Candidate Blogs - An invitation for disaster?

BWS (A Schwarzenegger Republican) brings up an excellent point regarding politicians and the use of political blogging.

"The goal of any communications director for a politician is to control the message and not let the opponents gain ground by getting coverage of their own messages. The blog could help the opponent tremendously. Therefore, I give fair warning to politicians who want to use blogs as a means of communication with constituents. I would recommend a daily newsletter or email to a targeted list that will allow the delivery of a message and not a debate."

Creating a blog is an innovative and informal way for politicians to connect and organize voters. However, politicians must be wary of what they choose to post on their blogs and in what context their blog will be read. Is the post in line with the message of the campaign? Could the post possibly instigate controversy between the candidate and opponent? Blogs could be an invitation for backlash comments from opponent supporters or outraged citizens, an opportunity for the opponent to capitalize on their own message, and even unfavorable media coverage. An entire news story could be generated and hyped up from a simple blog entry.

How or can a blog disaster be prevented at all? Must a campaign be malleable to the idea of restricting comments? By doing so, does a campaign give off the impression of indifference to the thoughts and responses of its constituents? The communication director should monitor the blog closely, in order to control the message of the campaign, but is there really such a thing as safe with a candidate and their blog?

Technology: A Double-edged Sword?

Mobile Technology Weblog's post, "The Death Knell of Technology" raises an interesting point, (at least to me, as I am constantly surrounded by the idea of how wonderful the wireless industry is) that despite the awesome world of technology, it can be intrusive. Camera phones, GPS, video phones are all able to invade privacy and discreetly track, view, and monitor unknowing victims.

Don't get me wrong, I think the wireless industry IS wonderful and its technology has made remarkable advancements in society. Take, for instance, Wireless News' article on how text messaging is being used to help ensure proper treatment of AIDS patients in South Africa. It is amazing how a modern convenience such as SMS messaging is saving hundreds of lives in Africa.

Camera and video phones are seemingly cutting edge, magnificent creations that spark the interest of consumers. Most people don't look at a camera phone and think of its intrusive uses. I think most people look at a camera phone and think of all its "cool" applications. But, I think society should take a look at and question the right to privacy when it comes to wireless technology.

As the wireless industry creates more modern marvels that will stimulate imagination and make lives easier, how far is too far?

All we can do is hope the technology will be used for good and not for evil.

Is that too much to ask?

Reading the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's article, "Conyers looks for News in the Wrong Places", addresses the dismal evolution of the media in America. Congressman Conyers called out the media for ignoring stories of importance and focusing on stories of enticements. Sylvester Brown's sarcastic response letter to Conyers is sad, but true; what was once a solid institution of integrity and an ever-lasting quest for truth has now become a means to advertise, sell, and attract. I, myself, am a huge fan of Bill O' Reilly plugging his "Factor Gear" at the end of each show.

Doesn't the media lose some sort of credibility to the public, when the stories they cover are just meant to sell or to make more money for their corporate conglomerate? At the same time, what is the public to do, what choice do they have, and do they even know it is happening?

Is this thing on?

Just a test to see if this bad boy works...indeed it does.