In Defense of Creators at the DNC

There’s a New York Times article that calls out creators at the DNC for having no code of ethics and makes us all sound pretty shallow. It’s headlined “Free Booze, a Lake Cruise and Selfies Galore: How Democrats Courted Influencers at the D.N.C.” The subhead reads “Democrats gave social media figures the V.I.P. treatment this week in an aggressive attempt to pump feeds with pro-Harris posts.” Here’s a quote from the article:

“Most of the creators who attended the Democratic convention do not consider themselves journalists and have set no code of ethics or independence. Their currency is attention, which is how they accumulate followers, and many earn income by promoting commercial products to them. This week, the product was Ms. Harris.”

I am a NYT subscriber and have great respect for their journalism, but I find it ironic that they used a clickbait headline to question the ethics of creators. The actual article, which fewer people will read, is less inflammatory.

I have many problems with the framing of this article, but my biggest gripe is that it is so basic and expected. Influencers like to take selfies? COLOR ME SHOCKED. What would have been way more interesting is asking influencers why they were there, because as opposed to being “courted,” most of us applied for the opportunity. The article makes it sound like we were there for clout, free swag and a cash grab. News flash. Posting about politics loses us followers and brand deals. We also didn’t know what the perks would be or how we would be treated until we got there. And here’s another insight— a room with water, outlets and pretzels is maybe exciting to these particular reporters, but it is not that special to the creators in attendance. It wasn’t there to give us the VIP treatment, it was there to make sure we had what we needed to do what they hoped we would do. The creator lounge’s main purpose was a command center for the agencies who were coordinating interviews and funneling people to and from the creator stage. Yes there was free alcohol, but I’d be curious to see the actual bar bill because I didn’t see many creators taking advantage. We were there to work.

By “work,” I do not mean a paid gig. I mean the same “work” that speakers like Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey spoke about. We were there to do our version of ringing doorbells, phone banks and canvassing, except instead of influencing our neighbors, we are working to energize our online communities. I can't speak for everyone, but I was not paid to be there. I even paid for my own airfare and hotel. I am also not motivated by parties and free cookies. I’m a grown up with a business who is taking time out of my paying gigs (and time away from my family) to voluntarily support the Democratic Party. Harris is not our “product” like the NYT suggests. When I am paid to promote a product, there is a contract and deliverables. A briefing with the client, key messages I must convey and an approval process. For the DNC, all I was given was access. Nobody told me what to post or what to say. We were free to share our experience however we wanted. Or not share it at all.

The NYT is correct that we do not consider ourselves journalists. We are US citizens who care deeply about this election and many of us think it’s our responsibility to use our platforms for good. In fact, we seize the opportunity. Yes, we are biased. We tell our audiences exactly what we think on a daily basis. I am a Democrat who openly wants Harris to win. This is not a hidden agenda. Everyone who follows me knows this. And I don’t know any creators who would compromise their values or switch sides for a one time paycheck. The only time I have seen that happen is with news reporters on television.

Unlike traditional news outlets, creators have people listening to us whether we post clickbait headlines or not. That’s why people are posting outfits and selfies along with the speeches. For the same reason John Legend is coming before Amy Klobuchar. We don’t have lots of followers because they dropped from the sky. We are media savvy, know what works with our audience and know how to get them to stay engaged for the important stuff. So many people have messaged me over the last week telling me that they are getting all their DNC coverage from creators this year. Or that they never watched the DNC before but they are now fully invested due to the multiple perspectives from different people they follow. It’s much more interesting watching a creator you like experience the DNC for the first time than watching the same reporters who have had access for years try to frame a story in order to get it published by the company who pays them to cover it. You know who else gets paid? Think tanks, speech writers and event organizers. Why does no one question their ethics? Or assume they are just doing it for a paycheck?

Which brings me to another point— when the NYT journalist talks about a code of ethics, he is obviously talking about the specific code of ethics that journalists live by. But he also wants to keep his job, which means he has to write something interesting enough to get published. Maybe the reporter came to the Times with a more balanced article and the editor sensationalized it. Who knows. I don’t have an editor. My audience knows that everything I’m posting is coming directly from me.

CNN wrote a similar article, also calling out the free cookies and swag in their headline. It’s called “Cookies, Lounges and Press Passes: How the DNC is Wooing Social Media Creators to the Chicago Convention.” Creators get free stuff all the time. Many of us actually have started turning down free promotional packages because it’s too much. WE DON’T CARE. Give the press all the cookies. We are there for things like reproductive rights, gun control, equal opportunity, climate change and preserving our democracy.

I would love to see respectable media outlets dig a little deeper when it comes to the motivations of creators and what they bring to the table. Not everyone is Gen Z and not everyone makes a living by posting about products. I met one creator who is an OBGYN and another who is a social studies teacher. Do you think they were there for the free cookies? About 3/4 of the way down into the article, The Times mentions that three creators got interviews with Kamala Harris at the convention even though no media outlets have gotten one, including Carlos Eduardo Espina who has 10 million followers on Tiktok and posts in Spanish. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out why his platform was so valuable to the campaign. Did the reporter look at their platform? What they usually post about? Has he ever expressed his political allegiance before? Did they ask how big of a risk it was for him to produce this content for his audience? Who are the other two? What are their platforms like? Why did the Harris campaign think they were so valuable?

Carlos Eduardo Espina actually spoke at the convention. The Times mentions this but doesn’t say what he spoke about. Another creator who spoke (unmentioned by the Times) was Nabela Noor Martin. I was at the convention but I must have been somewhere else when she spoke because I missed it. Do you know how I found out about it? Because I follow her and it popped up on my Instagram. She talked about how she started her family with IVF and other than that issue being incredibly important to her, there is no real benefit for her to speak about this so publicly. She has a huge following, lucrative brand deals, and tons of visibility. She will no doubt anger tons of followers who either don’t agree with her stance or just want her to stay in her lane. By appearing on that stage, she has also opened herself and her family to tons of trolls who were probably not aware of her before. The only reason for her to put herself out there like this is because she wants to use her voice to stand up for what she believes in.

As much as the media would like to place one narrative on creators and influencers, we are as varied as any other industry. We come in all different ages, with different principles, different purposes, and some of us have been doing this for a very long time. Contrary to popular opinion, clout and money is not what is most important to the creators I know. And you don’t just insult us by saying that, you insult the people who watch us too. We make a living doing this because we respect our audiences and know that our entire platform rests on our integrity. A much more interesting article about creators at the DNC would be why they are willing to risk their platforms to potentially influence the outcome of this election. Or why the Harris campaign believes creators are crucial to their victory.

For the record, I did not feel catered to by the DNC. I felt proud that I have built something that my party finds valuable. I felt excited to give my audience a unique insider perspective along with speeches addressing the issues we care about. I felt relieved that the party I want to win is thinking this way, because I know the people in the creator lounge will be effective. I am having an overwhelmingly positive response to my coverage so far and having real conversations with followers in my DMs who are still in the process of making up their minds.

Instead of the media focusing on what creators at the DNC got, they should try focusing on what we are giving. A few million views is worth way more than a cookie. In fact, I bet if they added up the views on all the creator content, it would far eclipse any of the news channels that had skyboxes in the main arena.