{"id":2451,"date":"2004-07-17T11:54:04","date_gmt":"2004-07-17T15:54:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/dbnews\/2004\/07\/17\/blogging-the-convention\/"},"modified":"2004-07-17T11:54:04","modified_gmt":"2004-07-17T15:54:04","slug":"blogging-the-convention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/2004\/07\/17\/blogging-the-convention\/","title":{"rendered":"Blogging the Convention"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name='a3518'><\/a><\/p>\n<table width=\"537\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<tr>\n<td>\n<p>Had a bit of a scare last night. At the always stimulating <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/thursdaymeetings\">Thursday<br \/>\n        Night Blogger&#8217;s<\/a> meeting at the Berkman Center, we were disturbed to discover<br \/>\n        that the only other member of the group to be credentialed for the convention,<br \/>\n        our blogging buddy Rick Heller, was getting all sorts of email from the<br \/>\n        DNC Press Corps that we weren&#8217;t.&nbsp; Like an invitation to the Bloggers<br \/>\n        Brunch and a request for his laptop&#8217;s MAC number to add it to the wireless<br \/>\n        access list.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, we had read the horror stories online about the bloggers<br \/>\n        who received official invitations only to be &quot;disinvited&quot; a few days<br \/>\n        later by email, but we had compulsively combed every inbox we could access<br \/>\n        looking for the dreaded disinvitation. We found nothing. <\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, now we were starting to get paranoid. When we got home from the<br \/>\n        meeting, our Mom called to read us an editorial which had appeared that<br \/>\n        day in the New York Times, about the Dems inviting bloggers to the Convention,<br \/>\n        and subsequently reducing the number to 30 (although they were wrong<br \/>\n        about there being only 50 applicants). The editorial said, in part, &quot;Bloggers<br \/>\n        can be crass and biased, but politicians no longer scoff at their rich<br \/>\n        online realm. Hence the red carpet at the convention &#8211; at least for some<br \/>\n        of them.&quot;<\/p>\n<p>By now we were sure we were among the disenfranchised, disinvited bloggers.&nbsp; Someone<br \/>\n        at the DNC had sobered up, or obtained access to our &quot;permanent record&quot;<br \/>\n        or just decided having the Dowbrigade running around loose was too much<br \/>\n        of a risk.&nbsp; How<br \/>\n        foolish we would look to all the people we had told.&nbsp; Well, nothing<br \/>\n        new there.<\/p>\n<p>So this morning, in the office early to try to keep a step ahead of<br \/>\n        these frisky lawyers currently occupying our teaching days, we wrote<br \/>\n        a carefully crafted email to Mike Liddell, the DNC point man for the<br \/>\n        Blogger Project. By the time we took our mid-morning class break, he<br \/>\n        had written back.&nbsp; We were indeed still in. Our paranoia was misplaced<br \/>\n        (this time).<\/p>\n<p>So we went back to casting about for an angle, an edge, a hook to tie<br \/>\n        together our convention coverage. Knowing that the iconic New York Times<br \/>\n        had editorialized on the theme only increased the pressure. The eyes<br \/>\n        of the informati would be on us. The New York Times was expecting &quot;fresh<br \/>\n        insight&quot;. The world of conventional journalism was surely pulling for<br \/>\n        our failure, so as not to expose the vapidity and vanity of the last<br \/>\n        30 years of their own self-congratulatory convention coverage. <\/p>\n<p>The bar<br \/>\n          was being set impossibly high.&nbsp; &quot;Menckenian impertinence&quot;? We<br \/>\n           didn&#8217;t have a clue as to what that was, let alone how to achieve it. <\/p>\n<p>However, the Dowbrigade is not easily intimidated. Fool hearty would<br \/>\n        perhaps not be an exaggeration. So our current thinking is to take a<br \/>\n        three-pronged approach to our convention coverage. Of course, this could<br \/>\n        change in about 3 minutes if we can think of or steal a better idea.<\/p>\n<p>Plan A we can&#8217;t write about, because it is secret, and as the plan with<br \/>\n        the most promise we refuse to compromise it by creating anticipation<br \/>\n        or warning its victims. One of these &quot;if we told you we&#8217;d have to kill<br \/>\n        you&quot; scenarios.<\/p>\n<p>Plan B is to concentrate on covering the coverers. This approach is<br \/>\n        obvious considering the sheer numbers involved in this event.&nbsp; At<br \/>\n        the convention in Boston there are expected to be about 5,000 delegates<br \/>\n        and Democratic Party officials, and about 15,000 members of the press.<br \/>\n        Logically, members of the press will be much easier to find, and everybody<br \/>\n        connected with the actual Party is going to have at least 5 or 10 journalists<br \/>\n        surrounding them, interviewing, photographing and recording every moment<br \/>\n        of their time and every thought on their minds.<\/p>\n<p>Plus, there is the fact that the Press is a big part of the story, and<br \/>\n        have been notoriously bad at covering themselves.&nbsp; It like they<br \/>\n        have a secret brotherhood blood pact not to reveal too much about how<br \/>\n        they go about their business and come up with this drivel they have been<br \/>\n        spooning out to the American public for all these years.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, the more we think about it, the more this idea appeals to us.&nbsp; The<br \/>\n        mainstream Press, after all, is largely responsible for the moral quagmire<br \/>\n        we find ourselves in and the mindless apathy of the American public.&nbsp; The<br \/>\n        poor delegates can&#8217;t be blamed; for the most part they are everyday shulbs<br \/>\n        with a touching naivit<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Had a bit of a scare last night. At the always stimulating Thursday Night Blogger&#8217;s meeting at the Berkman Center, we were disturbed to discover that the only other member of the group to be credentialed for the convention, our &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/2004\/07\/17\/blogging-the-convention\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":299,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1443],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-esl-links"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/299"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/dowbrigade\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}