the politics of Peter Daou's invite list pt. ii
I very deliberately titled my last post on this subject with Peter Daou in the title. There's a point there that I think folks have been missing.
Peter Daou works for Hillary Clinton, a U.S. Senator and presumptive Presidential candidate. It's his job to do outreach to the blogs.
To criticize Peter in that capacity is, far from being unfair, par for the course. Criticism is to be expected in politics and comes with the territory.
Had Peter been assigned to do a lunch with the Korean grocer's association of Manhattan, no one would have griped if the resulting photo depicted Clinton w/ Korean grocers. That wasn't the case here. This "bloggers lunch" and the photo that resulted from it, just did not reflect the diversity of the blogosphere or its leaders. Hell, it doesn't reflect the blogosphere that Peter himself linked to extensively in his admirable career at Salon.com. To do that meeting, with that outcome, both visible and invisible, was a mistake.
For Terrance at the Republic of T to bring that up was courageous.
Now, for a blogger to be critical of the employee of a Democratic Senator is hardly surprising or new. It's par for the course. However, in this instance Terrance made his observation with some sense of the guff and feedback he would get from the blogs...and guff and feedback he got. I respect Terrance MORE for bringing this up regardless of the criticism he would get. The photo, and the lack of inclusiveness it represents, is Peter's creation, not Terrance's.
It's Peter's job to do outreach to the blogs...to communicate...to ensure inclusion...to lead. That's what he gets paid to do. As I said in my first post, Peter led us into this situation; he has a professional obligation to lead us out of it. While I respect the diversity of links that Peter provided in his career at Salon.com and understand that he had invited people to the lunch who did not come, that doesn't absolve him from taking reponsiblity for the fact that this lunch has had some negative impacts that need to be addressed. We need to take steps to make sure this does not happen again.
Criticism of the employee of a U.S. Senator for the lack of inclusion at a bloggers meeting and in the resulting group photo made public far and wide comes with his job. It's not a personal dig; it's called professional accountability.
That's a point that too many miss here. That does not mean it was not the essential issue all along.
Peter Daou works for Hillary Clinton, a U.S. Senator and presumptive Presidential candidate. It's his job to do outreach to the blogs.
To criticize Peter in that capacity is, far from being unfair, par for the course. Criticism is to be expected in politics and comes with the territory.
Had Peter been assigned to do a lunch with the Korean grocer's association of Manhattan, no one would have griped if the resulting photo depicted Clinton w/ Korean grocers. That wasn't the case here. This "bloggers lunch" and the photo that resulted from it, just did not reflect the diversity of the blogosphere or its leaders. Hell, it doesn't reflect the blogosphere that Peter himself linked to extensively in his admirable career at Salon.com. To do that meeting, with that outcome, both visible and invisible, was a mistake.
For Terrance at the Republic of T to bring that up was courageous.
Now, for a blogger to be critical of the employee of a Democratic Senator is hardly surprising or new. It's par for the course. However, in this instance Terrance made his observation with some sense of the guff and feedback he would get from the blogs...and guff and feedback he got. I respect Terrance MORE for bringing this up regardless of the criticism he would get. The photo, and the lack of inclusiveness it represents, is Peter's creation, not Terrance's.
It's Peter's job to do outreach to the blogs...to communicate...to ensure inclusion...to lead. That's what he gets paid to do. As I said in my first post, Peter led us into this situation; he has a professional obligation to lead us out of it. While I respect the diversity of links that Peter provided in his career at Salon.com and understand that he had invited people to the lunch who did not come, that doesn't absolve him from taking reponsiblity for the fact that this lunch has had some negative impacts that need to be addressed. We need to take steps to make sure this does not happen again.
Criticism of the employee of a U.S. Senator for the lack of inclusion at a bloggers meeting and in the resulting group photo made public far and wide comes with his job. It's not a personal dig; it's called professional accountability.
That's a point that too many miss here. That does not mean it was not the essential issue all along.
Comments
My understanding is that the meeting was arranged on short notice, and that's one of the reasons some of the people invited couldn't make it. I believe what Peter has said about that, and, as I've said before, I don't think there was any intentional exclusion.
For my part, I'm not sure that expected a discussion quite this big would ensue. But I hope that everyone can begin to deal constructively with the issues that were brought up. Based on the discussion I've seen online, I think that's already underway.
I wrote this piece because I think the "discussion" had turned to a rather bogus focus: bloggers attacking bloggers.
In the big picture, it is just "shocking, shocking" that a blogger would criticize a Senate staffer.
And the use of language, I feel, is really key here. "Inclusion" is one thing -- it has the feel of "tolerance" and "cultural competency" in my mind; a more appropriate "reflection" of the blogosphere is another.
it was a teaching moment, at any rate, and well worth pointing out.
(disclaimer: the author is also a thirtysomething white male)