Change Its Testimonial Policy.
- Deval Patrick: He Was For Transparency, Before He Was Against It
- Patrick Campaign Responds To Bogus Testimonial
- Deval Patrick Uses Campaign Co-Chair In Campaign Testimonial
- Another Victory For The Taxpayers Against Deval Patrick
7 Comments
1. Charley on the MTA | May 31st, 2006 at 8:19 am
Well, I think we’re getting a little picky about the envelope-stuffers, but whatever.
I hereby acknowledge, on behalf of Blue Mass. Group, the critical role of Hub Politics in improving campaign transparency, thereby strengthening the Commonwealth immeasurably.
2. David | May 31st, 2006 at 9:04 am
Guys, first, I’ll give credit where credit is due, as I did before: good job on the Amy G. business. Second, the “envelope stuffers need not disclose” part of the policy came from us at Blue Mass Group, and was not added by the Patrick campaign - they accepted exactly what we sent them based on several comments on our blog. As to the new policy itself, I frankly don’t understand your concern about volunteers. By definition, a volunteer is someone who is taking time out from their regular life to help a campaign that he or she believes in. They are precisely “random citizens,” as you put it, who are for whatever reason fired up about a campaign. They talk about those reasons in the testimonial. Would it really convey important information if they said at the end, “by the way, I volunteer a couple of hours a week stuffing envelopes for the campaign”? Not for my money. What I want to know is (obviously) paid work, and also any formal unpaid affiliation (like Ms. Gorin has). The mere fact that someone spends a little time volunteering tells me exactly the same thing as the fact that they’re willing to do a video testimonial: they like Patrick, they believe in his campaign, and they’re willing to go out of their way to support him. Your view strikes me as overkill.
3. David | May 31st, 2006 at 9:06 am
By the way, are you EVER going to get rid of the annoying “I’ll post your comment when I’m good and ready” feature? Do you really get that much malicious commentary? I doubt it. You can always delete the bad stuff after the fact - that’s what we do.
4. Helen | May 31st, 2006 at 11:34 am
Then let me be the first…..“ThankYou” to Hub Politics for its focus on raising the standard. But as we all know, the proof will be in the pudding…
Gotta say, this electronic approach to democracy’s new century demands it’s very own vigilance. In anticipation of coming elections it is my opinion we must be sure to honor the sacrifices made by the people for the people with an undeterred focus on truth and fairness…The thought of any citizen anywhere in Massachusetts being able to speak his or her own heart or mind sure feels like a gift of nature.
Helen
5. Matt M. | May 31st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Regarding your second comment, David. Registered users can post comments that will be immediately published. Unregistered users must have their comments approved. This is meant to give people an incentive to register to post comments. We chose not to limit comments to only registered users, which, appears to be the way things operate on BMG–which is certainly a good way to keep things, but in my experience blogging, the more obstacles you put in front of people to post comments, the less you will get. Since Hub Politics is a relatively new blog (less than a year old) we don’t feel at a point yet where we can close off comments only to people who are willing to register.
6. David | May 31st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Re registering: it’s true that only registered users can comment at BMG - that’s an unfortunate feature of our software that I’d disable if I could, but I can’t (though it does almost completely eliminate comment spam). So perhaps I’m suffering from pot/kettle syndrome here. Anyway, how does one register for your site? Is that the TypeKey thing?
7. Matt M. | May 31st, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Yes, TypeKey is the way to do it, it can buggy though. I wish there was a better option that was easy to install that also effectively controlled spam. Thankfully, the registration barrier keeps spam that does hit our site from being published, and all we got to do is delete it from the system. I’ve used several kinds of blog software and none have been up to the task of staying ahead of the spammers.