Interview with Ben Smith: Senior Political Writer and Blogger for Politico.com

Interview with Ben Smith: Senior political writer and blogger for <i>Politico.com</i>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Mother Jones: What do you think of the idea of open-source politics?

Ben Smith: Open source is a weird metaphor because open-source software is stuff that’s actually written by the community of coders, by the community out in the world, but I don’t think any of these campaigns are actually turning themselves over to their supporters yet. What would genuinely be open source is to allow your supporters to run the campaign. Most people in politics don’t do it because they think it would be a terrible idea. There’s a tension between the control the campaigns like to exert over their message and then the desire to involve supporters and give them something meaningful to do.

MJ: What do you think is the most exciting or most innovative use of technology in politics right now?

BS: Barack Obama’s website is the most exciting. I think the most innovative use of technology by any of the campaigns is by Obama; it is the liveliest. He’s bringing in a whole bunch of people who weren’t necessarily blogging and politically active on the web before and who are writing blogs on his site and organizing specifically around him. He’s building an alternate netroots.

MJ: Do you think that these new technologies are effective in making candidates more responsive?

BS: No, I think they still stick rigidly to their talking points. If any of these candidates were writing their own blogs, it would surprise me. I don’t think any of the candidates themselves are really personally engaged on the web. The only partial exception is John Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth Edwards, who reads blogs and writes comments on them. She has won loyalty from the small but noisy and influential liberal bloggers by really taking them seriously and engaging them.

Politicians are scared that at any moment, somebody may be taking a picture of them with a cell-phone camera. And now that there’s YouTube, if you do something that’s entertainingly dumb, you can become the only thing anybody in the world knows about. Politicians are very aware of not creating YouTube moments.

MJ: What features make this shift more democratic or less democratic?

BS: There’s a democracy of message. For instance, the “Hillary 1984” ad, in some ways it was more democratic in that it became popular because it was cool and not because the campaign did focus groups and decided that it was the ideal message. But at the same time, it was created by an experienced political consultant working one degree removed from the Obama campaign, and not by some man in the street. It was the plausible, legitimate deniability of the Obama campaign that allowed him to do it.

MJ: Do you think that these changes affect most Americans?

BS: Most people aren’t paying attention to national politics right now, certainly not to presidential politics. The numbers are growing, though, and part of what’s interesting about the Obama campaign is that he raised a lot of money on the Internet. He has this website full of people who aren’t people from the existing blogosphere. There’s a new group of people who are less tech savvy, less of the early-adapter type, and maybe less ideological, but who are now more comfortable on the Internet because there are more people online than there were four years ago. I don’t know whether it’s going to empower and strengthen the existing online elite or whether it’s going to create more voices and more competition.

MJ: But does it affect people who aren’t online by influencing the landscape of the political dialogue?

BS: There’s this way to assert issues so that if they gain some traction online, everybody, including the politicians, have to talk about it. Often what happens is that this stuff pushes out into the mainstream media and that’s where the politicians have to talk about it.

MJ: Can you talk about how the landscape has changed since Dean? Do you think that the Internet has evolved and changed so much that a candidate’s blog can no longer be as successful as his was?

BS: Not at all. Dean captured an offline reality, which was this disgust with the Democrats for not standing up to Bush and the foundations of the war. That wasn’t an online phenomenon.

 

More Interviews << >> Politics 2.0 Index

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate