Having a bit of free time today, I was checking out some of the blogs that link here and ran across a brand new one, God Save Virginia, that has just popped up. Interestingly enough, the first and only post talks about the nature of the blogosphere.
Now, don’t let them fool you. They aren’t all bad. There are some great people out there who really do something to help the conversation and do their best to give blogs a good name. But then there are those that seem to go out of their way with a scorched earth policy of blogging that aims at destroying any and everything in their path, even sinking the ship they’re trying steer.
I had seen Terry Rea’s post earlier today on the issue of credibility. In it, he references a post by Jason Kenney, one which, while confusing, makes an attempt to get to the issue. Rea said:
But it’s also a story about whether credibility, ethics or just common decency in the political blogosphere are concepts that will ever really matter.
When such lofty thinking is openly sneered at by some of its most important players, can the Virginia political blogosphere police itself?
I don’t know the answer to that. But what I do know is that each group is defined by its most vocal minority. The real question is whether the Virginia Political blogosphere will allow itself to be defined by the few who push the boundaries of decency and ethics or the many who try to just do the right thing.
I can only hope that it is the latter.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian: Just to clarify, when I “seconded” your comments, I had not looked at all your links. For the record, it looks to me as if Ben Tribbett has been doing a great job on this Tate/RPV/Kenney story. No doubt, that goes a long way towards explaining the nasty right-wing attacks on Ben’s “credibility” (as if they’re ones to talk!). Whether or not you like Ben’s “gossip and scandal!” style, you’ve got to admit that he does some amazing work – original reporting, analysis you can’t find anywhere else – and has helped push the Virginia blogosphere to another level. By the way, I say this as someone who himself has been the subject of a few attacks by NLS writers. But those are nothing compared to the vitriol and lies of the right-wing blogosphere, not even in the same universe. To imply some sort of moral equivalence, I believe, is deeply flawed. – Lowell
To be honest, the part of this dust up about Shaun Kenney versus Ben Tribbett is really a “he said … he said” story. Which one you believe, out of all the competing versions depends on which one you know and like and whose politics most closely approximates your own.
As for the ethics of outing a confidential source, did Shaun ask specifically for it to be off the record and did Ben agree to that before Shaun passed him confidential information, if in fact Shaun did that?
That is crucial. No reporter, even in the MSM is obligated to keep something confidential unless both sides agree to it up front. And then, if the reporter has agreed, he or she is absolutely obligated to protect the confidentiality of the source. Reporters have gone to jail to protect murderers over this. The reason is because if they violate their confidentiality agreement, no source would ever trust them again, and they’d be out of business.
But without hooking both Tribbett and Kenney up to a polygraph, the sides we line up on and whom we believe depend on prior friendships.
It should be noted, too, that some of those most vocal in defending Shaun and linking to J’s Notes, like Riley not Reilly, are not only Republican but have had clashes with Ben in the past. Virginia Virtucon was, at one point, taken off NLS’s blogroll.
My point, here, is that none of us are neutral, unbiased observers.
As for what happened to Jeff Dion, I am extremely unhappy that he was forced out of the race because of his sexual preference. Perhaps Ben shouldn’t have run with it, but you actually have BVBL to thank for the original post and link to the dating site Jeff supposedly was on. Once the cat was out of the bag, Ben probably thought the Democratic party was better off cutting its losses and going with a stronger candidate in that race. It was a pragmatic if less than idealistic approach. But I wouldn’t call it unethical.
Personally, I wouldn’t have done it. But if you’re going to talk about ethical lapses, nastiness, homophobic and nativist sentiment, it wouldn’t be complete without criticizing all that Greg L has brought to the blogosphere. Ben just is better read so he gets more of a rap for it.
And in the interest of self-disclosure and honesty, I am a friend of Ben’s. I’ve known him since before there was a blogosphere or a Not Larry Sabato or an AIAW. And I’m the first to admit I’m not objective.
I think Vivian and Jim over and Bearing Drift are and have a legitimate concern that’s well placed. But a lot of others are as partisan and personal about this as I am.
All I can do is weigh the work of the Not Larry Sabato blog on its merits, or lack thereof, based on my own observation.
In my view it is another flashing billboard telling people to stay out of politics, because it is a slimy world.
Thanks for getting what I was trying to say.