...and thwacks it over the head with a two-by-four. Just got the following in my Inbox from the White House Communications folks:

Setting The Record Straight: Heritage Foundation Report Overestimates Legal Immigration Increase Under Senate Immigration Bill

But A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Analysis Of The Hagel-Martinez Bill Found It Would Increase The U.S. Population By 8 Million People Over The First 10 Years – A Fraction Of The Heritage Report's Claim.

The email, about a page long, goes right into a series of bullet points that address and reject many of Heritage's claims. (Full text is included at the bottom of this post in the extended entry).

Now, I don't have a dog in this fight --- I frankly have no clue whether Heritage or the White House has the better set of facts here. But it strikes me that there is some feedback to be given to the White House on their communication style, and it is a particularly relevant moment to deliver it with with Tony Snow coming into play and making some rather encouraging noises about engaging with the blogosphere.

Recognizing that the White House is not a blog, I think it can be informative to read their email as if it were a blog post, and judge it by the same standards we would apply to a blogger's work. And by those standards, it falls rather short.

First, a key rule I try to apply in blogging is "don't be a jerk." In the way it presented this email, the White House was, frankly, being a jerk: the email seems to give Heritage no credit at all for their efforts; there's nothing along the lines of "we appreciate Heritage's focus on this critical issue but differ with their conclusions"; not even a nod of acknowledgement that Heritage does some mighty fine work in general and oh, by the way, represents a core constituency that the administration is trying not to piss off too mightily at the moment. Now, my rule does have a qualifier, which is, "unless it serves my purposes to be a jerk." But I just don't see much purpose or upside for the White House in being jerk-y towards a conservative group like Heritage.

Second, if you're going to write a blog post White House email which advances a set of arguments contradicting the facts and conclusions of a report like Heritage's, you darned well better include some links to your sources in it. The White House email included a total of four hyperlinks: all of which simply point at the Heritage report. The email mentions a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis --- with no link. It mentions a National Research Council analysis --- with no link. Why not? Show your sources, and the credibility of your argument is immediately enhanced --- not to mention giving the reader the opportunity to actually check them and form their own judgment.

Lastly, a point of style, which perhaps might be a bit unfair (and might also fall under the jerkyness critique in point one above). The White House email presents itself as fact, unassailable and unquestionable: "Heritage Foundation Report Overestimates Legal Immigration". Is the truth in this matter really that black and white? Heritage is simply 100%, utterly wrong, with no possibility of any honest debate or differing interpretations? What would be lost by presenting these same points of argument in a less commanding, confrontational style?

On some issues, the White House's "Setting the Record Straight" emails should rightfully declare genuinely incorrect statements of fact as exactly that. But on a subject like this --- prediciting the future impact of a Senate bill that has yet to even be passed --- it seems to me that nobody can possibly know with certainty where "straight" is, or whether the record is indeed properly aligned to it or not. In these cases, a tone of engagement; of constructive disagreement, and of conversation with Heritage --- and the bloggers to which this email was sent --- would seem to be a far more appropriate, and productive approach.

All of this is even more important given Heritage's positioning squarely within the conservative base. But the lessons apply regardless of the source which the White House seeks to correct. Advance the argument; but do so with respect for those you are disagreeing with, and for your reader (links!).

And try not to be a jerk...

I'll be providing special coverage tonight for President Bush's immigration speech with a dedicated tracking page showing all the bloggers who are liveblogging or reacting to the speech.

The tracking page is here, and includes a quick form for bloggers to sign up and let me know that you'll be covering the event.

Be sure to also tune in to Hugh Hewitt's show tonight, as he'll be doing an extended edition to cover the speech, and I'll be helping him out in covering blogosphere reactions.