Khazei campaign grammar and spelling Fail

Well ... (0.00 / 0)

at least he knows how to fill out a standard form.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 22:36:40 PM CST

I'm noticing a pattern here (0.00 / 0)

In a previous post that included a copy of a letter to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technology, Chairman Karen Spilka's name was misspelled twice.  JimC pointed this out and a correction was made.  Since I am neither a good typist nor a good proofreader, it may not be appropriate for me to complain.   But I am not running for Senate. I'm simply commenting on a blog.

Now I have to say that it looked like the Senator's surname was misspelled on the original letter to the Committee.  It would seem  unlikely that the letter would have been correct and the post wrong.  Does anyone have any further information on that?  

---

by: KTHiker @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 22:40:02 PM CST

Wait a minute (5.00 / 1)

So now we're supposed to have perfect grammar on blogs? You don't think there was a single grammatical error on one of Rubin or Patrick's posts on this site?

Should I go through your book to check for some mistakes? You don't think I'll find a few? (It's been a while since I've read it, but I'm sure I could find some.)

The lame-ness of this diary, Bob, is epic. This diary is a blogging fail.

If BMG is to stay credible, it's editors should blog about issues that actually matter. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed in Massachusetts right now, Alan has a plan to help fix that. Why don't you write about the contents of that post, rather than its (few) grammatical errors? Too afraid his ideas have merit -- or too lazy to spend the necessary time to analyze and address them? I guess it's just easier to complain about a misused word than write a post with real value.

Alan Khazei and his staff are not writing a resume, Bob, they're running to win an office. The idea is not to have perfect grammar, but to reach as many voters as possible. In a campaign, there is no one single thing more important than time -- not money and not even volunteers. Time is the only thing a campaign can't get more of. It takes time (a lot of it, actually) to be grammatically perfect -- time that can delay a posting from being relevant, or time that can take away from other relevant activities.

In this diary, Bob, not only have you been childish and petulant, not only have you failed to be the analytical editor the Bay State's premier political blog deserves, but you managed to show a supreme lack of understanding of the campaign process. Boooo.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 22:53:43 PM CST

I have high standards for official campaign statements (5.00 / 2)

Blog posts, chats, quick comments are far different things.

I think it is a good thing to have high standards, especially for impressive candidates (the term I used to describe Khazei, and the way I think of him).

He should do better.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:20:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I have high standards, too. (5.50 / 4)

Maybe you should go front-page that diary about Martha Coakley flip flopping her position on NECN? Or post meaningful commentary about the merits of Khazei's job proposal, instead of snide diatribes? Or how about joining up with a campaign and trying to discover what it's all really about?

Blog posts

Since when was Khazei's blog post not a blog post? FAIL.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:44:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok I admitt it. I now work as a writer ont eh Khazie Campaing (0.00 / 0)

And while we are on campaign mistakes, did any one notice that Cap's big psot the other nifht was first double copied in the same diary.  Apparently trhey copied it into both top and bottom of the diary.  I just happen to see it in the first couple of minutes, and decided not to be an A-hole and point it out, knowing that the dairy could be fixed, but my comment would ahve stayed.

Oh ya Bob.  You right, no excuses.  But my sense is you never worked on a campaign, especially 25 days out when your days are now pushing 18 hours a day, and everyday IS like 5 regular work days.  If you did, I don't think you would not have written this post.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 23:20:08 PM CST

This is the same campaign (0.00 / 0)

that sent out a press release with Alan's name spelled wrong, twice. I will find the globe story when I have some time.  

Not a big deal and mistakes do happen from time to time. If a candidate and a campaign can't handle the basics of communicating, how will they/
he or she handle the more complicated challenges a Senator will surely face? Sloppy on the simple does not speak well of the difficult.

I won't give the campaign a fail, but it isn't a particularly good sign.

---

by: kaj314 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 23:56:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The fact that I have worked on many campaigns is why I wrote this post (0.00 / 0)

You can make all the excuses you want, but an official campaign statement riddled with laughable spelling mistakes and typing errors when things are coming down to the wire is a good example of a campaign that is not working well.

The campaigns that keep it together when the stress is greatest -- see, Obama for America as a recent example -- are often the ones that do the best.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:16:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

in what capacity? (0.00 / 0)

How many of those campaigns were around in the age of blogging? What roll did you play? Were you ever the one deciding how best to spend a campaign's time -- and when you were, how successful were your campaigns?

I'm sorry, but your "I have worked on many campaigns" statement isn't very credible, given your absurd opinion on campaign strategy here.

Blogs, even in this day and age, aren't very high on the list in importance to campaigns -- they're just one way to reach voters. There isn't the time for blogs to be perfect, least of all for campaigns. You yourself said it in a comment on this very thread!

I have high standards for official campaign statements
Blog posts, chats, quick comments are far different things.

I'm sorry, but if Khazei spent days making his blog post here perfect, that would have taken far too much of his staff's time away from actually reaching out to voters. Either it's okay to be imperfect on blogs, or it isn't. Either blogs are a quick exercise where speed is more important than perfection, or it isn't.

And why is it Khazei who you're holding to this absurd position, when I know I can find dozens of mistakes in the posts of other candidacies and campaigns?

Why do you care more about Khazei's grammar than his job proposal -- the actual content of his blog?

Why did you never write posts to bash Menino's ability to communicate, given that you've decided to rank it as important as Howie Carr?

My advice to you, Bob, is to front-page a dozen posts right now and try to pretend this one didn't happen and hope no one notices it tomorrow. It's your only hope in sparing yourself even more egg on your face.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:06:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bob, the point here is if are endorsing a candidate ... (6.00 / 1)

then just do it.  It's like you are pretending to be unbiased when you are not.  It makes your posts difficult to take seriously.  But that's your choice.


Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:28:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, I have no idea who Bob likes...not that I've been following him. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:49:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is FP material? (6.00 / 4)

Coakley had an actual reversal of policy that has been pointed out by many on this blog, and that did not make the front page, but Khazei has gramatical errors, and he gets a "Campaign Fail" post? I really think that is unfair. To be clear, I am not supporting Khazei and I still think this is over the top.

IMHO it is becoming apparent that you have chosen a candidate. I think you have every right to chose a candidate, and to advocate for your candidate on here (I am a big fan of choosing a side early in a race and fighting hard for your guy or gal to win). But as an editor, I feel you need to be up front about who you are supporting, because the assumption is that editors are unbias.  

---

by: 02136mom @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 23:29:54 PM CST

Hey, it's our blog! (4.67 / 3)

There is no assumption of unbiased editors here. Where did you get that impression. We all have lots of biases.

As to the piece you reference I personally hadn't read it until just now. Maybe neither David or Charley had either. Having read it, it doesn't seem to me to say much that is new, it's just Coakley elaborating what she said before, more or less, so I didn't promote it. It's not like there has been any shortage of discussion here about the Stupak amendment.

Personally, I haven't decided which Democratic candidate I support.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:34:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your blog but questions were asked... (6.00 / 1)

Did the Coakley campaign respond? Why is she now deciding not to answer the question? Do you think this reflects poorly on how she will serve? Why hasn't her campaign engaged the BMG community?

Also, many of us wanted it front paged because of her complete inability to answer a question coherently. Something about a bridge or something.

I for one am looking for one or all of the editors to jump in.

---

by: kaj314 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:02:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a difference between bias (6.00 / 3)

and prejudice. You've displayed the latter.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:08:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bob, I hope you aren't just digging in your heels (6.00 / 4)

Can you blame us for thinking something fishy is going on?

Capuano blasts an opponent for a position and when he then takes on part of that position himself, you yourself write a front page FAIL post.

Now we have an interview where Coakley seems to be backing off her position on the House vote because she didn't know that there was a strategic reason for passing the flawed bill:

And I have said, then let somebody explain that that was the strategy. Let someone say, well, we knew we had this problem but this was the only way to move forward on it.

Then when asked about how she'd vote in the Senate, she now not only refuses to answer the question, but is so flustered that she can't put together a coherent sentence to explain herself:

I'm not going to answer that question. I am not saying, you know, if I'm on the bridge and this is the only choice I have that, that you know, I'd say we're not going to be there.

And you are saying a post about grammar and spelling is more important?

It's not that hard. You can start with an edit of an earlier post:

Capuano Coakley Campaign Politics Fail
by: Bob

The monumental 24-hour flip-flop of the Capuano Coakley campaign on whether the Stupak-Pitts amendment is, or is not, a health care deal-breaker has to call into question the candidate's ability to run an effective campaign and, by extension, his her ability to be an effective Senator.

---

by: Jasiu @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 05:55:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"No ... unbiased editors here" (6.00 / 1)

Maybe you should rethink that policy. Bias will hurt you in the long run. See sabutai's comment below for one example. But more broadly, consider the various reputations that Reuters, the AP, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Drudge and WorldNetDaily enjoy. The reason for their various levels of reputation is left as a thought exercise for the reader.

If you earn a reputation for shilling for your candidate or needlessly slagging guys you don't like, it will bite you hard. (NB: This applies even if you aren't actually biased but happen to appear to be, as you claim is the case here.)

This isn't the first time this has come up, and I'm surprised it keeps coming up, frankly.

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman

---

by: dcsohl @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 07:38:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

BMG has been hot on the trail (6.00 / 1)

about the candidates position on whether they'd pass healthcare reform with Stupak abortion access restrictions all week. Why stop now?

Capuano has said how he'd vote on a final bill but Coakley has not.  Don't stop now press for answers.  This is the issue you and David pursued. It is current and a signature issue for BMG beating other political coverage to the punch.

Your decision to contintue to press for answers would  signal  your interest in the issue over your interest in one candidate instead of another.

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:10:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You have got to be kidding me. (6.00 / 1)

Herein lies the inherent nature of blogging.  

---

by: lightiris @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 05:31:42 AM CST

FWIW (6.00 / 7)

Next time somebody posts an appeal to contribute to the BMG PAC, I'm probably going to think of this post, and yes the Editors' refusal to acknowledge Martha Coakley's political failure on Stupak.  I'm not donating money toward the ongoing battle against campaign website tyops.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 06:28:12 AM CST

No kidding. (6.00 / 4)

Blogging is a lot like being in 8th grade:  some days you want to tackle the weighty issues of the day and other days you just want to color.  

That said, I find the editors' posture in this campaign seriously inconsistent.  Historically, I've found the site to be well balanced and appropriately focused.  This race, however, has revealed a nitpicking prissiness and an overt unwillingness to offer balance that is puzzling.  I'm willing to donate to a PAC that forwards solid Democratic principles and candidates, not a PAC that stacks the deck so overtly and then dithers when called on it.  

BMG's editors' unwillingness to publicly deal with Martha Coakley's silence is so not cool.  And the bizarre treatment of Khazei on the front page is simply childish.  Presumably this site is supposed to grow more mature, not less, with each passing election.  No further bucks from me, either.  

---

by: lightiris @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:54:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not trying to seem problematic (6.00 / 1)

There's a good chance I'll fork over to BMG PAC once I see where my money's going to go.  I like the Editors, but stuff like this does shake my ability to donate on blind faith.  Heck, we all have light days (my most recent blogpost was on earworms) but I don't want to take out my boredom on a campaign I don't like.  It's starting to be reminiscent of Donna Brazile on CNN during the Democratic primary, claiming to be unbiased.

In any case, labeling anything a "grammar fail" -- regardless of the Internet catchphrase de semaine -- is self-parody.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:04:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Excuse me. (6.00 / 1)

A "grammar Fail" -- forgot the wholly incorrect capitalization as well.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:05:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok, fine point taken - sloppy product (0.00 / 0)

But what is your real itch with Khazei?

---

by: HeartlandDem @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 07:59:09 AM CST

Some support for Bob (6.00 / 3)

 As someone who just ran a $17,000 campaign for Mayor of Boston I know that it was very important to us to make sure we spell checked and read over what we sent out.   It constantly amazed us to have BMG and Universal Hub point out the spelling and grammatical errors of other candidates press releases.   In this day of electronic word check, etc. it is barely excusable.   I'm sure we made some, but we made a strong effort to be professional in this regard.  (of course, I came in last so maybe good grammar does not make a good politician!)

I must admit I read Khazei's blog post and wondered about the lapses.   Not too impressive when he has over a million dollars in a campaign account.   I initially was attracted to him as a candidate but I went out and spoke to him personally and spoke to his staff (and suggested they get on BMG more forcefully) and was not overly impressed with his position and knowledge on charter schools.   I still haven't made up my mind.

However, whether this deserves front page posting, when a snarky comment at the top of the bottom of his post might have been more in tune with the seriousness of his lapses.

Will Coakley not filling out a financial form properly be front paged?

Magna Fingere, Magna Facere

---

by: KevinMcCrea @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:41:23 AM CST

Don't rely on spell check (0.00 / 0)

Some of the errors appear to be a result of not reading what was written, and relying on spell check instead.

Wit/With
America/American
Tenants/Tenets

I agree that on material produced by the campaign there needs to be a standard of excellence.  I thought Bob was fairly tolerant before he got to three strikes.  I will say that I don't think that a campaign should be paralyzed for fear of a mistake, but at least read over ONCE what has been written before sending it out.  Even if you don't have the luxury of a proofreader, read what was written, preferably aloud.

---

by: KTHiker @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:39:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Three strikes is one two many (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Bob, and had the same reaction when I read the post.  One or two, OK, you can still reach base and it's all forgotten that you had two strikes on you.  But there were FIVE strikes here, two were just fouled off.  "Tenants" was right over the plate, called out looking.

But maybe he was trying to endear himself with bloggers, saying "I'm one of you, I don't have proofreaders and a big staff of handlers and image makers."  But it's not about making spelling mistakes, Alan, it's about making fun of lightiris and Christopher's utter ridiculousness, sparring with CMD, learning from stomv, making fun of Ryan, etc.  

---

by: dcsurfer @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 13:32:30 PM CST