Bloggers Consider Forming Labor Union

[obeygiant]

Left-Leaning Bloggers Debate Forming Labor Union

CHICAGO (AP) -- Do bloggers need their own Norma Rae?
In a move that might make some people scratch their heads, a loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards.

The effort is an extension of the blogosphere's growing power and presence, especially within the political realm, and for many, evokes memories of the early labor organization of freelance writers in the early 1980s.

Organizers hope a bloggers' labor group will not only showcase the growing professionalism of the Web-based writers, but also the importance of their roles in candidates' campaigns.

"I think people have just gotten to the point where people outside the blogosphere understand the value of what it is that we do on the progressive side," said Susie Madrak, the author of Suburban Guerilla blog, who is active in the union campaign. "And I think they feel a little more entitled to ask for something now."

But just what that something is may be hard to say.

In a world as diverse, vocal and unwieldy as the blogosphere, there's no consensus about what type of organization is needed and who should be included. Some argue for a free-standing association for activist bloggers while others suggest a guild open to any blogger -- from knitting fans to video gamers -- that could be created within established labor groups.

Others see a blogger coalition as a way to find health insurance discounts, fight for press credentials or even establish guidelines for dealing with advertising and presenting data on page views.

"It would raise the professionalism," said Leslie Robinson, a writer at ColoradoConfidential.com. "Maybe we could get more jobs, bona fide jobs."

But not everyone is on board.

"The reason I like blogging is that it's very anarchistic. I can do whatever I want whenever I want, and oh my God, you're not going to tell me what to do," said Curt Hopkins, the founder of the Committee to Protect Bloggers.

"The blogosphere is such a weird term and such a weird idea. It's anyone who wants to do it," Hopkins said. "There's absolutely no commonality there. How will they find a commonality to go on? I think it's doomed to failure on any sort of large scale."

About 11 percent of American Internet users have created Web pages or blogs for others while eight percent have created their own online journals or Weblogs, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

With pages focused on everything from bird watching to celebrity footwear, more than 120,000 blogs are created every day and more than 58,000 new posts are made each hour, according to data from Technorati, which tracks more than 94 million blogs worldwide.

Few bloggers are paid for their posts, and even fewer are able to make a living doing the work. But many say they often devote as much energy and time to their online musings as they do to their salaried careers.

While bloggers work to organize their own labor movement, their growing numbers are already being courted by some unions.

"Bloggers are on our radar screen right now for approaching and recruiting into the union," said Gerry Colby, president of the National Writers Union, a local of the United Auto Workers. "We're trying to develop strategies to reach bloggers and encourage them to join."

Unsurprisingly, there's decidedly less support for a union movement among conservative bloggers.yahoo/AP (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070806/unionized_bloggers.html?.v=2)

Bloggers aren't journalists are they? To me theyre more like analysts.

Bloggers are a lot like webcomic artists insofar as they all think their rants are scathingly witty and hilariously appropriate. ;)

[OutThere]

Bloggers are a lot like webcomic artists insofar as they all think their rants are scathingly witty and hilariously appropriate. ;)

I like that comparison.

Anyway, since when do people actually give a s*** what bloggers think? I don't think anyone would really notice much if the political bloggers all dropped off the face of the planet, never mind formed a union. :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

Anyway, since when do people actually give a s*** what bloggers think? I don't think anyone would really notice much if the political bloggers all dropped off the face of the planet, never mind formed a union. :rolleyes:

Blogging can be a lot of things but the most popular poliblogs are a hybrid form of journalism. They make money for one thing.

I think people ignore them at their own peril.

[solvs]

Anyway, since when do people actually give a s*** what bloggers think? I don't think anyone would really notice much if the political bloggers all dropped off the face of the planet, never mind formed a union. :rolleyes:
You must not be reading any good blogs then.

Some of them have brought to light things that were practically ignored by the mainstream media that turned out to be big stories. I don't get this thing where people are saying they don't care what other people think. You aren't the first person here who's said that. We should care what people think. Especially if they have a point to make, and especially if they can back it up with fact. Lord knows the MSM isn't doing their jobs, but even if they were, I think it's great that anyone anywhere can put their opinion out there for all the world to see.

And you do realize the irony of you saying that on a message board, right?

[imac/cheese]

Creating a union for bloggers would be like herding cats. Some will go the way you want; others will go a different direction; some will hide; others will turn and hiss at you; most will just ignore you.

[SMM]

Heck, we who post are bloggers. Part of the great thing going on is the freedom and number of people you can associate with to discuss events and ideas. If you organize it, I think you are risking controls.

Take this forum for example. We have few rules here and the ones we do have do not address content per se. No overt profanity (WTF is OK), name calling (has to be that way), objectionable pictures (do not need them), etc. Otherwise, we are able to discuss just about anything, and from every perspective.

Americans have largely been spoon-fed information. A person really had to make an effort to know how stories are being reported in Europe, South America,....heck even Canada. So, we have largely had one single perspective on world affairs. The net result is 200,000,000 people walking around without a clue.

Now, anyone can find the majority of what is written about any subject (exceptions noted). It is a very powerful tool. Ask yourselves, how much would we really know about Iraq, without the 'underground forth estate'? The established national media outlets were willing partners in selling the war. They have also been slow to report anti-war stories. They have largely ignored many important stories, critical of the WH. The internet has been America's media hub and the bloggers are the hub.

I think professional writers, and those doing investigative journalism, do need funding. I have not considered how that might be accomplished and do not have an answer ready for the offering. But, when someone hands you money, there is a new relationship formed, and debt incurred. Can you then be totally objective, if your investigation reporting falls into disfavor with your employer? Probably not.

[OutThere]

You must not be reading any good blogs then.

Some of them have brought to light things that were practically ignored by the mainstream media that turned out to be big stories. I don't get this thing where people are saying they don't care what other people think. You aren't the first person here who's said that. We should care what people think. Especially if they have a point to make, and especially if they can back it up with fact. Lord knows the MSM isn't doing their jobs, but even if they were, I think it's great that anyone anywhere can put their opinion out there for all the world to see.

And you do realize the irony of you saying that on a message board, right?

I've looked into reading some political blogs on several occasions, but it seems to be that they all fall into a few categories of bad-ness:
1) Preaching to the choir—when they post links to news stories that I read anyway, then try to be witty and fail, writing something horribly dry and uninteresting
2) 2 year old with ADD—lack of focus, too many posts, too much cruft to sort through to find interesting, readable content (dailykos suffers badly here)
3) Alarmist fools—people making a big deal out of themselves and everything they read about.

Every time I hear ". . .the blogosphere this. . ." or "bloggers are angry about. . ." I go and look for worthwhile blogs, and turn up empty handed. Not once have I read a political blog entry and had any desire to return to the site later on and read something else the blogger has to say.

I think part of it is the fact that the best writers get paid to write (for print), and the best analysts get paid for their analyses, which leaves people who don't fit either category to write blog entries.

As for the irony...I wouldn't say it's truly ironic, as for the most part, blogs and message boards are entirely distinct. Here, the focus is on conversation. On a message board there's an understood general lack of real credibility, and we all post here with that in mind. Someone blogging, however, assumes a certain level of credibility as soon as they post: they are saying that their entries aren't simply discussion topics, but statements worth other peoples' time. Comments on a blog aren't so much a conversation as reactions to the original statement.

[solvs]

I don't read Kos. I only go to places like C&L for the links and video, don't care much about the commentary. Huffington Post isn't bad sometimes though (actor Steven Weber is great). Sometimes to go to some really crazy ones just for kicks.

My point, though, was that I go to them to get what I can't from the regular MSM. I don't know about unionizing, I don't think it will do much, if they're trying to appear more legit or what. But some do make money, so technically, some are professionals that live only when someone reads their blogs. Which means they have to have something interesting to say in a way you'd want to read it to stay afloat.

I think the commenting sections are the best parts though.

[mactastic]

I like that comparison.

Anyway, since when do people actually give a s*** what bloggers think? I don't think anyone would really notice much if the political bloggers all dropped off the face of the planet, never mind formed a union. :rolleyes:
Ha! Go tell that to George "Macaca" Allen or Conrad "I hate firefighters" Burns.

[KingYaba]

Funny article.

[mactastic]

And if Drudge were to vanish, where else would all the right-wing media smear jobs bubble up from?

[ham_man]

And if Drudge were to vanish, where else would all the right-wing media smear jobs bubble up from?
So when a right-wing blogger posts something, it's a "smear job," but when a left-wing blogger posts something, they are exposing the truth? Give me a break.

[solvs]

So when a right-wing blogger posts something, it's a "smear job," but when a left-wing blogger posts something, they are exposing the truth? Give me a break.

It's not our fault Drudge is known for outright lying, but I don't think that was his point.

[mactastic]

So when a right-wing blogger posts something, it's a "smear job," but when a left-wing blogger posts something, they are exposing the truth? Give me a break.
Did I say all right wing bloggers? Or even right wing bloggers in general? No, I said Drudge. From there, you leapt into a typical partisan attack.

Give me a break.

[ham_man]

Did I say all right wing bloggers? Or even right wing bloggers in general? No, I said Drudge. From there, you leapt into a typical partisan attack.
Did I say all right-wing bloggers. No. I said "a right-wing blogger."

And I didn't launch a partisan attack...I would call it more of a retaliation.

[mactastic]

Did I say all right-wing bloggers. No. I said "a right-wing blogger."

And I didn't launch a partisan attack...I would call it more of a retaliation.
Ok, one right wing blogger. And yes, if Drudge says it, it's probably a smear job.

You still put words in my mouth that I never said, and then proceeded to attack me for it.

As for retaliation... I must really be getting under your skin if you are feeling the need to retaliate.

[ham_man]

Ok, one right wing blogger. And yes, if Drudge says it, it's probably a smear job.

You still put words in my mouth that I never said, and then proceeded to attack me for it.

As for retaliation... I must really be getting under your skin if you are feeling the need to retaliate.
You said, and I quote, "Ha! Go tell that to George "Macaca" Allen or Conrad "I hate firefighters" Burns." This led me to believe that you felt that the liberal bloggers (who dug up those two stories) were right in exposing those two men for their misteps.

Then you said, and I quote, "And if Drudge were to vanish, where else would all the right-wing media smear jobs bubble up from?" This is an obvious attack on Drudge, a right-wing blogger, and the other right-wing bloggers who pick up on his stories or vice-versa.

Any rational person would recognize the blatant double-standard here.

As for the part about retaliation, you said that I was making a partisan attack, when, by all measures, you were the first to whip that about with the "right-wing media smear jobs" comment. Fight fire with fire, eh?

[solvs]

But the Macaca and firefighters comments weren't made up. They were real, and the intent was obvious. Drudge regularly is caught outright lying and linking to unverified stories, then simply erasing them from the page without retraction if proven incorrect. Or worse, just leaving them up and continuing to insist they're still accurate. The blogs I frequent verify stories, retract those that are proven incorrect, and attack both sides of the isle and everything in between with legitimate criticism. You don't see the difference?

[mactastic]

You said, and I quote, "Ha! Go tell that to George "Macaca" Allen or Conrad "I hate firefighters" Burns." This led me to believe that you felt that the liberal bloggers (who dug up those two stories) were right in exposing those two men for their misteps.
Yes I did. In response to a person who said that nothing would happen if bloggers had vanished. I suppose I could also have included the Dan Rather story if I'd thought of it at the time. There was no partisan intent to that comment, rather I was debunking the myth that bloggers have no influence over the real world.

Then you said, and I quote, "And if Drudge were to vanish, where else would all the right-wing media smear jobs bubble up from?" This is an obvious attack on Drudge, a right-wing blogger, and the other right-wing bloggers who pick up on his stories or vice-versa.
No, it's an attack on Drudge and no one else. Your attempts to make it about more than Drudge are simply out-and-out hyp

Any rational person would recognize the blatant double-standard here.

As for the part about retaliation, you said that I was making a partisan attack, when, by all measures, you were the first to whip that about with the "right-wing media smear jobs" comment. Fight fire with fire, eh?[/QUOTE]

[mactastic]

You said, and I quote, "Ha! Go tell that to George "Macaca" Allen or Conrad "I hate firefighters" Burns." This led me to believe that you felt that the liberal bloggers (who dug up those two stories) were right in exposing those two men for their misteps.
Yes I did. In response to a person who said that nothing would happen if bloggers had vanished. I suppose I could also have included the Dan Rather story if I'd thought of it at the time. There was no partisan intent to that comment, rather I was debunking the myth that bloggers have no influence over the real world.

Then you said, and I quote, "And if Drudge were to vanish, where else would all the right-wing media smear jobs bubble up from?" This is an obvious attack on Drudge, a right-wing blogger, and the other right-wing bloggers who pick up on his stories or vice-versa.
No, it's an attack on Drudge and no one else. You can imagine all the vast left-wing conspiracies that you want, but that's all there was. Drudge is a rumor-monger of the lowest form. If you want to debate that point, lets; but I'm in no way indicting the entire righty blogosphere with my comment about Drudge.

Any rational person would recognize the blatant double-standard here.
What does that make you then?

As for the part about retaliation, you said that I was making a partisan attack, when, by all measures, you were the first to whip that about with the "right-wing media smear jobs" comment. Fight fire with fire, eh?
Go ahead and keep seeking vengance. It's SO becoming.

[solvs]

I suppose I could also have included the Dan Rather story if I'd thought of it at the time.
Actually that was even worse. He had a lifetime of credibility at the time, something the blogs aren't supposed to have (though ironically, many of us trust some of them more when compared to the MSM now, specifically because of this type of thing). You won't find many defending it hammy, so I'm glad mac brought it up to disprove your whole "partisan hack" rant.

Again, not our fault if Drudge makes crap up to smear people and, unlike Rather, doesn't get held accountable for it.

Any rational person would recognize the blatant double-standard here.
Well, I got what you meant. ;)

[Desertrat]

Seems to me that if a blogger wants to join a union and is accepted, all well and good. I'm not sure what benefit a blogger offers any existing union. And I don't see how a union could provide better working conditions or any pay scale. Off the cuff, it just looks like a ploy to get medical insurance coverage. Fine, if you can do it, I guess...

As far as blogs, they're great for spreading information. Even the poor ones have some adherents; they go elsewhere and contribute to other blogs and whatever is of moment is thus spread across millions of monitors.

Many bloggers have "home base" websites which they visit. Again, more spreading of information. The recent brouhaha over Jim Zumbo's diatribe against hunting with Evil Black Rifles is a good example of what can happen when some public person makes an egregious error of fact.

If a Drudge lies, it'll get found out and talked about. From that standpoint blogs and websites do perform a good service...

'Rat

[Swarmlord]

I do hope they form a union and then go on strike.

[Stampyhead]

In a move that might make some people scratch their heads, a loosely formed coalition of left-leaning bloggers are trying to band together to form a labor union they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining or even set professional standards.

But who would they get these benefits from? I understand unions to exist to represent the rights of the workers to their employers. But bloggers are, for the most part, self-employed. If they want to force themselves to give themselves health insurance there are probably better ways to go about it.

[imac/cheese]

But who would they get these benefits from? I understand unions to exist to represent the rights of the workers to their employers. But bloggers are, for the most part, self-employed. If they want to force themselves to give themselves health insurance there are probably better ways to go about it.

If there is a large enough group of them they can qualify for a group rate insurance plan that will cut down individual costs.

[mactastic]

I do hope they form a union and then go on strike.
Funny how there's so much distaste for successful people, eh?

[Swarmlord]

Funny how there's so much distaste for successful people, eh?

No, it just seems that the only thing that unions do well is collect fees and go on strike.

Years ago my engineer co-workers and I were approached by union representatives about organizing and we laughed them out of the plant. When they asked us what we would do if we weren't happy with our wages and benefits and we told them we'd just leave and work for someone else.

Successful people have no need for unions. They need us more than we need them.

[mactastic]

No, it just seems that the only thing that unions do well is collect fees and go on strike.

Years ago my engineer co-workers and I were approached by union representatives about organizing and we laughed them out of the plant. When they asked us what we would do if we weren't happy with our wages and benefits and we told them we'd just leave and work for someone else.

Successful people have no need for unions. They need us more than we need them.
Nice dodge. Were you, or were you not, the one grousing about how liberals just hated Karl Rove because he was successful?

[Swarmlord]

Nice dodge. Were you, or were you not, the one grousing about how liberals just hated Karl Rove because he was successful?

Grousing? No. Just observing. It doesn't matter to me why they hate him. I'd stack him up against the Ragin' Cajun anytime as far as political savvy during a campaign goes.

[mactastic]

Grousing? No. Just observing. It doesn't matter to me why they hate him. I'd stack him up against the Ragin' Cajun anytime as far as political savvy during a campaign goes.
Well hell, all I was doing was observing also. I don't care a whit why you hate liberal bloggers so vehemently.

[obeygiant]

Nice dodge. Were you, or were you not, the one grousing about how liberals just hated Karl Rove because he was successful?

Wait. Thats not the reason libs hate Rove?

Looks at this thread. Those situations and pictures go a little beyond a minor political disagreement.

[solvs]

Thats not the reason libs hate Rove?
They didn't hate Clinton, and he was far more popular. They don't hate Ted Turner. Nor George Soros. So duh, no, that's not why they hate him.

Unless you were being sarcastic, which I'm almost thinking you'd have to be.

-

And for the record, everybody thinks James Carville is creepy.

[mactastic]

Wait. Thats not the reason libs hate Rove?

Looks at this thread. Those situations and pictures go a little beyond a minor political disagreement.
Wait. That's not the reason cons hate liberal bloggers? ;)

[solvs]

Jon Stewart summed it up pretty nicely tonight with a guy who profiled Cheney. He said that maybe if they stopped calling us traitors who didn't care about terror, who didn't get what was going on, maybe we could get a better dialogue going. It's not that we don't get it. We get it. We just disagree with how they're doing it, because they're obviously doing it wrong. Talking down to us and insulting us in an attempt to dissuade and discredit us isn't going to change that.

But that's the point right? They don't want a logical dialogue. Because then they'd have to argue based on facts and evidence. Which is an argument they'd lose.

Just like the war. That they're losing. And we know it.