Andre Walker: APN got money from three candidates
July 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm by Ken Edelstein in NewsThe Atlanta blogger who got in hot water this morning for taking money from politicians is accusing his accusers of doing much the same thing.
“This just another case of the pot calling the kettle black,” Georgia Politics Unfiltered’s Andre Walker said in an e-mail about Atlanta Progressive News.
APN reported early this morning that Walker received payments from U.S. Rep. David Scott’s campaign (apparently for designing a website) and also ran favorable coverage of Scott. Decaturguy blogged last year that Walker had set up a website for Vernon Jones and also covered Jones’ Senate campaign.
But Walker sent campaign disclosure reports to CL showing that APN received a total of $575 for ads from politicians whom the website endorsed: Angela Moore for Georgia secretary of state in 2006, Able Mable Thomas for the fifth congressional district this year, and Donzella James, who ran against Scott in the 13th congressional district this year.
Interesting point, but it still seems to me that ads are a bit different from performing work for hire (hey, I would say that, wouldn’t I?). For one thing, if APN ran ads for those candidates, the ads served as a sort of natural disclosure that APN’s getting money from those candidates. Also it’s a bit less money than the $1,250 APN reported Walker received from Jones and additional payments from Scott.
On the other hand, APN didn’t disclose its own relationship with Donzella James — the endorsement or the ad payment — when extensively quoting on her interactions with Walker.
I’m writing so much about this today because it’s plain interesting the way people (and by that I mean both readers and posters) are sorting through the ethical issues tied into blogging, journalism and where people are now getting their information. Sometimes, bloggers reflexively accuse journalists who also write in print of arrogance or of failing to understand the new medium. That may be true a lot of times, but bloggers do themselves a disservice when they respond angrily and defensively anytime critical issues are raised.
In a separate post on today’s blogger ethics brouhaha, A.man.I. points to CyberJournalist.net’s Blogger’s Code of Ethics. Although that code seems to me to be a bit vague and rambling, it seems a very constructive place to start.
Meanwhile, Walker confirmed in his e-mail to me that he’s credentialed to blog at the Democratic National Convention.
But he may end up with a smaller platform. Peach Pundit founder Erick Erickson says he’s decided not to allow Walker to post on its front page during the current campaign cycle. In a post this morning, Erickson said he’d previously raised concerns to Walker about payments from Scott before APN’s revelations.
In an e-mail about a couple of hours ago, Erickson writes: “I was just in the process of sending him an email telling him it’d be inappropriate for him to continue on the front page until after the election given his failure to disclose.”
Peach Pundit has become one of the state’s major political forums, particularly in conservative circles (although Walker’s a Democratic contributor). Earlier, I grilled Erickson via e-mail about the blog’s approach to conflicts of interest and disclosure. My questions in boldface, Erickson’s answers in italics.
How can readers of political blogs like Peach Pundit know what the conflicts of interest are?
As a general rule, I try to get people to not write about things they are actively involved in, unless they make it clear per post that they are involved in the issue. Buzz Brockway, for example, has written about Gwinnett politics before, making it clear who he supports or is working with. Clint Murphy, as Bull Moose, has always been upfront about his McCain support, even though he only recently got on the payroll. Readers don’t know there are conflicts unless we tell them and we need to repeatedly tell them because of stuff scrolling out of view.
While I haven’t done the research myself, it seems that some of the disclosures on PP have been kind of in passing — like you have to sort of be in the know or almost reading between the lines to understand that this person’s in this camp and that person’s in the other, and it’s not entirely clear whether there’s a financial relationship or more of a philosophical one. Not a criticism, just a vague impression. Do you find the vagueness of disclosures to be a concern?
I think as long as someone is expressing their opinion that it is fine, but I think there is a huge difference between expressing an opinion supporting something and actively working for that thing. If you are working on behalf of a candidate or cause, there absolutely needs to be a disclosure that you are not just advocating your preferred candidate or position, but that you are doing so with connection to the candidate or cause.
And finally there’s the whole pen name thing: As a reader, how can I tell who someone even is (and therefore ID a conflict for myself)?
With the exception of Decaturguy, who rarely posts but who’s privacy I’ve always tried to respect on the issue of anonymity, I know who the pseudonymous writers are and they have all committed to not writing about the particular issues they are involved in. Thus far they have all managed to do so, thankfully. I’d feel obligated to mention their involvement and doing so might risk their anonymity. We actually do have a couple of people on the front page who’d be at risk with their jobs should they lose the veil of their pseudonym, so they have incentive to not talk about work issues.
On this issue, Deborah Honeycutt’s campaign [Honeycutt is Scott's Republican opponent] emailed me after the last post by Andre to suggest Andre might be working for David. I emailed Andre to inquire and never heard back from him. Unfortunately, I then hit the week of the 4th, then a week in DC, and then a week in Austin, TX and it totally slipped my mind to follow up on it. I should have.
It seems very clear to me that Andre should have disclosed, at least on Peach Pundit, that he’s working with David Scott’s campaign. We’ll be dealing with this matter further at Peach Pundit as a result.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Okay Ken first of all this is complete and utter BS.
“Sometimes, bloggers reflexively accuse journalists who also write in print of arrogance or of failing to understand the new medium. That may be true a lot of times, but bloggers do themselves a disservice when they respond angrily and defensively anytime critical issues are raised.”
We react exactly the way we are treated. Better by some. Worst by most. And Andre’s little problem looks to become exactly what I feared. A chance to roll out all the tired old canards. You are obsessed with anonymity. For gods sake man you’ve met me in person and have my personal phone number.
What part of all of us vetting those who are anonymous (as Erick points out) and actively trying to make sure no one slips through the cracks do you not understand?
And I want you to explain to me why the fact that you use a proper name and I use a handle makes you any more credible to your readers than I to mine? Why the hell is is that some threshold that you cling to without ever addressing that both you and I entire archives of an actual record people can use to judge our agenda or even if we have one?
But here’s an even better point! Andre is his real name! And it did not miraculously shield him and his readers from this unethical behavior. Or let me put it another way. If suddenly tomorrow it was exposed that I receive money directly from David Shafer (who I’ve mostly written positively about) do you think the name “griftdrift” would somehow not be just as big a steaming turd as the name Andre Walker is today?
Its a ridiculous argument.
How’s that for reflexive and defensive?
Oh and one other thing. Respond to criticism? Hell! Who are the people holding Andre’s feet to the fire on this thing? The blogging community. We’re pretty good at policing our own. The problem with many not all but many in the print industry is your criticism is either false, strawmen or uses episodes like this to paint us all with the same brush.
And you wonder why we have our hackles up?
As far as Andre and APN. If Andre wants to agree that his credibility and APN are the same i.e. approaching nil, then that’s fine.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Just to clarify, griftdrift: I’m not arguing that bloggers shouldn’t post anonymously. And I think we agree that the larger issues are the conflict of interest itself and that Andre didn’t disclose the apparent conflict of interest.
But I raised the pseudonym issue because pen names do add another layer of opaqueness to the general public knowing if there are any hidden agendas. It’s relevant to this story because, while Andre’s name shows up on a candidate’s disclosure and the conflict of interest can be easily identified, a person who uses a pseudonym can more easily mask that conflict.
Although Erick offered a thoughtful answer, his knowing his bloggers’ identities (and vouching for their integrity) is different from me knowing the identities.
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to use a pen name — just that some people (including me) generally look at something written under a pen name with a touch more skepticism.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Nice post. You covered plenty of ground in your post. I agree that a paid ad is a form of disclosure, and if a journalist was to do side work for a client and then report on the same individual it would be perceived as a conflict.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:10 am
“That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to use a pen name — just that some people (including me) generally look at something written under a pen name with a touch more skepticism.”
Then name the the story in the past 30 days where a pen name was accused of using anonymous sources to the point of publishing a false story and then having to print a retraction.
Then name me a pen name in the past 30 days that failed to disclose payments from a campaign.
Then we can talk about my opaqueness and your skepticism.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:59 am
What do you get when the words words “steaming turds” and Ken Edelstein start popping-up together? The start of a great show in a glass house!
Anyone tossing around high-horse ethical values in journalism nowadays should just take a moment to fully disclose THEIR own revenue stream/paycheck, and of course how PERFECTLY LEGAL all those sex industries advertising in the back of CL REALLY are.
And now much “serious investigation” of the Atlanta sex trade CL does as a result, of course. (Move along, nothing there. It’s Atlanta after all. No sex trade here.)
Porn dollars… A politician’s dollar… All green though, eh?
July 31st, 2008 at 8:22 am
What do you get when you start cobbling together phrases from different people posts to make your point? Nothing relevant to be sure.
Off the top of my head I can recall CL stories in the last year on child prostitution, columns about sex workers and blogs about prostitution in Midtown. If I recall correctly, the child story was a cover story, maybe not.
The fact that the sex ads are published and easily discernble to the readers of CL makes it different from the topic at hand, which is disclosure.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:42 am
Hell, a hit man can place an ad for his work in the back of, say, CL. Doesn’t make his line of work legal.
Any story on child prostitution done by CL was the result of a study commissioned by the City of Atlanta, researched by Stephanie Davis (on the taxpayer dime/payroll, FYI. Just Google it), and heavily paid for, publicized, and promoted by Edelman PR — the Atlanta office. CL operated moreoless a scribing service under such circumstances.
As for columns on bellowing, pitiful trannies in midtown, that was no investigation, son. That was a longing love letter to the siren of vigilantism, of which we can witness a MUCH less latent sort of male weaponry/longing fetishness manifesting itself on this very week’s cover story!
“Cobbling” things together? A writer? A commenteer? Say it isn’t so. Bring the smelling salts, Pork!
July 31st, 2008 at 9:36 am
For the love of God, you are just proving Ken’s point re: reflexive and defensive. He says – Hey guys, not knowing the actual name of the journalist/blogger writing a story gives me pause because there’s no way (e.g. campaign disclosures) to find out anything about the writer’s allegiances – in my mind that’s a normal human reaction to anonymously authored stories.
Then you (bloggers) say – SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF ANONYMOUS WRONGDOING!! ANDRE MAY BE IN THE BAG FOR SEVERAL POLITICIANS BUT YOU ARE IN THE BAG FOR SEX SLAVERY!!! Reflexive and defensive.
The (somewhat self-serving) point Ken made about paid ads is that at least it’s out in the open. And you can also search campaign disclosures for every member of CL’s, AJC’s and any other MSM’s editorial staff and see if they have a conflict.
I’m guessing some of Ken’s skepticism belies a small bias toward “old” media…he’s spent his entire career in it. But is it really wrong to ask that those writing about political races disclose who they are so readers can be assured there are no conflicts? Blogs come in all shapes and sizes but if your goal is to provide a journalistic product then you should be willing to adhere to journalism’s core tenets of truth and transparency.
That’s my anonymous two cents.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am
Mr. T. Here’s my anonymous nickel. First of all I did not say anything about the porn ads so please don’t conflate my point with whoever that ghostnic Lois Lane is.
And reflexive and defensive? You bet your ass. You know why?
Because Ken isn’t the first to use the excuse its only human nature that I view you with skepticism.
You can tolerate the bit for the first mile but after 10 miles it starts to chafe a bit.
I guess I will have to ask your pardon for irritation.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Lois – thank you for exposing your biases with your response. You say CL does not do something, I point to specific examples that disprove your point and you respond with a non-sequitur equating prostitution with murder, the editorial content is not enough or to your high standards or political stance and an ad hominem attack on Andisheh.
I am a frequent adversary of both Ken and Andisheh on this site, so I am not in the bag for these guys. I rarely agree with their politics, but I respect their integrity.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
No need to ask my pardon (even sarcastically)…you’re more than entitled to your view. It just doesn’t make sense to me that, except in the rarest of circumstances, readers should be expected to simply trust news stories generated by anonymous journalists. Part of being a journalist is putting your name and reputation on the line. My name isn’t Mr. T, yours isn’t griftdrift and if we want to report news, we should be willing to attach our name to it or take the criticism for not. Same goes for commentary…No one should be surprised if their allegiances are questioned when they post anonymous commentary. For instance, it is perfectly reasonable for you to assume that I either 1) work for CL or 2) work for some other publication where writer’s bylines use their actual name. I don’t but why would you believe me unless I told you my name.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Griftdrift – given the overwhelmingly positive nature of the links to your blog from CL, I am curious which ‘bit’ is chafing you.
Personally, I want journalists and editors especially, to be skeptical becasue it improves their accuracy.
Oh and Mr T had to get his dictionary out for ‘conflate’, just like I did for ‘ghostnic’. Thanks for the new word in my head… seriously, no sarcasm here.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Mr. T this never ceases to amaze me (and DaleC this is exactly the bit I’m talking about chafing). You know what I judge your credibility on? The content and context of your work. I only ask you to do the same for me. Instead you (and shall I count the many others who have? See Dale? There’s that bit again) choose to judge the vehicle.
Do you really think the reputation of “griftdrift” would mean a good goddamn if I reported a false story?
And I give Ken and the CLers all the credit in the world. I have repeatedly written about how they “get it”. By the way linking and giving credit is one of the ways they “get it”.
But that is not going to let me excuse them once again for using the tactic of accusing handles of not having credibility because they don’t use their real name. Especially in piece where the lack of trustworthiness is associated with someone who used his real frakking name! It is lazy and taking the easy way out. I will even hold my friends accountable for that error.
James “griftdrift” Williams. (Better?)
July 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Sorry Dale, my douchey friend, but I make my living with words and conflate caused no confusion. But ghostnic was new to me and not in the dictionary so i harnessed the mighty power of the internets and all was revealed. It also said you were a douchebag. Sorry, it’s been so long since I dumped that one on you.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“conflate caused no confusion”
Then you understand it is exactly what you did.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
grift, your point is clear: Ken shouldn’t have brought up the anonymous issue since this was about Andre and he is far from anonymous. Gotcha and agreed.
I also get your content and context argument. But i don’t agree that alone gives the full picture of a writer. I also don’t think you qualify as anonymous anyway…most of us that read local blogs have gathered enough info on you to know who you are.
And I appreciate your work. Even if you and some of your ilk are a tad touchy about the credibility question.
For the record, my name is Matt Gove and I approved this message.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
@ conflate: Dude, take it easy. Lois Lane is no ghost, it’s Grayson Daughters and she’s not hiding either. I didn’t mix the two messages, I put them consecutively to make the point about the bloggers’ defensive reaction, which you copped to anyway. But whatever, I’m guilty, you’re free from criticism and blogging is the future. You win. I submit. I just canceled my subscription the AJC, WSJ, ABC and any other prehistoric media that’s unequipped to handle the awesome power of you, Duane Moody and Amber Rhea. How dare I have an opinion and attempt to help you understand where I’m coming from. How dare I.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Oh that is such utter bullshit and a cop out Matt. Please point to any place where I’ve said we are immune to criticism. Perhaps you’ll find in the pages and pages of my writing where I point out bloggers being idiots.
But I think I finally get it. You guys don’t understand the difference between trolls and regular users. Or if you do you refuse to admit the difference. Either way it makes having this conversation much more difficult.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I think I was perhaps the most elucidating of my belief in bloggers are immune to criticism in my defense of this very outlet’s Steve Gower article. But I may have to look further.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
No. Maybe it was time I stood up for those poor WAND people who CL was so mean too. Definitely trying to show bloggers are immune to criticism there. I wonder if there’s any more?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
It is reasonable to look more skeptically at someone who uses a pseudonym than someone who uses their real name. Pseudonyms can change with a few keystrokes, just like mine did in this post, and they can become interchangeable with a persons “real” name. In the two industries where I have spent my life, a persons name is everything, so I understand Ken’s point.
The MSM has a real problem with bloggers because they supposedly lack “accountability” or traditional journalistic “standards” like fact checking and vetting. My answer to that is Dan Rather and Jason Blair to name two famous tips of the iceberg.
I also think that many bloggers are a little thin skinned on this issue. It is not uncommon for pioneers to grow tired of misconceptions.
Regarding your “troll” comment, who is conflating now? Anyone putting T and I in the same boat is not paying attention. I think we have agreed on one occasion. Maybe.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I fully understand the difference and acknowledge that you, Erick and others are different. What I didn’t/don’t understand is why you will not acknowledge that writers using their actual names versus a handle are naturally more trustworthy (rightly or wrongly) to readers. That’s where this discussion started and it’s really the only major sticking point.
Basically, I agree with Ken and you’re mad that Ken brought this point into a story about a blogger who wasn’t using a handle. But is he wrong, not in his opinion but in the assessment that many readers have a harder time trusting anonymous writers? That’s what I’m trying to get to.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Dale, please get out of my boat.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
First I did not call either of you trolls. So sorry, no conflation there. Lois Lane = troll and if it truly is Grayson she’s sock puppeting and I’ll be just as quick to criticize her as anyone.
My point is the same as yours. People who use handles or pen names or pseudonyms are accountable. Instead of a pen name think of it as a brand. And if that brand is stained you will never get it back.
And are we thin skinned? Maybe.
But let me give you just a partial list of media people who in the past year who have used some variant of this argument: Athens Banner Herald editor Jim Thompson, Athens Banner Herald writer Blake Aued, GPB’s Susanne Capaluto, Ken Edelstein, Julia Wallace, and the beat goes on and on and on.
So yeah. Maybe our skin is a little thin but let me ask you this. How much flaying should we suffer before we have the right to complain just a teensy bit?
And yes maybe it is human nature to not trust someone who doesn’t use their real name (although it didn’t seem to hurt Silence Dogood, Mark Twain, Sake, etc.)and that is something we have to work very hard to overcome.
HOWEVER, it does not help every time we turn a corner to have the big dogs throw the “anonymous” generality in our face.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I don’t think we should work hard to overcome that tendency. Accountability for ones actions is one of the most important tenets of society and a persons name is the most directly identifiable trait they possess.
Dogood, Twain and Sake used pen names which became their real name, just like I mentioned in my previous post. With enough time and fame, you may one day be better known as “GriftDrift” than by James. You are probably already there.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Grayson is
Lois Reitzstag Lane
World Wide Winchell
Louise Bryant Park
Doesn’t Like Sailors
Stupidr’n Love Than Thou
SpaceyG
Wishing I Had Lara Logan’s Sex Life, With Birth Control Added
Sistah Lily Pulitzer
Fox News Circle of Liberal Friends
Grayson
Grayson Daughters
Grift, you know this.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Here’s an update, with Matthew Cardinale’s response to Andre.
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2008/07/31/apn-responds-to-andre-walker/
Somebody’s gotta show me how to imbed these links more nimbly. At any rate, the post is on Fresh Loaf.
On this pen name thing: Look back at the posts. It’s a side issue — but obviously an interesting one!
I didn’t even raise the issue in the post above except as a question to Erick, who answered it graciously — although I’d still quibble with his answer.
Mr. T: You had me until of course you foolishly disagreed with me about just raising the issue. How dare you! Er, uhmm, that was a joke.
The only reason I did raise this SIDE issue was because there are other bloggers (most notably on Peach Pundit — a great blog, whether you agree with its politics or not) who are paid by politicians, as Andre has been, but who post anonymously. It just made me think that it’d be a lot more difficult to learn about an anon blogger’s conflict of interest in the same sort of situation.
It’s just a damned question! And, if one looks honestly at it without appointing one’s self the Grand Defender of the Blogosphere, it’s a pretty reasonable question.
It ain’t some big MSM conspiracy. It ain’t even an indictment of anonymous bloggers. Hell, I’m pissed that Mr. T has exposed himself. I liked you better the way you were. Er, that was a joke, too, Matt.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Yes Ken I will grant you it would be more difficult to expose a lack of disclosure via FEC reports. I get it.
But its not the only way to get to the bottom of a story. If there was a suspicion that it was happening I bet one of your scribes could possibly also get the story by, oh I don’t know, tips, leads, sources and research.
And please. We’re all friends here so no need for fancy titles. Please feel free to call me grift.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Oh Ken, you knew it was me all along. And, as a lover of great journalism (blog or not), I enjoyed you bringing up the side issue because it is the single largest hindrance to what grift and those quality bloggers out there want: the respect many of them are due.
What I can’t believe is that Duane Moody and Amber Rhea have allowed me to attack their credibility, however tangentially, without completing going apeshit. Maybe they’re not as thin-skinned as we think.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Or maybe they had absolutely nothing to do with this Matt. Never let someone on CL pass on taking a poke at their favorite punching bags.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
You are one serious dude, huh? I was just having a joke. Rarely do I enjoy anyone’s blog as much as I enjoy Duane’s.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Oh and Ken. Maybe if every newpaper editor wasn’t intent on being Torquemada there wouldn’t be any need for “grand defenders”.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Given the amount of crap this particular place has given Duane and Amber in the past year sometimes its tough to tell what’s a joke and what’s not.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
can’t we all just…get along?
July 31st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Boy, you go out to spend some hard earned, or not, Daddy’s money on tax holiday, you sure miss a par-tee!
If there was ever a time for a big ass pow-wow, now would be it. I bring the big ass; y’all bring the pow-wow. (I’ll buy a ’round for who can tell me who sang/wrote this afternoon’s nome de plum.) Or is it nome de guerre in this case… BTF outta me.
Usual saloon. 7:30pm – ish.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Oh for f’s sake… did you have to go and out good ‘ole Louise Bryant Park, for cryin’ out loud? She was my oldest and most favored. Gawd, writers are all so f*cking humorless when you get down to it.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Griftdrift:
Sorry I took so long to respond. Our server problems set me back a bit.
Raising the issue of anonymity wasn’t intended to offend or attack. Honestly. If it came across that way, then I didn’t communicate it effectively.
Maybe we just have to agree to disagree: I do think anonymity is more opaque than a person’s name. But — again — that’s not an attack. And as I said above, I don’t at all begrudge any blogger who uses a handle.
And I should say this, since you raised the point: I don’t agree with everything that every CL writer writes, and frankly I’ve many times cringed at word choices after the fact (sometimes my own). At the end of the day, I hope we’re fair and open and accurate, and that we give people an opportunity to respond. If anyone feels that a CL writer was unfair to them or wrote something inaccurate about them, I urge them not only to comment, but also to e-mail me at ken.edelstein@creativeloafing.com.
Grifdrift, if you want to talk about this further, please e-mail me. Or comment. Whatever.
Thanks,
Ken
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Ken. See my last two comments at my place.
http://griftdrift.blogspot.com/2008/07/spitting-tacks.html
I think we’re ready to call a truce. But I would like the conversation to continue.