Mediaite covered the story, broken here, about the White House having expressed its “frustration” about gay bloggers. Pam got in some nice quotes, and then Mediaite raised the somewhat odd question as to whether the blogs can truly cause any harm, and whether they truly have a constituency.
The larger question for LGBT bloggers, and the White House, is how much harm is there in complaining about activists. While big-name bloggers are now hosting fundraisers for candidates, its unclear how much they speak for mainstream LGBT voters or how large their constituency really is. While bloggers may have an outsized-role with other activist groups that the White House wants support from, there may be little downside in questioning the role of activists/bloggers and touting the administration’s perceived successes outside of the LGBT blogosphere’s echo chamber-like voice.
The question they raise is a bit muddled, having several parts really. One, can we cause damage. Yes we can. And we’ve proven it, time and again. The media and the community listens to us. The reason they listen to us is because we’re usually right. We analyze the news, we tell them what’s actually going on, we predict what’s coming, and again, we’re usually right. That’s why we have an impact, and it’s why we have a following. It’s why 300,000 unique visitors read AMERICAblog every month. And that answers the second part of the query, do we really have a constituency. If we didn’t, no one would have ever heard of the infamous DOMA incest/pedophilia brief – we’d have written about it, and our writings would have simply disappeared into the ether. They didn’t.