Press "Enter" to skip to content

Santema Joins Nelson Senate Campaign: Blog Still Independent, or Paid Propaganda?

Rep. Stace Nelson's campaign team announcement raises an interesting side question about the independence and reliability of the blogosphere. Included on Nelson's mostly homegrown 30-person team is Libertarian blogger Ken Santema from Aberdeen, who dutifully runs that press release with just one Pat-Powersesque opening blip:

This release from the Nelson campaign should go a long way to show how well supported Stace is in the Senate race [Ken Santema, "Stace Nelson for US Senate Announces Campaign Team," SoDakLiberty, 2013.10.08].

I've met Santema. I like Santema's blog. In just a year of South Dakota blogging, Santema has shown an ability to be more sensible, realistic, and willing to challenge the powers that be on practical local policy than most of the abstraction-intoxicated Libertarians I encounter. Santema's writing shows more intellect and honesty than the DWC press-release processing machine or anyone else to my right in the South Dakota blogosphere.

But Santema is now an official member of a U.S. Senate campaign, which seems to fertilize all sorts of astroturf in South Dakota. We question Pat Powers's blog motives given the fact that M. Michael Rounds pays him money to sustain Dakota War College. In 2008 I joined critics right and left who viewed the original Badlands Blue as an astroturfy tool of the Tim Johnson campaign. In 2004, Jon Lauck's blog cred would have been shot to heck if we had known the John Thune campaign was paying for his keyboard-crushing efforts.

I don't know if Nelson is paying Santema or anyone else on his team (we won't know until the House Republicans surrender and let the FEC get back to work to know whether Team Nelson even has money for campaign staff). But paid or not, Santema is on that team.

We bloggers tend to make our allegiances clear. But Santema's sign-up for Team Nelson raises a good question, dear readers: Can we read Santema's blog the same way today as we did yesterday? Is Santema still an independent voice who happens to believe that a specific Senate candidate aligns best with his quest for liberty? Or is Santema's SoDakLiberty now just one more expression of the smelly Powers-Feld-Lauck tradition of blogs as paid propaganda?

11 Comments

  1. Deb Geelsdottir 2013.10.08

    Whenever a blogger, professional journalist, news organization or similar sort endorses a campaign readers ought to be skeptical and treat those writings with a grain of salt. We also need to be able to accept the source as reliable and unbiased if they prove to be so.

    Actually joining a campaign, paid or unpaid, is an entirely different ballgame. I think wisdom and experience dictates that the level of skepticism one reads Santema with should be significantly higher.

  2. Bill Dithmer 2013.10.08

    I don't know what all the fuss is about. I happen to love the music that Carlos Santana jams and think it took about thirty years to long for him to get his first Grammy. I would welcome him to South Dakota no mater who he was campaigning for.

    What's that? Santema not Santana.

    Never mind. It could have been a great primary.

    http://grooveshark.com/s/Put+Your+Lights+On+feat+Everlast/2w7jjB?src=5

    The Blindman

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.08

    Darn—I was going to send Stace my résumé and apply for deputy communications director under Mark Brown... largely to filter out the craziest statements from Team Birch from bubbling up from the grass roots into any official campaign statements. I think I could do that job... ;-)

  4. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.08

    Sorry, Bill: you have to save that joke for when Ken Santema himself runs for something (like Secretary of State on the Libertarian ticket in 2014?! Ken?!).

  5. Bill Dithmer 2013.10.08

    I'm sorry Cory, the message was in the lyrics. I guess I just think a little different then others. It sounded like a song that that Stace could really sink his teeth into. Sentema, Santana, to-may-toes, təˈmɑːtoʊz, let's call the whole thing off.

    Il n'importe pas réellement

    "Put Your Lights On"
    (feat. Everlast)

    Hey now, all you sinners
    Put your lights on, put your lights on
    Hey now, all you lovers
    Put your lights on, put your lights on

    Hey now, all you killers
    Put your lights on, put your lights on
    Hey now, all you children
    Leave your lights on, you better leave your lights on

    Cause there's a monster living under my bed
    Whispering in my ear
    There's an angel, with a hand on my head
    She say I've got nothing to fear

    There's a darkness living deep in my soul
    I still got a purpose to serve
    So let your light shine, deep into my home
    God, don't let me lose my nerve
    Don't let me lose my nerve

    Hey now, hey now, hey now, hey now
    Wo oh hey now, hey now, hey now, hey now

    Hey now, all you sinners
    Put your lights on, put your lights on
    Hey now, all you children
    Leave your lights on, you better leave your lights on

    Because there's a monster living under my bed
    Whispering in my ear
    There's an angel, with a hand on my head
    She say's I've got nothing to fear
    She says: La illaha illa Allah
    We all shine like stars
    She says: La illaha illa Allah
    We all shine like stars
    Then we fade away

    The Blindman

  6. grudznick 2013.10.08

    If this Team Nelson that has been created by a single busload of really Odd Fellows can make paid bloggers blanch, then is this really blogging thing the same as a Mr. Lamar billboard?

    We all know that young Dr. Bos will get the national TV press and Mr. Nelson has a couple of dozen people pounding posts in the ground to hang plywood. Rounds is doing something we just don't know what. And Mr. Rhoden is about to unleash his next move to vault him even tighter to Rounds in the leader spot. Watch for Mr. Rhoden to really flex his leadership muscles when the legislatures get closer, for who can do so and who has more muscle than him? Not Dr. Bos, not Mr. Rounds who is no longer in the legislatures, and Mr. Nelson is there but he is not really there. This is where Mr. Rhoden will really ramp up the PR I think. I'm just sayin...

  7. Ken Santema 2013.10.09

    I don't think I've even pretended to be unbiased as to Stace's run for Senate (an no, I am not a paid member of his team). But I do think the question of whether outright supporting a candidate is good for a blogger or journalist. I personally have no problems with a journalist supporting a candidate or political issue.

    Bias exists and will always exist. When journalists try to mitigate or hide their bias I believe they may actually fail to write important thoughts or facts. They do this to ensure they are not seen as biased. Which is just silly because biases are a part of human nature.

    I do think it is wrong for media groups to formally support a candidate or issue (such as a newspaper editorial staff). For instance if the Argus Leader came out said they think Bosworth should be the next US Senator I would find that disturbing. However if Mr Montgomery came out and said the same thing as an individual journalist I would have no problem with it. I would be able to understand hi bias in future articles and critically analyze his words accordingly.

    I actually had a point I was going to make. But apparently keeping coherent thoughts with a fever just isn't possible. So I'll just leave it there for now.

  8. interested party 2013.10.09

    Cannabis rights and Stace Nelson's team: bipolar disorder.

  9. grudznick 2013.10.09

    There are no cannabis rights, Mr. Kurtz. And Mr. Nelson is a law abider.

  10. interested party 2013.10.09

    Guaranteed by the 9th Amendment, Mr. Anderson.

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.10.09

    Ken, you're still pretty coherent. I agree that journalists should be allowed to declare their allegiances and preferences... and maybe required! Knowing those preferences allows us readers to interpret the writer's work more carefully.

    But is there a fundamental difference between the bias of conscience and the bias of paycheck? I know in your case (if you get paid) the paycheck likely won't significantly alter your bias.

    As for newspapers, Ken, do you reject the notion that newspapers should be able to officially endorse a candidate?

Comments are closed.