As far as inside blogball arguments go, this is one of the greats. "Greater Boston," a newscast on Boston's WGBH public tv station, sent media analyst John Carroll off to report on these "political blogger" types, after a flawed New York Times op-art linked some of them to big money from political candidates. Jonathan Singer at the liberal blog MyDD responded to that op-art with this blast of sarcasm.
Chris, Matt and Jonathan do not exist, despite any previous claims. He got me. We're all the same person. I (Jerome) have been writing under these aliases the entire time I have been working on other campaigns. I also used to write under the name of Scott Shields until I got hired under that pseudonym by another campaign. Thought you met Matt, Chris or Jonathan at Yearly Kos or some other event? Most likely you met one of the young fellows I paid to play those roles. They're just out of work, dime a dozen actors from Los Angeles. Anyone could have played them.
Raise your hand if you get that Singer is joking. Hey, John Carroll—put your hand down. The "media expert" took Singer seriously and reported his "scoop" about the blogger masquerading as many bloggers for the show. That led to this hilarious segment, featuring serious media analysts discussing these terrible bloggers who masquerade as other people to get money from politicians.
I have an actual degree from a journalism school stashed away somewhere, so I wince when I see journalistic "watchdogs" getting their shit wrong in such a slanderous Emily Litella manner. The problem with political blogging, including paid political blogging, is only that it's turned blogs from the interesting, amorphous status of 2000-2002 into a red team-blue team wrestling circuit. Ethically there's no problem with political blogging, and journalists routinely make themselves out to be morons when they suggest otherwise.