What Happens at State Central.... v2
I've written at length about this phenomenon before.
I direct this at no one, but offer it to folks as a thought.
Given all the back-and-forth about who the next RPV chairman is, I've seen plenty of people reveal information that probably is best kept indoors. Tucker Watkins, Russ Moulton, Ed Gillepsie: then everyone runs and speculates, calling SCC members and haggling them for information.
It's tiresome. And frankly, the Democrats don't deserve to know our dirty laundry.
Now I know why some folks do it. It's popular, it's what folks want to know. For the same reason tabloids print anything on Britney Spears or the very worst expose stories, good stories or "breaking first" attracts readers.
I have two objections:
First, we get back to the orginial problem of every conversation being "blogged" about moments after the conversation is uttered. As I wrote back in March 2005:RPV's State Central Committee has a tradition of being an egalitarian and spirited meeting where top-level Republicans can speak their minds about the condition and direction of the Republican Party.
Abusing that latitude for political grandstanding is horrific in my opinion.
There's a worse proposition here: Bloggers in general are treated with a bit of contempt. Why? Precisely for this reason. Why should anyone trust me (or bloggers on the whole) if I am just going to run to the ol' blog and post the conversation?
Distasteful, disappointing, and overall a very damaging strike against blogs in Virginia. Some of us just have to grow up. True, this was in reaction to a "motion by Jim Rich" that never occured, that was posted on Too Conservative as if Rich was there (he was not). All of this to emphasize support for an upcoming district convention.
Yet the idea SCC members cannot feel somewhat secure in divulging information - or worse, divulge information with the specific point of influencing debate - is a strike against what otherwise would be a very commonsense and civil conversation.
Second, why are we airing our dirty laundry to the whole world? Who should get to know the factions within RPV? To what ends? Why do Democrats and others get a free pass into the decision making process at RPV when there are others who have worked lifetimes to sit at the table? Furthermore, what kind of service are we really providing? Are we coarsening the lines of decorum, or is "sunshine at all costs" burning us in the end?
Every member of SCC that I have spoken with save two has mentioned how they don't feel comfortable talking about this stuff because of the blogs. They talk to me because I don't blog about it.
Opinions from others brighter than myself.
Waldo Jaquith:I'm surprised at how often I see bloggers post about private exchanges, or exchanges that occurred where there was a reasonable belief that no press was present and people felt comfortable speaking accordingly. I would never dare write about these sorts of things. It helps to brand bloggers as unpredictable radicals, rather than as reasonable people who happen to publicly reflect on the events of the day. Jay Hughes:Yes, State Central meetings are open to the public. But if I'm interpreting the spirit of Shaun's post (and far be it from me to put words in Shaun's mouth :), I believe he's arguing that bloggers should exercise a degree of restraint regarding posting everything that happens at a certain event. For instance, it isn't always necessary after a meeting or event to race to a computer to post on a blog that Kate Griffin sneezed twice during the proceedings. Also, it's beginning to appear to me that if bloggers are going to "moonlight" as journalists, they should attend in person events upon which they wish to report in order to assure accuracy of reporting. And a jaded James Young (alluding to the incident which first prompted me to write about this phenomenon):As someone who also frequently carried proxies to State Central meetings and voted, I agree with you, Shaun, to a point. JD is correct about the legalities; clearly, however, Young Vince was having an acid flashback to his days posing as someone unaffiliated but impressed with Chairman Sean.
Waldo and Jay are exactly correct, too, which I why I respect them. They speak to standards that just about everyone here abides by. Sadly, Vince persists in pursuing his agenda while pretending to behave as a reporter. What this boils down to is decorum and propriety. When we break the boundaries, journalists either snicker or heap scorn upon blogs as a whole. And rightly so.
LESSON: Not everything you hear deserves to be written about. Your reputation as a person rides on much more, and if you can't be trusted with information, you won't.
Again, this isn't directed at any one person, collection of persons, or anyone at all. It's merely a thought for the future, given with all the goodwill in the world.
|
 |
Doogman 
10 Comments:
No source, no information, no post.
Frankly, I'm surprised you feel this way.
And, I reject your issue about a closed, egalitarian Republican Party. It's exactly those walls that creates the aura of distrust.
This process has been eye-opening. There are many in the GOP leadership on SCC that need to go. There is a deep organizational problem if the first reaction by State Central Committee members is to close the doors and not welcome discussion from rank-and-file members as to the direction of the party.
Yet, I'm blogging about the process for selecting the Chair of the RPV and what happened before.
I see them as two different things. So, do you see it as 'just' war or not (personal joke with Shaun)?
Unit chairs have an entirely different perspective on the RPV situation.
J.R. -- Whom precisely on State Central "need to go"?
If you're speculating purely to serve one faction over another, speak up.
I do this for two reasons, its the right thing to do and it will allow me to get info in the future.
If other were like me, he knew much more, much eariler about the chairman situation. I only posted info when I wqas told I could.
It seems to me thats the way everyone should operate.
If they don't, sources should not give leakers info.
Would that be the same Waldo Jaquith that recently posted this gossip. If so, I applaud his return to ethical blogging.
My thoughts on this are as follows:
People are going to want to talk openly at some point in time. To date, the SCC has been a place where one could reasonably do that without fear of reprisal.
Now there is some "sunshine factor" involved in this, because those who are there can report the results and the sense of the SCC as a whole to their respective district and unit committees without essentially naming names or being political about it.
What happens now is a "snitch culture" (not my words, but the words of a book I have skimmed but not read) where anyone can post the results, proceedings, preceedings, or anything about anyone -- in this case SCC meetings.
Now if you are a SCC member, a politician, or any other vested member with an interest in how RPV operates, are you (1) going to be open and honest in the room, (2) simply keep otherwise important information to yourself, or (3) hold the conversation away from the thoughts and opinions of others in the restaurant down the street?
It's option 3. Without question.
The point is at some point in time we as Republicans have to have some sort of conclave where the doors shut and we talk without fear of seeing it in the news or on the blogs the next day. That is healthy for a democracy IMHO, and it builds a sense of respect for those in the room as opposed to grandstanding for political points.
When you start seeing names bandied about on the blogs, that's a bad sign because people are essentially campaigning or trying to tilt the scales. Do people deserve to know what is going on at RPV? I think so, but not at the expense of making RPV so transparent the spotlight burns out any honesty or genuine discussion on matters of import.
Having carried proxies to SCC, politics are played there. The SCC Executive Committee is not open to the public, and yet that is where most of the decisions are actually made. There are no cries to pry that open to the sunlight... and long may it be so.
I've played the pros and cons in my head for the better part of a week (when the thought arises). I am of the opinion that there are some things and some places where decorum and good sense dictate that an honest conversation by those involved trumps my right-to-know. That's why I elect my district chairs and SCC reps -- to do that for me.
My US$0.02 FWIW.
Post a Comment
Home