In his recent Weekly Standard column, Hugh Hewitt presents an intriguing question: “Blogs are popular and influential, but could they be used for political dirty tricks? Or worse?”
Like a reverse Atlantis, a new archipelago of opinion and news providers has risen up from nowhere to drive stories and news cycles. So we should be asking about the potential for deception in the format. The web is widely used and relied upon. It would not be hard for intelligence services from around the world to build blogs with an intent to deceive or manipulate, putting out solid content to gain an initial audience before using it to disseminate disinformation intentionally.
Similarly, the inevitable backstab blog has to be on some political consultant's mind. Get it started and growing as a pro candidate X blog. Build an audience via tried and true techniques --including the purchase of blog-ads-- and then, late in a campaign, have the blog turn on candidate X. If any of the high profile lefties at work today--the Daily Kos or Atrios, for example--were to suddenly turn on Kerry, citing implausibility fatigue, for example--that would be news and a blow to Kerry. Could Kos really be working for Rove? The costs of starting a blog are so low that the mischief potential is quite high.
In order to assess the likelihood and effectiveness of such a plan, we need to examine the types of blogs that could carry out such an operation. While this taxonomy does not exhaust the range of pundit blogger archetypes, I think these are the three that have the most potential to carry off such a “black ops” campaign:
Choir preachers – These are the purest of the partisan bloggers, the pundits who specialize in “preaching to the choir.” They have strongly held, readily formed political beliefs; true believers who are not likely to be disabused of their opinions. Their strength lies in playing to the crowd and confirming for other partisans want they already want to hear (i.e., “Bush is evil”, “Kerry is a waffler”).
Atrios and Kos fall into this category. Both are unabashed liberals who became popular by being openly, even caustically partisan. They’re the Rush Limbaughs of Lefty bloggers. If this type were to suddenly turn on their party’s candidate, they’d instantly lose both credibility and popularity. Even if a choir preacher were to backstab they'd be completely ineffective in carrying out such a task.
Shepherds – This archetype, with Glenn Reynolds being the exemplar, works by shepherding readers to other blogs. With so many blogs and websites disseminating information, the value of a trusted gatekeeper becomes invaluable. By consistently connecting readers with similar tastes and interests to information they seek, the Shepherd expands the range of his own influence.
Eventually, if they’ve established the requisite level of trust, they’ll be able to create a demand for their own particular interest. Few people, for example, search out information on nanotechnology. But when Reynolds puts a link to a nanotech blog, it gains an exponentially greater amount of attention than it would normally receive.
The primary advantage of this type is that the blogger does not have to be a brilliant analyst themselves (although they can be) in order to be influential. Since they are often generalists whose popularity extends beyond partisan lines, they can have a subtle, almost imperceptible political influence. By controlling which information is exposed, they can frame a candidate or position in a way that corresponds to their own idealogical persuasion.
Thinkers – This category is composed of bloggers who primarily focus on a greater depth of analysis than the other two archetypes. Whether they spend their time on daily news (Andrew Sullivan), specific areas of interest (The Volokh Conspiracy), or broad general areas (Steven Den Beste), they share a tendency to focus on the intricacies of policy positions.
These blogs are like small think tanks, churning out mini-policy positions based on their particular political interests. What is peculiar about such blogs, though, is that their rise in popularity, respect, and authority does not necessarily translate into political influence. Many people, for instance, who read and admire the work of Eugene Volkh would not necessarily be likely to adopt his libertarian point of view.
Like the Shepherd, Thinkers must be subtle in their shift away from a particular candidate or political party; sudden moves would be out of character and draw suspicion. They may drift away from a formerly accepted position (as Sullivan is doing in regards to Bush) but unless they can present a compelling justification for their change of mind, they are unlikely to persuade others to follow them.
While the idea of a “backstab blog” is possible, I think the intricacies of the blogging medium make it difficult to carry out. The approach is also risky and has the potential to be counterproductive. For example, even if the pseudonymous blogger Atrios turned out to be Karl Rove, the net benefit would still favor Kerry and the Democrats rather than Bush and the Republicans. The blogosphere, after all, is still a grassroots medium. And, like all such organizations, it's ultimately beyond the ability to be controlled by a central figure.
An individual may build the infrastructure, mobilize the forces, raise the funding, and still lose control of the golem they’ve created. Any political operative who would consider attempting a black ops backstab blog operation needs to have this six-word monition whispered in their ear: Ross Perot and the Reform Party.
Update: JD Mays makes an excellent point -- blogging isn't a zero-sum game:
Hewitt raises some interesting questions but I'm not going to start building a bomb shelter in the backyard just yet. What he doesn't factor into the equation is the "signal to noise ratio". There are just so many crappy blogs out there that the effectiveness of 99.9% of them for doing the kinds of things he's worried about is nil. In fact, that's the great thing about blogs.The People's Republic of China could start some blog with plenty of misinformation but just as easily you could get 10 other blogs from Taiwan spewing out the opposite misinformation.
Read the whole thing.
1
More than that, many of the denizens of the net are, more often than not, are far sophisticated in their defenses than any mole could be in their attacks. I've seen human intelligence operations and all manner of underground electronic warfare perpetrated by people who have never met, except through instant messaging forums, or some other form of text communication. The typical blog audience doesn't reach that level of technical proficiency, but the typical BS-meter is just about as high and it is nigh impossible for a plant to convincingly craft something with out raising some type of flag.
posted on 06.17.2004 11:07 AM2
Prof. Reynolds connection with sheep is purely sexual. That hardly makes him a shepherd.
posted on 06.17.2004 1:03 PM3
Big difference between Atrios and Kos on one hand and Limbaugh on the other (aside from Rush's drug addiction, criminal investigations and enthusiasm for torture as recreation); the former actually link their readers to factual resources backing up their statements, and will readily admit to and correct any errors.
Rush, and others I could mention, just make s*#t up, and never admit a mistake.
Even if you disagree with their politics a comparison to the king of sleazy talk radio is completely unwarranted.
posted on 06.17.2004 1:20 PM4
I think Instahack is currently functioning as a shepherd - you've hit the nail on the head with that.
I doubt this sort of thing would be all that plausible. Blogs are self-correcting entities. If a blogger like Steven Den beste puts up a post about how well the Republicans in Congress are funding our veterans, another blogger will undoubtedly challenge that by citing that their budget cuts a bunch of money out of the Veteran's healthcare budget, increases the cutoff for disability support, and decreases the number of facilities that are available to veterans.
That would be followed by a slew of people in the comments section that posted points and counterpoints arguing the issue.
I think one of the big reasons why Glenn Reynolds does not have a comments section is because he does not like the idea of some liberals getting in the way of his partisan shilling.
posted on 06.17.2004 1:35 PM5
Not to be picky but its six words. ;-) "Ross Perot and the Reform Party"
posted on 06.17.2004 1:43 PM6
William,
Um, "Ross Perot" isn't one word? ; )
Thanks for the correction. I have a sloppy editor.
posted on 06.17.2004 1:56 PM7
I would suggest that another type of blog, the "Gossip Blog", would be most effective for a dirty-tricks campaign.
If a Wonkette or other such blog built up a following of readers with credible gossip and suddenly dropped a phony bombshell a few days before the election the damage could be fairly high.
Just imagine a Washingtonienne scandal where a pretty young staffer pops up claiming to be John Kerry's girl Friday? If the L.A. Times can do it to Arnold Schwarzenegger why can't a blogger?
posted on 06.17.2004 3:31 PM8
Your post didn't go over too well with the Kos crowd-here's a quote:
"www.evangelicaloutpost.com
This is easily one of the silliest blogs on the Internet, run by Joe Carter, an evangelical Christian pseudo-philosopher.
Here's his take on the Hewitt piece:"
All of that aside, I was just reading a sci-fi/semi-serious book on memetic warfare, and it talked a lot about things like this-maybe Hugh is more cutting edge than he's getting credit for.
posted on 06.17.2004 4:04 PM9
I am not sure I fully agree with the statement about blogs being uncontrollable- I have blogged about it over on my blog
posted on 06.17.2004 4:46 PM10
Hey! It's a little frustrating to just finish a post on "Black Blog Ops" over at Army of One, then come over here to see the same kind of thing, only better executed.
At least we both came to the same conclusion - although the Ross Perot mention is pretty funny.
-jdm
11
David,
This is easily one of the silliest blogs on the Internet, run by Joe Carter, an evangelical Christian pseudo-philosopher.
That's probably the most accurate thing that was ever written on Kos' blog. ; )
posted on 06.17.2004 9:51 PM12
All of that aside, I was just reading a sci-fi/semi-serious book on memetic warfare, and it talked a lot about things like this-maybe Hugh is more cutting edge than he's getting credit for.
The hardcore guys are beyond that. Like I was saying, their is an ever increasing sophistication in the tech-head circles. The type of operations that would have been carried out largely by government agencies is being done by private citizens, for far more frivolous reasons.
posted on 06.17.2004 9:56 PM13
Correction: carried out largely by government agencies ten years ago.
posted on 06.17.2004 9:58 PM14
So, David Marcoe, what is the SF book? sounds like an intriguing topic, I would like to check into it,
posted on 06.17.2004 11:08 PM15
So, David Marcoe, what is the SF book? sounds like an intriguing topic, I would like to check into it.
Not SF. Reality. Check any of the more underground IRC channels or just go through the posts on Slashdot.
posted on 06.18.2004 12:20 AM16
Didn't we already wonder about this with a certain blogger from Iraq?
how would we possibly know?
posted on 06.18.2004 2:22 AM17
'That's probably the most accurate thing that was ever written on Kos' blog. ; )'
good comeback!
(high 5s all around)
posted on 06.18.2004 7:21 PM18
"So, David Marcoe, what is the SF book? sounds like an intriguing topic, I would like to check into it,"
I think you meant David Scott-it was called Transhuman Space: Toxic Memes...
posted on 06.19.2004 6:48 PM19
Propaganda web sites and false flag sites have been around on the web for some years. So why is this being treated as a maybe?
posted on 06.23.2004 2:19 AM