|
|
January 24, 2006
Brady, Hamsher, Reynolds, Jarvis, Rosen at the Post site. Plus: Elite Newspaper Divergence (END)Our live Q and A begins 1:00 pm Wednesday... Brady says he's working on adding comments to news articles... Times columnist David Carr’s take on the “whirlwind” around Deborah Howell includes some extraordinary instructions for how to e-mail him: don’t... "Wow," says Dan Gillmor.Word has arrived on the blogger’s roundtable you may have read about with Jim Brady, executive editor of the Washingtonpost.com. It was to be done in person, around a table in Arlington, VA, headquarters for the Post site. That proved impractical. Instead it will be a version of the Post’s online Q and A’s. Here are the essentials: What: Ethics & Interactivity online roundtable Where: at washingtonpost.com When: Wednesday, January 25, 2006; 1:00 PM Who: Jim Brady, Washingtonpost.com. How do I suggest questions? You can’t, too late. But you can go to this page and read. Or you can post in comments here. I told readers of my last entry, Transparency at the Post, a Q & A with Jim Brady, that if this roundtable at Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive (WPNI) happened, I would open a new thread about what ought to be discussed if we’re going to get somewhere. After 388 comment posts, it’s time to start the meter over anyway. (A record for PressThink.) There’s a small bit of news from Brady, further evidence for my Elite Newspaper Divergence (END) theory. It states that the Washington Post and New York Times are going to grow more apart as they take different paths on the Web. (For more, go here and here, and here.) Brady told me that within two weeks washingtonpost.com will introduce by-lines for Post writers that are “hot linked,” as we used to say when the Web was a marvel. The difference between By Charles Lane and By Charles Lane may seem slight. But it’s not, because that simple link can go a lot of places. (Reporter’s blog, for example.) I asked Brady what writers’ names would be linked to, initially. “The bylines will be — for now — hyperlinked to e-mail forms so that reporters are all accessible via email,” he said. “Eventually, we’ll probably include recent stories, maybe a bio and photo. But, for now, it’s a communications device.” Which makes sense, but also makes a point coming after New York Times columnist David Carr’s take on the “whirlwind” around Deborah Howell. Carr gave some extraordinary instructions for how to e-mail him: don’t. Causing Dan Gillmor to say: wow. What startled Gillmor was Carr’s closer. “Personally, I’m all for a robust interaction with the reading public. My address is David Carr, New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036. And don’t forget that the price of stamps just went up.” Which I read as defiance projected at these people. For robust interaction with me write a letter, put it in an envelope, and mail it, Web hordes. What theory of modern newspapering is that? Of course, Times watchers know that Carr is pioneering a Times blog, called Carpetbagger— which is about Hollywood and the Oscars. It has comments, which seem to work just fine, and there’s an easy way to e-mail the author. So it’s not clear what the defiance in Monday’s column means. Is Carr clowning? (Steve Lovelady in comments: “Of course Carr is clowning.” Jeff Jarvis said Carr confirmed it: clowning.) Or will he soon be telling Len Apcar, the editor-in-chief of NYTimes.com, to disable the e-mail link and comment function at Carpetbaggers? (Obviously he won’t, because he was clowning. Right.) Jim Brady told Dan Gillmor that more changes are coming at the Post site, once the Post fixes the problems it had last week. He also explained what the problem was: the site wasn’t requiring a valid e-mail address from people leaving comments because we were working through Movable Type, and we had not synched up our registration system with it. But we are hoping to add comments to articles reasonably soon, and when we do that, we’ll have that layer of security. But, after the events of the past week, we now know we need that layer on our MT blogs as well. Lesson learned, I guess. Brady said comments at post.blog will be back soon and I have no reason to doubt him. He also said that he’s adding comments “reasonably soon” to Washington Post articles online. This is bigger news— if it happens. It will increase substantially the two-way-ness of the Post site. (See Brady’s clarification in “After Matter” below.) There’s no telling how the ability instantly to comment on breaking news will affect the Post’s journalism. (Yesterday Jack Shafer of Slate, a Washington Post property, used his column to explain how their moderated system, The Fray, works. Slate pays somebody to oversee, and give order to it, including awarding stars for people who contribute greatly. Who publishes Slate? WPNI.) Meanwhile, the New York Times is breaking new ground with blogs you have to pay to read. It’s not clear which theory of the blogosphere such blogs could operate within. Does linking to subscriber’s only content make sense when the point is to participate in public discussion? Now if you are in Select company, you can “send a comment,” which is not the same as posting one. “TimesSelect aims to offer subscribers unique opportunities to communicate with Op-Ed columnists,” the site tells you. “Please use this form to submit your questions and comments for any of the Iraqi bloggers.” I understand what they’re doing. They are adding value to being a Times select subscriber, but not by “taking away” what had been available freely— instead, you add bloggers, a new class of vendor, and a subscription should be worth more. Except that a blog that can’t be linked to is automatically worth less on the Web, so who’s worth counts?
But first let Will Femia at MSNBC’s Clicked guide you through recent events: “The dots I’m clicking show a change in mood and tactic by online liberal activists.” Could be consequential. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links. Well, the results are in. (Jan. 25) Jane Hamsher isn’t satisfied, not by a long shot. She tells us she had a lot of people “conferenced in” and assisting: Peter Daou, Atrios, John Amato, Digby and jukeboxgrad from DailyKos (who would not let Jim Brady slide on his nebulous explanations, much to Brady’s irritation) — not to mention Markos and Brad DeLong who offered their input yesterday, Matt Stoller who was patrolling comments over at the Open Letter to the Washington Post blog (as well as Taylor who has been moderating), and Redd who was holding down the fort here. All I can say is that the answers that were given were the result of lots of people thinking together, including all the emails and commenters, and I can’t tell you all how much I appreciated the collaborative effort. She thanked the post.com for the opportunity, then added. “Brady gave himself the last word many times, goaded me for a response and then closing it before I could answer, despite the fact that I was asking in the accompanying ‘chat’ box for a chance to do so. Neither would he give substandial, meaningful answers to questions I posed to him.” And she challenged Brady to a one-on-one. Furthermore, Hamsher and Digby agree that Jarvis and Rosen were just “filler” and the real debate—the only debate—was between Jane Hamsher and Jim Brady. Hamsher and Brady have an exchange in comments here. Jane: Structuring the debate like they did allowed Brady to continually evade answering some serious questions about some very sketchy excuses. Were he not using those excuses — which he refuses to backup — for repeated flame throwing at about largely civil comments left on the post.blog, I would not be hammering him. Jane, Not giving you the answers you want is not the same as evading questions. If you’re waiting for me to break down and confess that we shut down the blog to stifle dissent, and that there were really no profane comments and that we did all this because we don’t care what our readers say, then you have a long wait ahead of you. Bob Somerby at the (aptly named) Daily Howler: “Today, Jane Hamsher is leading the liberal brigade.” Others have passed on that opportunity, he says, because they wanted jobs at Newsweek and the Post! “To our ear, career liberal writers are still unable to describe the press as it actually is—- as it has strangely (but plainly) been over a long stretch of years.” National Review Online’s Stephen Spruiell thinks we’re seeing The Left’s Revolution Against the Media. Brutally sarcastic, extremely funny and well worth a read: Poor Man Institute, Let’s stage an all-star panel on blogger ethics in my pants. Vapor Trails. Daniel Glover at National Journal’s Blogometer reviews the Post Q and A and reactions to it. Katie Couric pulls a Deborah Howell on the air; Liz Cox Barrett of CJR Daily lets her know. Highlights from the discussion at washingtonpost.com. Glenn Reynolds: The barriers to entry in blogging are very low. You want to get your ideas out? You can start a blog in 15 minutes. So why do you feel entitled — and that’s not too strong a word for what I hear sometimes — to put your comments on someone else’s site? Jeff Jarvis: If Deborah had appeared in the comments immediately asking people to treat her as a person, not a silent oracle, then I’ll bet the tone of the exchange would have changed. That’s not to say that some would not still be angry and rude but what were they really asking for but answerability? So if you answer, you defuse that demand. Jim Brady: I’ve used the word “civility,” but it’s true that it’s a tough word to define. Among the things we’ve learned here is that we need to have clear rules and examples to help people understand the limits of what we’ll accept. So I’ll retire “civility” at this point. Jane Hamsher: The post.com should be thrilled by the passion and intelligence and civility exhibited by the vast, vast majority of commenters. Over at Kos, someone compared an archived version of the original comments on the “Maryland Moment” blog with the ones that were restored and found only ten that were deemed so “offensive” that they had to be deleted. That’s a 99% civility rate. For my highlight, click. Dan Froomkin is back, big time. (His wife just had a baby.) Here’s what he said in his Post chat today: I think washingtonpost.com’s comment cutoff was a mistake. It’s a big paradigm shift for people used to controlling every word that appears in their newspapers — but online, a little loss of control pays off big time. Rem Reider, the boss at American Journalism Review, writes an insight-free column about the Howell episode. “Much has been made of the Web’s great contribution to instant and freewheeling political discourse. But this wasn’t discourse, this was target practice.” “The shift to trying to prove Brady a liar was a mistake, in my opinion.” Me, in the comments. Stephen Spruiell at National Review’s Media Blog: As Reynolds Explains Decision not to Host Comments, Reuters Provides Case In Point. Jim Brady e-mails (Jan. 24). The comments-for-articles feature isn’t quite ready for prime time, he says: “Just to clarify the post on the comments on articles project. It is something we’ve been working on for months, but based on the events of the past week, we’re re-evaluating the technology behind that feature. Obviously, we want to make sure it works the way we need it to. I don’t want folks walking away with the impression that this is an imminent launch. It’s not. But we have indeed been working on it.” Brady did the PBS Newshour (Jan. 24): Online Feedback Goes Offline. At Buzzmachine, (Jan. 24) Jeff Jarvis gets warmed up for the big match the next day: Q: Are media required to play host to the opinions and criticism of others? Steve Outing at Poynter, Taming the Comment Monster. Relevant. Also see the reactions. They’re relevant too. Atrios gets acerbic about the Q and A: Nothing like convening a panel to discuss how to deal with internet comments which consists of someone who doesn’t allow them, someone who doesn’t get any because nobody gives a shit what he writes, and someone who deletes them and clearly exaggerates the reasons why. The first someone is Reynolds, the second Jarvis, and the third Brady.
Posted by Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 6:28 PM
Comments
From Tom Edsall's chat today: Louisville, Ky.: Tom, Irrespective of some of the embarrassing criticism, I don't think The Post has sufficiently taken its lumps of the issue. The general attitude I get from Post reporters through these chats and Howell through her column is that the Abramoff story is too nuanced to lay out the actual facts of the matter. It's frustrating, and I think your readership is being done a disservice. Tom Edsall: It is difficult to understand how people can become so critical of the newspaper that broke the Abramoff scandal, has detailed the scope of the misuse of money, has run charts listing the actual recipients of Abramoff's contributions and the contributions of his clients -- stories that have left every other newspaper, magazine, TV station, etc in the dust -- can be accused of a conspiratorial attempt to hide Abramoff's overwhelmingly Republican connections based on a one line mistake, soon corrected, in an ombudsman column. There is something wacky here. Ami, the WaPo continue to lie, exaggerate its role in the Abramoff story? these reporters still don't get it? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 6:47 PM | Permalink McClellan: echoing Howell echoing McClellan echoing Brady echoing McClellan echoing Kurtz echoing McClellan: "I know that there's some Democrats that want to try to make this -- try to engage in partisan attacks. But what we do know from media reports is that Mr. Abramoff gave directly or indirectly to Democrats and Republicans." "But McClellan's continued attempt to portray the Abramoff scandal as bipartisan doesn't exactly help his credibility on the question of White House meetings. His assertion flies in the face of the facts and is a Republican talking point espoused only by the most partisan or most credulous." Posted by: AlanDownunder at January 24, 2006 6:47 PM | Permalink Of course Carr is clowning. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 24, 2006 6:58 PM | Permalink You think this makes it clear he's joking, Steve? Feedback, as any rock guitarist can tell you, is not always a pleasant-sounding thing. The trouble with a community built of one-way e-mail messages posing as two-way communication is that when people can say anything, they frequently do - a fact of digital life that goes back to The Well, the pioneering online community that presaged the potential and the potential pitfalls of digital social discourse beginning in 1985. ending with: It was not that long ago when readers enraged by something they had seen in the newspaper would have to find a pen, a piece of paper, an envelope and a stamp to make their feelings heard. Now, mainstream media outlets find themselves under attack for not providing bandwidth and visibility to people who wish them dead. You're saying it's obvious he's clowning around from the text? Or from what else might be known about David Carr? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 7:06 PM | Permalink Jay, reads to me like Carr was wishing some levity in the situation. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 7:12 PM | Permalink Looks like there is some light at the end of the tunnel, finally. The roundtable in which Jay, Hamsher and others will participate is the first positive indication that the Post recognizes that the PR approach failed. Someone finally awoke and realized that tarring a significant chunk of their readers as part of "fever swamp", as nihilistic Bin Ladens bent upon destroying the Post was disasterous. This is a good move on Brady's part, and the Post generally, and it hopefully presages a form of "glasnost" which will help major newspapers move towards understanding how the Internet requires greater responsibility and accountability. Maybe the 'Net is gaining such traction against the dinosaurs on the print side. It is hard to see how people like Howell, Harris and Schmidt are going to accomodate themselves to it without some help. Kurtz, by contrast, seems pretty skilled at navigating these waters, even when he gets it wrong. Edsall, apparently, irked at having these questions spill over to his chat, went on autopilot, and spit out the company line, taking it as an opportunity to chastise us for failing to genuflect and publicly shout how incredibly lucky, how incredibly fortunate we are, to be able allowed to read a newspaper as wonderful as the Post. Thanks, Tom. Think the last time I read one of your columns was back in 1997. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 24, 2006 7:16 PM | Permalink It's Steve's "of course" that interested me. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 7:25 PM | Permalink Richard E., Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 7:52 PM | Permalink Will Femia at MSNBC’s Clicked is pretty perceptive about the left's new tactic. I think it has been notable for some time: The left's largely disingenuous claim of conservative media bias is their attempt to fight fire with fire: "You say left, I'll say right and cancel you out." It's just hard to believe that very many will seriously consider the counter-intuitive proposition that the left isn't fairly treated by our dominant media. Posted by: Trained Auditor at January 24, 2006 7:54 PM | Permalink Does every online Washington Post column (both guest and house) have a link to the columnist's Commitment to Readers? Posted by: Anna Haynes at January 24, 2006 8:25 PM | Permalink (ok, that q. wasn't exactly on topic) To allow readers to see for themselves whether you're exercising responsible judgement in deleting comments, why not maintain a secondary page of "obscenity-free but deleted" comments, with an online "lifespan" of a week or so? Posted by: Anna Haynes at January 24, 2006 8:49 PM | Permalink “The bylines will be — for now — hyperlinked to e-mail forms so that reporters are all accessible via email,” he said. “Eventually, we’ll probably include recent stories, maybe a bio and photo. But, for now, it’s a communications device.” This is the same system they use at their trade journals, Government Computer News and Washington Technology. Very sensible. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 24, 2006 8:54 PM | Permalink [Richard E., Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 07:52 PM | Permalink] actually, Howell has made it clear that she represents just about everyone other than readers at the Post: Woodward, Harris and now, Schmidt, who originally wrote that Abramoff gave money to Democrats and, as another wrinkle, in the Froomkin episode, so not only aligned herself quite openly with the national politics journalists at the Post, such as Harris, but also, with the print side of the operation against the web side and, it is this sometimes subterranean struggle that Jay has appropriately emphasized, as it is frequently ignored or downplayed by people with a partisan political perspective but, ultimately, Howell is a pawn, selected by Post management to do exactly what she is doing, just as, in her own way (and I disagree with Jay on this), Judith Miller was similarly a pawn, empowered by a NYT management that has great sympathy for neo-conservative foreign policy views Howell makes it appears as if the Post wanted an old school type journalist, one, like Edsall, for example, that believes that the readers, such as us, should be passive, awestruck recipients of the purportedly brilliant insights served up by its staff if so, it was a gross miscalculation, to say the least, given the blogs and the connectivity that so many of us possess, sort of like expecting Brett Easton Ellis to write like Virginia Wolff so there is volatile mixture that is combustible at any time, the arrogance of some of the journalists who have grown up with the insularity of the old, print media world, combined with communications technology that exposes their mistakes and hard headedness, a technology that they are ill-suited to utilize themselves, with Howell being a classic case as she demonstrated with the "clarification" that she posted in her sole outing on the Web even if some of the critics of the Post's coverage of the Abramoff scandal were politically motivated, one has to admit that they choose their terrain well, they had Howell and the Post dead to rights on the facts, and, instead of acknowledging the problem, and having it disappear within the next newscycle, a blip that would have quickly disappeared, they did the opposite, stood by their erroneous story and smeared their critics, which naturally caused many people to believe that the Post valued its ability to maintain close relationships with high ranking Republicans through the manipulation of spin than it did its compact with its readers Posted by: Richard Estes at January 24, 2006 9:10 PM | Permalink Why not talk directly with the people actually building social/constructive media software? Existing commenting systems simply don't scale. Can the assembled panelists actually speak about software tools that doesn't start with the letters BLO and end with the letter G? Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at January 24, 2006 9:12 PM | Permalink The biggest Leftist bias to me seems what is undercovered: the Darfur slo-motion genocide (as the US follows the Dem Party advice on a Global Test. The options seem to be war or genocide, and the anti-war folk are winning); the terrible problems in Zimbabwe (30 years after Ian Smith was booted); the continued Gulag in North Korea; the Oil-for-Food scandal at the UN, and the new peacekeeper mis-management at the UN. Since the Dems seem to think the UN handles the world much better than the US, the policies and results should be more compared. There are no secrets, or shouldn't be, at the UN -- only corruption coverups. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at January 24, 2006 9:14 PM | Permalink Richard: instead of acknowledging the problem, and having it disappear within the next newscycle, a blip that would have quickly disappeared, they did the opposite, stood by their erroneous story and smeared their critics... I'm sure that, since you are so concerned with smears, you'll be happy to explain what you posted over at firedoglake: ... what's O'Reilly's problem? why did he [fail] to nail Jay and Pressthink as one of the recipients of Lewis and Soros largesse? my contacts tell me he gets the biggest check every month... Link. Go ahead, Richard. We're listening. 'Splain. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 9:17 PM | Permalink Jay -- I'll stick with the "of course." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 24, 2006 9:18 PM | Permalink Richard E., anyway, i may not agree with you, but i dig the Ellis reference. WaPo's credibility is Less Than Zero? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 9:22 PM | Permalink We've had hotlinked bylines for our reporters for about a year, the link goes directly to their email address. Reporters are also allowed to respond to reader comments directly, though not all of them do. I'm excited to see WP think seriously about adding comments to each article; we've had great success with it and its made a better newsroom. But as i'll post directly to the Q and A and Ill say it here, its only effective IF you keep an active, light hand in - and that means moderation, or at least continuous dedicated monitoring. The key is in being engaged and sensitive to the public's momentum and parlaying that into effective journalism. Posted by: Stefan Dill at January 24, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink Alright, Jay, come clean about all that Lewis and Soros money. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 24, 2006 9:45 PM | Permalink Jay, you're getting Peter Lewis money? where do i send my resume? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 9:51 PM | Permalink You know Jay (and all), the more I think about this entire episode, the more I think of it in terms of a failure of "Customer Service" by WaPo. Has anyone else here had to deal with aggrieved customers on a regular basis? I have, in IT. And believe me, the level of aggravation (not to mention bad language etc) in the comments at WaPo are not even a drop in the bucket compared to the bucket-load I had to deal with daily!! Honestly... I really believed that the understandably aggrieved *CUSTOMERS* (ignoring the obvious trolls and laud-mouths) were trying to keep control be reasonable. WaPo don't seem to know a thing about customer service! Which, I have to admit, astounds me! So, perhaps the issue here is a breakdown in customer service. The WaPo customers expectations were not met. The customers believe that have a legitimate complaint, and the complaint has not adequately been addressed. First, the customers were ignored (always a very bad thing to do to a customer!) then, they were essentially told to go away! If I was a WaPo customer, I'd be doing a lot more than posting a few peeved comments! The fact is, it is *NOT* WaPo who is the damaged party here. And WaPo so far have done nothing except to make things worse. I too can understand and sympathize with Jim Brady's position, but that does not excuse the mess that WaPo created and continue to make worse. The customers want honest answers to (what they see as) legitimate complaints, and they want the problem fixed. WaPo is a long-standing corporation. Hand wringing and crocodile tears is hardly suitable or acceptable. Either they are a professional corporation (who treats their customers in a professional manner), or they are not. If not, then perhaps they deserve to join the graveyard of corporations who failed in customer service. I apologize if that seems harsh, but I too am simply fed up with all the finger pointing, and all the commentary about everything and anything except the issue, which simply is: customer service. This has been kicked around for two weeks now, and it's not getting any better. That's ridiculous. I hope that in the upcoming *discussion*, this issue is addressed. It really doesn't matter now if WaPo actually did anything *wrong* in the first place, they certainly are wrong in the way they handled their customers after. Posted by: Kryten42 at January 24, 2006 10:06 PM | Permalink Here's the Media Matters bulletin on the Bill O'Reilly segment that Richard refers to in his smear. I'm curious about Richard's "contacts," who told him about the big fat checks I'm getting from billionaires. Contacts, not sources....could that be an oblique reference to the jumper cables? I think I had lunch with a program office from Soros once; and I believe he paid the check. In fact, I'm sure of it because if I had paid the lunch would have been at Cozy Soup 'n Burger on Broadway. That is the extent of their support for me: one rack of lamb. Peter Lewis, I've read... wow, must be five, six news stories about him. That's the extent of my involvement with Mr. Lewis. Media Matters-- well, there you have me, Richard. I'm on their mailing list. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 10:23 PM | Permalink I'm not sure the Posties in the newsroom see online users as really truly "customers," Kryten. The real customers are the folks who pay to have the paper delivered. Brady doesn't think that way because he knows the economics better. Many traditionalists (not all) think the online users aren't paying for their news, and the print subscriber is. What they don't know or don't want to know is that the cost of printing and trucking the paper is greater than subscriber revenue. The print subscriber is paying for the delivery platform, not the newsroom. But the newsroom thinks otherwise. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink advertising plays major role in the print revenue as well as online revenue? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink well ami, you've called yourself the "resident moonbat" here. was just curious about your perspective. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 11:00 PM | Permalink 2) If not, why is there still no correction on the original Howell column's false statement regarding Abramoff giving money to "both parties"? (and no, Howell was NOT referring to client contributions directed to "both parties" -- the previous sentence was a reference to money that Abramoff had collected (in fees) from his clients.) we read the paper with different lenses. this is in Howell's Jan. 22 column: That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas. is that not a correction? did you want one of those A2 box jobs? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 24, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink Thanks for the reply Jay, They are the ones I meant. :) If you go through the WaPo comments, you will see that many said they were canceling their subscriptions. Several subscribers said they had emailed WaPo or phoned and had no adequate response, so had turned to the open comments blog to vent their frustration/anger etc. In any case, anyone who reads WaPo and WaPo online, whether a paying subscriber or not, is a reader and WaPo has the potential for increased advertising revenue due to a larger audience. If the readership decreases, so must (eventually) the advertising revenue. And that is where most news/media companies revenues come from. I am not a journalist, but I did write reviews and editorials for a major technical publication for a few years, some years ago. Increasing advertising revenues was always the goal. Regards, Posted by: Kryten42 at January 24, 2006 11:31 PM | Permalink One thing's for sure we know that Richard's contacts are "unidentified" but after reading Steve Lovelady's retort I'm wondering if they were also "flying." Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 24, 2006 11:43 PM | Permalink I'm watching to see if this represents a turning point for the blog-o-Left. In the past, they have expended time and energy defending egregious media errors that served their ideological agenda (including but not limited to memogate, Eason, and Newsweek). Should blog-o-Left go on the offense and abandon the defense of media, this could get very interesting ... Posted by: Sisyphus at January 24, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink I think what matters is that the Post corrected it in various ways. Less so the issuing of a correction. I care about what is reported by the Post as fact. So when Paul Farhi writes... "The deluge, which overwhelmed the Web site’s screening efforts, began after Howell wrote in a column published Sunday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff 'had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.' That is incorrect. As Howell noted on Thursday morning in a short piece on Post.blog, Abramoff did not make direct contributions to Democrats but directed his lobbying clients to do so." That's a correction in the narrative, and there are more here but not here, I think. Along with the correctives come many other attitudes, opinions and "these people..." statements, which can be criticized on their own terms, apart from whether Correction has happened, in the heavenly sense. My advice for correction-seekers is take the W on Jack's contributions, and move forward to other priorities you have with Brady, the Post, and its journalism. One of them might well be how do you know Abramoff directed additional monies to Democrats and where are those charts? Paul Farhi refuted Powell on the mistaken points, and that's good enough for me. (Then Howell said flat out she had been incorrect.) But that's because I respect the Post's reporting in a general, presumptive way, aside from Howl!, despite all the problems I see. If I didn't have that base line respect, why would Farhi's refutation matter? Or a correction? In fact, only a newspaper you respect as generally capable of telling the truth can be self-correcting in your eyes. If you don't have that respect, and yet you call for a "correction," you should, in my opinion, be prepared for a hostile reception of the type Thomas Edsall seems to have had. If I wanted to dis-credit the newspaper--I don't--I would act in an entirely different way toward the matter of correction. I think I would continue to demand something more stringent, and formal. I would never say something like: good enough. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 24, 2006 11:56 PM | Permalink More interesting than snail mail: Flaming and invective know no ideology, but there is a tendency toward seeing a growing conspiracy behind every ill-chosen word - something once thought to be the province mainly of conservatives. Posted by: Sisyphus at January 24, 2006 11:58 PM | Permalink Tim (Sisyphus): Will Femia in his Clicked column is suggesting that some kind of re-alignment like you suggest is taking place; it's a great example of argument-by-link. Franklin Foer had his antennae out for it. He was picking it up. But you may remember that Oliver Willis said this in a PressThink comment thread in June 2005, and I pulled it into the post. "Frankly, we can do all the hoping and pining for the long lost responsible media but it isn’t ever coming back. The press is useless and has to be played." He also wrote something similar at his blog but his archives are screwed up. I thought it was significant because of the phrase, "it has to be played." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 12:30 AM | Permalink I think Brady has good ideas, but is hamstrung by the corporate divide. Why can't bylines link to something like a Kos diary? When reporters appear on the cabloids to provide exegesis on their stories, it's taken as read that they have a paper-trail, a record. Yes, multiple bylines complicate things, but why can't the Post site provide a nice, comprehensive, categorised summary page for Pincus or Schmidt or Priest? Why can't stories be linked up? Too much effort? Not enough time? Why do bloggers have to be the sole archivists and collators here? Yes, there are ideological issues here: as Jane Hamsher mentioned, print media follows a template that today's report is the latest and best account of a particular story, regardless of past reporting. But the Web is flat, even if the earth isn't. It's long been a joke that when the press mess up, it's time to convene a blogger ethics panel. And here we have one. Perhaps in exchange for a comments policy, the Post can embrace a posting one, derived from the experience of bloggers who actually handle massive numbers of comments on a regular basis. Posted by: pseudonymous in nc at January 25, 2006 12:49 AM | Permalink Well, I definitely think Jim Brady ought to ask Jane Hamsher that very question tomorrow. Participants should feel free to make suggestions. This is how post.blog frames it: Bloggers Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Jane Hamsher and Glenn Reynolds and washingtonpost.com editor Jim Brady will talk about interactivity, ethics and how best to manage reader-submitted comments in a Live Discussion at 1 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 26... Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 12:52 AM | Permalink I would like to know why WPNI doesn't have permanently and prominently linked a post and comment policy? ILS Blog Posting and Comment Policy My questions submitted to the Post for tomorrow's discussion: I have three questions: First, Mr. Brady - would you explain why no correction to Howell's original column (1/15/06) has been posted or linked on the same page with the original story? While we may all be aware of the controversy and later columns, most readers are not and would still take the original column as accurate. Second, you have been appearing all over the media landscape for the past few days describing the reason for the comments shutdown in these terms: "We got about 1,000 posts and at least 150 to 200 were using either profanity, hate speech or personal attacks," Brady said about the responses to Howell's controversial column last Sunday ..." (Editor and Publisher, 1/19/2006). Yet in the introduction to this online chat, it says "The move came after several comments containing personal attacks, profanity and hate speech were posted ..." Will you now issue a correction to the media outlets you have been commenting to, offering this corrected description of "several" rather than "150-200"? Finally, given the discrepancy in your depictions of recent events and your stated interest in transparency, will you provide us with both an accurate account of the number of messages received, the number which were permanently deleted and copies of those deleted messages? Posted by: siun at January 25, 2006 1:22 AM | Permalink 'I'm curious about Richard's "contacts," who told him about the big fat checks I'm getting from billionaires.' - JR It sure seems that the smear is in firedoglake's media DNA. So reflexive, casual, celebrated, ubiquitous. May just be the price of admission to get at the good stuff. Same is true of a number of other progressive blogs. Which is what may keep them (happily, I guess) in the sideshow tent. Strutting that DNA for a few ad dollars. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 25, 2006 7:02 AM | Permalink It's good that Brady has embarked on a wide-ranging PR blitz and is seeking input from Jay, Jane and others about managing comments on their site. I wish he would temper the story that has been written that allows the commenters to be depicted in such a poor light. There is no recognition that the comments were in any way valued as feedback or were in any way valid. The way they intend to "manage" such outcry is to make it more complicated to do so. Good for them, but not helpful for their customers. A parallel situation would be if outraged customers had overloaded the voicemail because of something inflammatory and just plain wrong in a story, the solution to that would be to add a complicated menu of options to make it more difficult to leave a voice message. My question would be why the Washington Post and Brady, after flatly stating that the "directing" was "beyond dispute" has offered no evidence whatsoever of that statement. I've got 50 that says he won't address it. He probably doesn't know. And the "political desk" doesn't *have* convincing evidence, so they continue to hide behind the wall, using their pulpit to rail at the unruly hordes. Posted by: Phredd at January 25, 2006 7:39 AM | Permalink Richard has been awfully scarce since his smear. I wonder why. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 8:01 AM | Permalink Richard has been awfully scarce since his smear. I wonder why. Jay, I read Richard's "smear" as an attempt at humor. Keep in mind that the topic of the thread was this... O'Reilly says that "organized smear websites" funded by radical left-wing billionaires like Peter Lewis and his good pal George Soros are responsible for the "terrorist acts" perpetrated on Poor Deborah Howell. Jane and Redd aren't getting a penny from Lewis or Soros (and they are the website that "organized" the "terrorist acts"). Asking why O'Reilly didn't tag you as a recipient of the same cash that Jane Hamsher isn't getting is supposed to be funny.... at least that is how I read it in its original incantation. Jay, When there are so many other women who blog regularly and know a great deal about blogging, what's with the Post choosing someone like Jane Hamsher? Is it her Hollywood connections? or the number of comments she gets to her blog--which she and company have started getting only recently? This is a joke, Jay...and a major slap in the face to alot of women bloggers who take what they do very, very seriously. Posted by: Tish Grier at January 25, 2006 9:56 AM | Permalink I guess that's possible, ami. It was hard for me to tell that he was joking. But maybe I am losing my funny bone; that would be terrible if so. Tish: Jane Hamsher is a participant in this controversy, in the sense that she suggested to her readers that the post.blog would be a good place to make their views known, and she has written extensively about it. She also has experience running a high volume site with lots of comments coming in a short period of time. I think those are the reasons she was selected. It isn't a roundtable on "blogging," but comes in the aftermath of an incident in which she was involved. For that reason, I think it would be a mistake to take offense. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 10:19 AM | Permalink Of course Carr was clowning. I sent him an e-mail and he actually answered it. But maybe it was only because I used the word "dystopian." Posted by: notjonathon at January 25, 2006 10:24 AM | Permalink "When there are so many other women who blog regularly and know a great deal about blogging, what's with the Post choosing someone like Jane Hamsher?" --Tish Grier Doesn't the playground bully get lots of people to do what he or she wants by just the same tactics? Fear. But they do bullies ultimately win? That's the question... stay tuned. Posted by: Kristen at January 25, 2006 10:38 AM | Permalink Perhaps one for the 'obvious' column, but no less pertinent here: On Carr: Posted by: Jeff Jarvis at January 25, 2006 12:28 PM | Permalink Obviously, Mr. Carr's scanner doesn't filter for humorlessness. I thought it was pretty funny, though. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 25, 2006 12:46 PM | Permalink If I wanted to dis-credit the newspaper--I don't--I would act in an entirely different way toward the matter of correction. I think I would continue to demand something more stringent, and formal. jay, the Washington Post has put its archives behind a "pay for play" firewall. Without a formal correction on the original column, someone who was looking into the abramoff scandal, and went to Howell's column, would be able to say "Abramoff gave his own money to Democrats" with a great deal of confidence because of the assumption that the ombudsman has checked her facts, and her language, and isn't going to make the kind of mistake that Howell made. it requires a formal correction --- not "clarification" elsewhere. Boy, those yuckmeisters over at the NYT really know a good kneeslapper when they see one. [I'm sure that, since you are so concerned with smears, you'll be happy to explain what you posted over at firedoglake: ... what's O'Reilly's problem? why did he [fail] to nail Jay and Pressthink as one of the recipients of Lewis and Soros largesse? my contacts tell me he gets the biggest check every month... Link. Jay, it really was a joke, which I thought was pretty evident from the context (responding to Hamsher's humorous rant about it), and frankly, I could care less who Soros and Peters give money If you aren't getting any, maybe you should call them :) Anyway, I guess I should have understood that the comment could have been misconstrued given the contentiousness of the subject (I almost included an obligatory :) at the end of it, but didn't), so it's just another cautionary example of the difference between seeing something in print, and seeing someone say it But, please, Jay, tell me you aren't obsessively cruising Hamsher's site to read my remarks, now that really would be "terrible" (again, like Monty Python, here's where the guy comes out with the sign that says JOKE) Posted by: Richard Estes at January 25, 2006 1:16 PM | Permalink Many traditionalists (not all) think the online users aren't paying for their news, and the print subscriber is. What they don't know or don't want to know is that the cost of printing and trucking the paper is greater than subscriber revenue. It has been a long time since I bought advertising, but I think the print advertising still generates the most revenues, in that sense the profit is coming from the print side. So far as I know (and I could be wrong) advertisers have yet to catch on to the significance of online readership. Currently online advertising is under priced. Obviously that is going to change. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 25, 2006 1:33 PM | Permalink Alice, The spending rate on online verses print advertising already leans in favor of online in small and medium corporate advertising budgets. What the traditional print companies see is different from what is happening. They only see that portion spent with them. They might be more alarmed if they saw the whole picture. Posted by: John Lynch at January 25, 2006 2:15 PM | Permalink well, the Post chat is done... and there is a very serious flaw in the Post chat format --- here you had five people, four of which had something interesting to say, but there was almost no "conversation". Brady refused to respond to excellent points made by Jane and Jay, and didn't have to because Liz Kelly would just change the subject to protect Brady. (And Kelly should be taken out and smacked for allowing those questions attacking Jane....and not giving Jane a chance to respond.) (Reynolds was a total waste -- Billmon, who shut off his comments would have been a better choice, but the Post needed political balance.) When there are so many other women who blog regularly and know a great deal about blogging, what's with the Post choosing someone like Jane Hamsher? What's with your blogwhoring, Tish? Will Brady be inviting Reynolds to participate in the next live discussion on women's issues, I wonder? Since he's not a women, it'd make for a well-rounded panel. Posted by: pseudonymous in nc at January 25, 2006 2:23 PM | Permalink This "tish" person is obviously a troll.... and its obvious that the Post decided to subject Jane to a troll during their on-line chat. "Tish" asked the same question here, and got a smart answer from jay -- one that made the answer obvious (as if it wasn't already obvious.) And we know that this "tish" is a troll because why didn't she ask about Jay's or Jeff's or (especially) Glenn's qualifications? I have a good mind to go over to Tish's blog, and write something nasty ---- but I suspect that is what this troll is looking for, so don't give it the pleasure. The spending rate on online verses print advertising already leans in favor of online in small and medium corporate advertising budgets. I stand corrected. As I say, it has been a long time since I bought advertising. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 25, 2006 2:44 PM | Permalink Actually, Richard, someone e-mailed me about it. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. I accept your explanation. Tish is not a troll. She tends to provoke, but not in a hit-and-run or especially trollish way. ami: the experience of doing the chat is very fractured, and far from ideal. Liz Kelly, the chat producer, doesn't really shift the subject, as you put it. There are at any one time 10-12 and maybe more questions "open" or "locked" because someone else is answering them. The Q and A comes out as one question, then another. That is not how it's produced; and the panelists can easily overlook a question where they should, could, wanted to answer. She tries to let us know when she's about to publish one, in case we want to add something, but I was usually too busy answering someone else's Q to take notice. Overall, I am happier with my own answers than I was after the last chat. I don't have a sense of the whole discussion, though. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 2:45 PM | Permalink Richard, I confess to being the spy in the house of Hamsher. I caught the humor in Carr but missed the humor in Estes. Sometimes I prefer to play Columbo :) Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 25, 2006 2:56 PM | Permalink Well, she will generate a response from Firedoglake users and fans, that's for sure. And I did inform her why Hamsher was invited. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 2:59 PM | Permalink I thought it went really well overall. The fragmented quality that you mention is apparent to observers in the way questions get answered. There were some pointed questions to Jane that she didn't answer. And there were some pointed questions to Brady as well that he didn't get to. Is that intentional, or an oversight, or why didn't the recipients answer? Also, one of you said that if Howell had appeared in comments to discuss them, rather than seeming like a distant oracle, the tone of comments might have changed. I agree entirely. You can't engage in interactivity without being interactive. I thought you and Jarvis offered the most insight, and I also thought Brady "gets it" and is in general doing good things. I enjoyed the chat, and I though Glenn Reynolds was useful -- not a "total waste" at all; now I'm actually inclined to go check out his blog, which I hadn't before. I especially liked his observation about the sense of entitlement many posters seem to have (perhaps because I've had a similar reaction). And I'm a bit less inclined to take Jane Hamsher seriously. Thanks to Jay et al. for participating. Posted by: Brian B at January 25, 2006 3:15 PM | Permalink There were some pointed questions to Jane that she didn't answer. too bad none of them were on-topic, Jenny... I think Jay made some great points, especially... If all sides are trashing you for a poor job you could be doing something right. You could also be doing everything wrong. I mean it's possible. and (long quote from Jay....but just about every word is essential; emphasis added) The Post can say it "only" took four days for Howell to acknowledge something amiss, but it only takes four minutes to realize that she was wrong in what she stated as fact about Abramoff and the Democrats. Moreover, she was wrong in a way that "tracked" with Republican spin, which makes it different from a garden-variety miscue. And on top of that her first statement was begrudging in tone. This created the storm conditions that "stunned" Howell, and lit up the comment board. Since I've shown my willingness to play by Brady's rules, I challenge him to engage in a dialogue in a neutral playing field. One-on-one, back and forth, no "background noise," no place to hide. We can do it in an email exchange, we can do it in a live chat, we do it over at the Huffington Post or any mutually agreeable place where the ground rules are equitable to both parties. I think Jay would make a great moderator for this discussion.... :) Uh, no. That would better one-on-one. Wait a minute: you were kidding, right? You left this part out from Jane: But the fact remains that the real debate is between me and Brady; Rosen and Jarvis were filler and Reynolds was just there as a junkyard dog. And because of all the filler, Brady was able to avoid getting pressed on a story that he has had a great deal of success fobbing off to the media which has innumerable holes if anybody with any technical sophistication were to really press him. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 3:40 PM | Permalink Uh, no. That would better one-on-one. Wait a minute: you were kidding, right? You left this part out from Jane: well, "someone else" used the same quotes from you that I used above to criticize Jane for that statement.... shall I go over and "ditto?" :) Wow. That's a little shot of hubris this afternoon. I've certainly surfed over to FDL on occassion and I'm probably politically-aligned with Jane, but she coming off as someone who isn't going to trust Brady if he says the sun is shining. She's kind of asking the same questions over and over again and when Brady has given answers to some, but not all (because not everything she's asking is in his perview or because she's not willing to read the reality into what he says) she reminds me a little of something Stephen Colbert said in an interview. He said a lot of the fake-interviews the thing is imitating is when a reporter has a "mission" to confront a subject "why did you steal that money?" and if the subject denies or, in Stephen's case, sometimes agrees, with this mission statement in the first 30 seconds...we'll he's still got a job to do. So Jane keeps asking "why did you delete comments when most weren't profane because I saw the cached version" and Brady answers, Jane has to keep going back to that over and over again. "Yeah but why did you delete the comments?" Its frustrating to watching someone beat Brady over the head with what are essentially stupid questions he's answered. I'm not Jane but I think I understand Brady's answers and I believe him when he says "your not seeing the most profand comments," and "its not intentional that some comments are restored and others aren't that we're promoting some views over others." Sometimes big internet projects are just idiosycratic. There may be multiple people working on the project of "restoring" the comments and maybe they're all using different criteria. Or maybe its just an honest bug. As for Brady's comments...I think he's show a remarkable quality of being willing to say "yeah I know I said this then...I think that's wrong. I was probably wrong to use that word." The more I read about Brady the more I agree with Jay, he's on the right side of this discussion whereas I'm believing Jane isn't anymore. Posted by: catrina at January 25, 2006 4:20 PM | Permalink Its frustrating to watching someone beat Brady over the head with what are essentially stupid questions he's answered. catrina, I saw Jane more like David Gregory, hammering Brady for questions that he wasn't answering like 1) estimates and descriptions of the number of obscene/profane comments have been all over the map. How many were there, really? 2) I can't find anything inappropriate on some of these comments -- please explain why they were deleted? These questions were "on topic" --- Jane wasn't complaining about Sue Schmidt, or even Deborah Howell, but asking about what happened, and why it happened. They were substantive questions that Brady refuses to answer -- and Jane is right to keep asking the question rather than let Brady get away with his "non-answers". ************* (ps to jay.... looks like there is no need for me to "ditto" over at Jane's place, lots of people agree with "someone else" that she was unfair to you!) Ami I guess reasonable people can disagree, but my take on it is: 1) He may honestly not have a real calculation. I've done some board monitoring for Smirkingchimp.com and once we delete the comments (and occassionally the threads) they're just *gone.* I don't have the capacity to restore them even if I wanted to. It may honestly have just felt like there were one too many posts that called Howell a c-word but maybe that was 10 posts out of 1000. In any case...does it matter? Is anyone doubting that WashPost needs a better system for comments and *some* kind of monitoring system? Also I'm not certain if someone came to Brady and said "this looks bad...do something" or if he made that calculation on his own. It feels like any other situation when a board or a blog is suddenly flooded unexpectedly, especially the first time it happens. People tend to panic a little and maybe overreact. 2) I think the nature of the deleted comments is because there was more than one person doing the deleting. I think it might have been idosyncratic because each person was using a little of their own judgment because the rules weren't clearly defined and frankly, it seems obvious that Wash Post was a little over its head. I feel like asking Brady "well why was this comment deleted, well why was this comment deleted, well why was *this* comment deleted" is nitpicking because Jane doesn't want to recognize that sometimes board monitoring is messy. And even when its being done by the Wash Post its still messy. Brady isn't quite saying this to Jane "hey, look I can't defend every deleted comment because 3 peopel were doing this and it was a hectic time and I don't always know why they thought that" but I think he's sort of hinting at it when he says "do you see a conspiracy in the fact some comments were deleted and others weren't?" I guess the difference between Jane and me is I'm seeing Brady's actions in light of a how I think a normal human being might be acting in this situation and I feel like Jane is treating each devariation from her ideal as some kind of deliberate choice. Posted by: catrina at January 25, 2006 5:07 PM | Permalink The "filler" image spreads. Digby's got it too: "It appears to me that this chat today was structured as a combat between Jane Hamsher and Jim Brady, with Jarvis and Rosen there as filler.." Digby's point, however, is not that. It's... Famous and wealthy toxic political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are routinely lauded as normal mainstream partisans while ordinary readers of the Washington Post are excoriated for incivility when they complain about inaccurate coverage that benefits Republicans. This is bizarro world. It is insane. It is a sign of a very sick political culture. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink Just engaged in a cursory reading of the transcript, and here are some thoughts: As much as I like Hamsher, Jay was not "filler", and he actually gave the most focused presentation. At the risk of sounding obsequious, his comments surgically focused on the big issues, and, hence, had the most damning impact. Anyway, ami, I believe, suggested that the Post should have included a commentator on the panel, someone who actually posted a comment on the Post blog, and this would have been a good idea, because there were several issues that a commentator could have highlighted that evaded the panelists this would be es (1) consistent with Jay's remarks that the Post has not considered how it's journalists can learn from this experience, learn from the Internet readers themselves, the Post persists in seeing the identity of the people who posted in response to Howell's column as part of a bipolar, political world, Republicans and Democrats, but this isn't true, and hasn't been true for a long time, as I said before, I'm registered as DECLINE TO STATE, and live in a state, California, where such voters may become a plurality of all registered voter in the near future; so, sometimes I think what I read on firedoglake and DailyKos is important (and, of course, I read a lot of other blogs as well), but, frequently, and most often, I don't, and I also frequently disagree with what I read there, so the Post should give serious thought as to why so many people responded, when they don't necessarily respond on other issues, in other words, they really need to try to understand their Internet readers, and address what is important to them, instead of sending someone on a radio talk show to describe them as part of a "fever swamp", otherwise the Post will just keep going down this road over and over again (2) this was touched upon somewhat, but elliptically: the Post freaked out when hit with a blizzard of negative e-mails, and overreacted, getting rid of all them, and I still don't think Brady has provided a plausible explanation, but leave that to the side, the real question becomes, to what extent should the Post treat these things as the equivalent of weather events, a thunderstorm that blows through and then subsides, with relatively narrow limitations for clearly offensive speech? after all, what is the consequence of 200, 500, 1000, 10000 people engaging in variations on the same theme? clearly, the volume reveals that there are a lot of unhappy people, but, as anyone familiar with surfing the Net knows, at some point, comment fatigue sets in, and people slowly stop posting and slowly stop reading, as they are overwhelmed with the sheer number of posts the bottom line here is that a lot of people familiar with the more free wheeling Internet are more thickskinned than people outside of it, and, let's face it, as much as we'd like to say it ain't so, Internet comments are still perceived as possessing a kind of superficiality, they just aren't taken as seriously as various forms of hard copy communication, and the Post, ironically, actually lost the benefit of this perception by pulling all the comments, thereby giving them a degree of legitimacy that they didn't previously possess for example, note the response of Joel Stein to the barrage of negative remarks, many of them grossly insulting if not personally threatening, to his LA Times column about his refusal to "Support the Troops" in a Reuters article, he said, it'll probably go away in a day or so now, there's no blog involved, I realize, but the attitude is one that understands the ephmerality of the Internet (3) does the Post understand that Internet readers have many sources of information, both foreign and domestic, web sites of newspapers as well as blogs? for example, in this instance, a number of people were able to independently research the question of Abramoff and his contributions over the Internet, and refuted the claims made by Howell and Schmidt yet Howell, Kurtz and even Brady, in his Hewitt performance, kept putting out the same discredited line, acting as if Internet access to government records doesn't exist they also seem to be unaware that much of the dissatisfaction with papers such as the NYT and the Post is associated with the fact that I can also read publications like the Manchester Guardian, the London Times, Asis Times Online, etc. so far, I see little indication that the journalists at papers like the Post and the NYT are aware of it, yet it has tremendous implications for the public perception of what they do, because their credibility has also been seriously eroded by alternatives accessible via the Internet for example, if I can read a veteran journalist like Patrick Cockburn describe conditions in Iraq (which I couldn't do 10 years ago), what I am going to think when the NYT reporter who appears to spend much of their time at Occupation Authority press conferences, tells me something very different, and, ultimately, implausible? these are some things that the Post might consider when attempting to draw some lessons from this affair. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 25, 2006 5:33 PM | Permalink Jay, That actually came off sounding a lot harsher than I meant it. I do think your comments were substantive and I appreciated them, but structuring the debate like they did allowed Brady to continually evade answering some serious questions about some very sketchy excuses. Were he not using those excuses -- which he refuses to backup -- for repeated flame throwing at about largely civil comments left on the post.blog, I would not be hammering him. The debate was extremely difuse, and it served Brady's purposes. He doesn't want to answer the questions because his answers make no sense, and the fact that everyone repeating the story just carries his water and continues to blame the readership for something completely undeserved is quite unfair. Do you think this story in The American Journalism Review is a fair portrait of what happened? Where do you think they got this story? And how, exactly, are we supposed to turn this kind of faux-journalism on its head if we don't call Brady on his bullshit? Posted by: jane hamsher at January 25, 2006 5:40 PM | Permalink Jane who? The aspect of the chat that interested me was the discussion of the musing on the intersection of blogging, interactivity and journalism and I thought Jay, Jarvis, and Reynolds all had interesting perspectives, although I am not a fan of the latter two. Frankly I'd never heard of Jane before today and didn't think she added much to the discussion. Thanks, Jay, for all of your thoughtful commentary. Posted by: Anne at January 25, 2006 5:51 PM | Permalink Frankly I'd never heard of Jane before today and didn't think she added much to the discussion. then, my dear, you really have no idea what this discussion was really all about. BTW, do you also go by the name of "Tish"? Jane, Not giving you the answers you want is not the same as evading questions. If you're waiting for me to break down and confess that we shut down the blog to stifle dissent, and that there were really no profane comments and that we did all this because we don't care what our readers say, then you have a long wait ahead of you. You and many others keep pushing this cached page as some kind of proof of malfeasance. And when I tell you that it's proof of nothing, you translate that into evading the question. If I wanted to evade questions, then why exactly would I do two live discussions, go on Hugh Hewitt and Air America, do 10-20 press interviews and make a TV appearance to discuss this? The truth is, you just don't like the answers. Again, that's not the same as evading questions. Obviously, you're selectively using data to try and make a case that our motives were different that what we said they were. But as the guy who had to make the decision, I know what the reasons were, and I've stated them countless times. If you don't believe them, that's your right, and you should feel free to keep digging. Jim Brady Posted by: Jim Brady at January 25, 2006 6:05 PM | Permalink Jim - you made an excellent first step with today's live event - congrats and kudos. You do need to do a proper follow-up with Deborah involved. Jay - as always - your commentary on this was simply outstanding, thank you. Posted by: David Martin at January 25, 2006 6:15 PM | Permalink The thing that I can't understand is how so many bloggers (some journalists) ignore the fact that calling a journalist (or a blogger) a "shill" or a "hack" or "Rove's blank" is, indeed, a personal attack (hell...i've said some of that stuff myself in the past but I always realized I was attacking). And it's disturbing how many net-savvy people don't understand caches. As Brady spelled it out...the caches are meaningless because it only captures what was there at a particular time when the screen was captured (so while the cache may contain some comments just as they went up...all the other ones that were erased throughout the day were already gone. But...anyway...at least no one's targeting WaPo's advertisers yet.... Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 25, 2006 6:25 PM | Permalink I inadvertently deleted another comment of ami's. You'll have to re-write it, sorry. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 6:27 PM | Permalink Mr. Brady, I think what many of us find upsetting is the way this episode has been characterized in the press, which is in no small part influenced by the impression that you have conveyed that "many" (a specific number would be helpful here) of the comments were in some way obscene or could be construed as a "personal attack." Any fair reading of the comments that are available to the public refutes this view, unless you deleted literally hundreds of over-the-top posts. Even your online columnist states that the unacceptable posts constituted a "tiny minority" of the comments in response to Ms. Howell's "flatly inaccurate" statement and non-retraction thereof. If the sheer number of comments in response to this perceived injustice bothers you, then fine, please say so. But dismissing a heart felt public sentiment as "obscene" or "over-the-top" belies your stated goal of transparency and is hurtful to the democratic process. Posted by: SpinMD at January 25, 2006 6:45 PM | Permalink I inadvertently deleted another comment of ami's. You'll have to re-write it, sorry. what jay deleted inadvertently was my telling him that I would understand if he deleted my "previous" post I also explained that I went all "moonbat" on Mr. Brady because I had been one of the people saying that Mr. Brady was "on the side of the angels", despite serious misgivings about some of his comments to Hugh Hewitt and elsewhere... but that his response to jane was a bit too much. anyway, btaim, the internet is a marvellous thing, and for those of you who want to see something truly offensive and worthy of being deleted, Richard Estes happens to have posted a copy it over at Firedoglake. (and no, I'm not going to post a link) It DID deserve to be deleted. It WAS uncivil. And Jay did the right thing. What I find confusing is this. A comment at firedoglake sums up the sentiment I thought I was hearing a lot of over there: "They are trying really hard to make this a story about how uncivilized leftist blog fans are when the real story is Howell." But in the Post Q and A Jane spent way more time talking about the comment episode, and the deletions, and "were they really obscene?" rather than discussing the "real story," which is what Howell said, and why, and what her response was when challenged. Must have been a shift in strategy or something. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 7:18 PM | Permalink Jim, I'll make it simple. You cut Paul Lukasiak's comments and Richard Estes' comment from the website and they were not returned. Please explain to me how any of these qualify as the "hate speech" you complain about when you continue to denigrate all the participants in this affair: __________________________ Willis wrote: "But contrary to what some commenters have said here, Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case, and I have asked that we post at least some of them so that readers can see for themselves." That was two hours ago. Now, it takes me about ten minutes to scan a document, and upload it to my own website, and post a URL -- and that's because I'm not very good at all this "internets" stuff. Willis claims that there are documents in which Jack Abramoff directs his clients to give to Democrats. One assumes that these include signed letters or memos from Abramoff to his clients, or emails directly from Abramoff to his clients --- and one assumes that if such documents actually existed, the Post would have written about them as part of what Deborah Howell described as Susan Schmidt's "explosive" investigative work on the Abramoff scandal..... But to date, all the Post (and Willis) have ever come up with are these facts 1. Native Americans tribes give money to both parties 2. Some Native American tribes were represented by a firm that Abramoff worked for 3. Some of these tribes gave money to some Democrats -- but since Abramoff has been around, they aren't giving Democrats as much So, Willis, where are your "documents"? Its been two hours plus -- ten times as long as it would take for you to scan and post the "Abramoff memo" you need to show us that you aren't lying through your teeth.... Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 10:31:19 AM | Permalink well, its now three hours and counting since Willis claimed that "Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case" and also claimed that he was going to get those documents posted... but instead of posting these "explosive" documents, the Post deletes Willis's claim.... Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 11:29:24 AM | Permalink Howard Kurtz has a hilarious water carrying defense of Schmidt and Howell, with the pertinent excerpt posted after at Romenesko: Fort Washington, Md.: Reporter Sue Schmidt and ombudsman Deborah Howell have both asserted repeatedly that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. The FEC shows no record of any Democrat getting any money from Abramoff, period. Some Indian tribes who were among Abramoff's victims contributed funds to some Democrats, but suggesting that that somehow is a donation from Abramoff defies logic. How does the Post justify passing on what appears to be nothing but GOP spin as fact? Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too. So, the bullsh-t continues. Here's Kurtz saying, Democrats received money from tribes through Abramoff, which "may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist." Note, Kurtz completely glosses over the inconvenient fact that these same tribes were among Abramoff's victims. After all, it is critical, as Howard was advised in the White House talking points e-mail not to "get off message". By the end of the remark, he concludes, "but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too." So, in the absence of any proof that Abramoff was channeling tribal funds to Democrats, "the tangled web has been extended to Democrats"??? Good work, Howard. Have your received Karl's appreciative e-mail yet? As for Howell, reliable sources in the newsroom state that she will be reporting that WMDs have, in fact, been discovered in Iraq, and that Iran successfully conducted a nuclear weapons test over the Christmas holiday. Posted by: Richard Estes | Jan 17, 2006 1:43:58 PM | Permalink ------------------------------- The heart of the matter is not that we want to nail you to some cross for not coming clean about what happened -- it is because you continue to obscure the legitimate, civil points of most of the complaints by mis-characterizing them as "hate speech." And to the extent you insist on justifying this mischaracterization based ignoring comments like those above and relying on proof you will not produce, then yes, the skepticism -- and the inquiry -- will continue. Posted by: jane hamsher at January 25, 2006 7:18 PM | Permalink But in the Post Q and A Jane spent way more time talking about the comment episode, and the deletions, and "were they really obscene?" rather than discussing the "real story," which is what Howell said, and why, and what her response was when challenged. Must have been a shift in strategy or something. I was told at the outset that Brady did not want to discuss Howell or defend her actions because she worked for the Post and not WPNI. I'm sorry if I confused anyone by agreeing to, and then observing, the ground rules. Posted by: jane hamsher at January 25, 2006 7:22 PM | Permalink for my perspective on this, go over to my comment at at firedoglake here's a reworked version of it, a sort of summary: (1) people can read between the lines of Jane's questions and Brady's responses and non-responses, and make appropriate judgments (2) I don't personally find Brady's responses about the problems with taking down and reposting comments very credible (3) offensive replies to Brady, like one hear earlier, play into the Post's victimization strategy for dealing with this problem (4) if the Post wants to persist in characterizing itself as a victim of its own readers, by describing them as part of a "fever swamp" of hate mongers, so be it, it strikes me as commercially suicidal (5) Brady's comments in defense of Howell, based upon the erroneous coverage of the Abramoff scandal that the Post still refuses to repudiate, and his willingness to play along with Hugh Hewitt's false characterization of the vast majority of posters as offensive is his, and the Post's, most serious credibility problem outside of Howell's coverage itself (6) accordingly, if I only had one question to ask Brady, I would ask this: do you really believe what you said on Hewitt's program, and if so, why should anyone you characterized with such a broadbrush in this way consider Post management credible? Posted by: Richard Estes at January 25, 2006 7:39 PM | Permalink "That actually came off sounding a lot harsher than I meant it." Jane, you're starting to sound like Debbie Howell -- phrasing a correction in language that is not a correction at all. "Oh, silly me. I realize now, I said something that I didn't mean. Never mind ... " Think about it. That kind of cheap dodge is precisely what set the howlers out after Howell. Physician, heal thyself. The truth is, Jay wasn't "filler." In fact, he was the opposite: the only one there who provided a framework to place the hysteria, and Brady's subsequence defensive response, in a larger perspective. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 25, 2006 7:47 PM | Permalink Jane, you're starting to sound like Debbie Howell -- phrasing a correction in language that is not a correction at all. sorry steve.... Jane is not retracting a factual assertion, merely apologizing for the tone. See (and as much as I admire Jane and all the work she has done on this issue) I think that Jane has personalized this to too great an extent. And that is really understandable, give the fact that the Post has blamed "bloggers" for what happened, and Jane was the blogger most responsible for making Howell's column an issue -- so I understand how she felt like she had been personally attacked, and this was her chance to defend herself, and that "jay and jeff were filler" in that context. Jane meant what she said -- she saw this as an opportunity to respond to the attacks that were launched on her by Brady, and she was even willing to play by Brady's rules. Personally, I support a "Brady vs Hamsher" debate (and I still think it needs a moderator, and Jay would "fill" :) that role well ) Hewitt said "fever swamps," not Brady. not the Post. Posted by: notHughHewitt at January 25, 2006 8:05 PM | Permalink Jay, thanks again for your seminal role in all of this- suggesting to Jane that comments be directed to "Maryland Moment". An incredibly savvy piece of advice. Posted by: Valley Girl at January 25, 2006 8:20 PM | Permalink [Hewitt said "fever swamps," not Brady. not the Post. Certainly not, not when you are having a lovefest. [HH: Jim Brady, who do you think these people are? Because I run into them in this business, but we have a six second delay, goodness knows why. Who do you think they are? Why are they so fundamentally unhappy? JB: Well, I mean in this case, there was very much a concerted effort to...when Deborah wrote her column on Sunday, a lot of the bloggers on the left side of the spectrum really...they got together and they said let's go to the Post blog and tell them how unhappy we are with this column. HH: Was there an epicenter of that effort? JB: It looked like it was in a bunch of different blogs. I mean, it certainly was getting a lot of attention on Atrios and Daily Kos, and some other places. HH: Well, you've just named the two central islands in the fever swamps. So I'm not surprised. When you write on...in your online edition today, I think it goes to basic human decency. Are you saying protecting Deborah Howell? Or are you saying...I hope you're saying both, you're protecting your readers from it as well? JB: Yeah, and we've been clear about that, that we're not going to tolerate anybody being called these names, whether they're employees of the Washington Post or other commentors. And this was more directed at Deborah than it was at other commentors. But that was certainly part of the equation, and it's just...you know, as I said in the discussion, if you can't make your point without calling people some of the names they were being called, then you don't have a point in my opinion.] Brady lead Hewitt into the comment, and then let it go without rebuttal. Maybe, he's skilled at that sort of thing. Indeed, he hypocritically allowed Hewitt to call the commenters on the Post blog "names" and then proceeded to condemn people for engaging in similar behaviour with Howell. One rule for them, another for us. Accordingly, the questions are legitimate: Does Brady believe what he and Hewitt said during the course of the interview, and, if so, why should expect the numerous people who commented sharply, but non-offensively, to patronize the Post if he does? Like I've said, strikes me as a suicidal business strategy, but, then, I've never owned a newspaper. Jane's comment about the "ground rules" for the roundtable today is interesting, too, as it appears that the only person that Brady felt compelled to respond about Howell's reporting was Hewitt, a sympathetic ear for recycling all the false information that Schmidt, Howell and Kurtz had been putting out about Abramoff. Posted by: Richard Estes at January 25, 2006 8:31 PM | Permalink If I wanted to evade questions, then why exactly would I do two live discussions, go on Hugh Hewitt and Air America, do 10-20 press interviews and make a TV appearance to discuss this? For the same reason that Mr. Mehlman goes on as many TV shows as possible immediately after, say, the SOTU address by Mr. Bush; to spin what has been said, to score points by propagating one's own view before the opposing view can take hold, to tune the public's perception and memory to one's advantage, to harness the halo effect, to downplay the faux pas. On the whole, Mr. Brady has made the best of a bad situation, in the same sense that a Giuliani would come off dueling with the TV talking heads after a bad debate performance by Mr.Bush. All told, he comes out of this episode a lot better than many of his other WaPo colleagues. Posted by: village idiot at January 25, 2006 8:50 PM | Permalink I am a firedoglake "member" and Howell poster. I got a question (unanswered) on the panel today, and I am glad to see this discussion happening, but I have one important point re: Jane's participation. Above, Ami suggests that Jane has personalized this, but I think it's important to understand that Jane represents the very active community at firedoglake where this discussion has gone on for many days. The community felt very frustrated and ripped off by the way the Washington Post handled the requests for clarification and correction to a column which was not factual. We are very aware of how the Abramoff Scandal is being distorted in the press and feel that, as progressives it is our right and responsibility to address these lies when we see them and are able. I wrote four comments at the Post and a letter to the executive editor e-mail and never received a reasonable response, although Hal Strauss wrote notes inside my comments, only about comments being restored, not addressing the substance of the issue. I was completely disgusted that Jane was so obviously set up both by the inappropriately monitored comments that were off-topic and clearly targeted at Jane as well as the snide personal comment by the host of the panel, comparing her to Colombo. I felt that degraded the discussion and ironically made Jim Brady just the same as the commenters he was complaining about. I think I can say that most, not all, of us at FDL are grateful to all the participants in this panel and to the WaPo for at least trying to "get it". Unfortunately, I'm not impressed that they do. Blogs are what they are and offer a type of communication and rapid-fire discussion that corporate media does not yet understand. Posted by: zennurse at January 25, 2006 8:55 PM | Permalink "Don't tell me, you expect Brady to argue with Hewitt on that characterization?" This really gets to the heart of the matter, I think. Yes, I would expect him to correct this Mis-characterization in fairness to the many readers who submitted respectful, well thought out questions and factual corrections to a false statement on his online blog. Instead, his silence allowed all >1000 commenters to be painted with the same broad brush, alienating us all. I would expect this from a blogger as well, on any site, if it were incorrect. Posted by: zennurse at January 25, 2006 9:01 PM | Permalink ... the snide personal comment by the host of the panel, comparing her to Colombo. I felt that degraded the discussion and ironically made Jim Brady just the same as the commenters he was complaining about. an FDL community members says calling Jane "Columbo" degrades the conversation. however, calling reporters Pool Boy or idiots and your opposition Sandpaper Snatch apparently is appropriate. when we do it, it's snarky, reasoned analysis. when our Jane is called a detective, that's degrading. it's all about Jane, it's all about FDL! Posted by: bush's jaw at January 25, 2006 9:24 PM | Permalink As someone who has also had to deal with moderating large spikes of comments, I do find Brady's answer plausible.Ive had to post the same explain many times( 'you should see what didnt get through'); that's certainly a legit explanation if there's truth to back it up. I also save records of particularly volatile exchanges that get deleted, becauseI've learned.Some have suggested here a few days ago if there is some extant record of the deletions in the WAPo database that could be made available upon request. Of course the records may be completely gone if thats how their system works, and theres no conspiracy to be read in that. Posted by: stefan dill at January 25, 2006 9:34 PM | Permalink “In an age where there's less control, I think that such informal measures matter more, not less.” -- Glenn Reynolds. Thought the discussion of “entitlement” was very important. Personal responsibility and self-restraint in general may be “coming back in style” (not fast enough), mostly due to peer pressure, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I thought your comment, Jay, about the tone set by the blog’s author is correct (if that’s what you meant, as opposed to the “tone” of the original Wapo-Howell mistake starting the whole thing). The concepts in the “what constitutes journalism” responses by Jeff Jarvis and Glenn Reynolds is reflected daily in their blog posts and links. I include them in my daily reads because I like finding new sources of information and apparently they’re always looking. To me, they appear open-minded, not necessarily politically, but in terms of the ability to be persuaded by experience or fact. That’s not to say I couldn’t tell, for example, how they’d most likely vote in a presidential election but as an interested reader I can move past that with them to the information they’re giving and feel like it’s time well spent. And Jane Hamsher, I’m sorry, because I’m certainly not calling her stupid, but if there was ever a situation that depicts General Honore’s “stuck on stupid” it is this. Her questions support that. Someone said she was “Staying on topic….,” ?? I thought the topic was ethics and interactivity? Good grief, objective people could name a dozen similar or much worse press errors that not only did not get the obnoxious responses, but also didn’t get "their own live blog.” Enough already. My opinion didn’t change of Jim Brady. I thought he sounded like a reasonable man in the Froomkin dustup and again, here. Frankly, he gives me faith that maybe there are calm, reasonable, relatively non-agenda-driven (at least not necessarily a “dishonest” agenda) professionals running the news or press rooms. Plus he chose 3 out of 4 people whose blogs are ones I read every day so he must have damn good judgement! (that’s a joke BTW) Posted by: Kristen at January 25, 2006 9:44 PM | Permalink The shift to trying to prove Brady a liar was a mistake, in my opinion. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 25, 2006 9:48 PM | Permalink Ooops, one final note... “…..but I think it's important to understand that Jane represents the very active community at firedoglake where this discussion has gone on for many days. The community felt very frustrated and ripped off by the way the Washington Post handled the requests for clarification and correction to a column which was not factual.” -- zennurse This is not an everyday, perhaps multiple times a day, event somewhere, someplace? What made this event so special? It would be great if everybody got their corrections made. “I think that the real danger to bloggers comes from the commenters with whom they agree. I've seen a number of bloggers pushed toward more extreme views by their comment section. It's seductive, I imagine….” Glenn Reynolds, today. The reverse is true as well. This “community” of people start believing that simply because of the strength of their agreement that that proves their viewpoint. Minds shut down, language deteriorates and anger and ill will take over. Posted by: Kristen at January 25, 2006 9:55 PM | Permalink Jim Brady, I think, started off pretty defensively with, "I have made this point countless times, but to no avail. The cached posts you see don't include any of the posts we removed, simple as that. We took them down, which meant they weren't live and thus not on that cached page. So analyzing that page and drawing conclusions is faulty". He is suggesting that they were never live and thus, couldn't have been cached. Finally, after much dodging,he admits that they were live but follows this with, "Trying to turn this into a conspiracy is a bit of a stretch". Suggesting that Jane was trying to build a conspiracy argument, clearly was a low blow meant to make her seen loony and irrational. Jay - I really appreciated your comments today. Posted by: ember at January 25, 2006 9:56 PM | Permalink Kristen: you are subtle, and you convinced me. I am going to replace Jane Hamsher with Glenn Reynolds in my bookmarks folder right away.:) Posted by: village idiot at January 25, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink Kristen, I will try to pull my thought out a bit more in terms of why this event was as important as it was @ FDL. We have been addressing Republican bias in the media over many months and regarding various sources, Hardball for just one example. The point is not that "This “community” of people start believing that simply because of the strength of their agreement that that proves their viewpoint." Our viewpoint was proven by the fact that Howell's statement about Abramoff's donations was wrong, and was a culmination of many instances of the Washington Post essentially printing Mehlman's talking points without balance or apparent question. It's clear they are breaking important stories and bringing excellent information to thier readers, however over time we often find they end up dropping or burying issues not favorable to the GOP, or getting it wrong (Howell) without correcting the error. Given the obvious crisis we are in, this is irresponsible and unfair to readers who need accurate information to make informed decisions. If the fact had been that Democrats had received donations from Abramoff, there would not have been a problem as we just want the truth. It is partisan, I believe, only in the respect that we want the truth, not Republican talking points. I hope this makes my comments clearer for you. Posted by: zennurse at January 25, 2006 10:45 PM | Permalink Brady write above: Let's see - Brady runs around to every possible media outlet proclaiming that the Post was attacked by "hundreds" of posts that were profane, obscene, and "hate speech." In fact, in his interview with Editor and Publisher, he said there were "150-200" of these posts - yet in the intro description for today's "chat," the Post said there were "several" of these comments. It sure looks like Brady is very good at spin control and attack publicity but not very good at simple factual reporting - how many were deleted, if you don't have a total, what precisely were your criteria for deletions - and why were some comments with "obscenities" included in the restored posts while the ones Jane is referencing, which do not include hate speech or profanity, permanently deleted? If Brady actually cared about responding to his readers and to supporting "transparency" as he claims, he would answer those questions and the following: Why has the Post refused to post and link an actual correction to the original Howell column? At minimum, including a link at the 1/15 Howell to the 1/22 Howell would be a decent, ethical step. Simply because Howell runs around to his media buddies complaining about us riffraff does not make him a hero of accountability - instead it makes him PR flack for his corporate brand after his decision to close and delete posts started getting some notice. and I write that as a proud PR flackette - very effective damage control, Jim - but mighty dreadful journalism. Posted by: siun at January 25, 2006 11:49 PM | Permalink Your comments were already clear, zennurse. Substitute dozens of other “Abramoffs” …. Keep Hardball. Please believe me. I feel your pain. But I fight joining a “community” that I know is easily waiting for me out there. I fight the lure of it because I don’t believe it’s a productive use of my time. I fight it by reading a lot of different sources (sometimes forcing myself), many from the “other side,” many not related to politics at all because otherwise I start looking at everyone around me and seeing donkeys or elephants. Posted by: Kristen at January 26, 2006 12:18 AM | Permalink village... I'm not sure ... are you toying with me? :) Posted by: Kristen at January 26, 2006 12:26 AM | Permalink he said there were "150-200" of these posts - yet in the intro description for today's "chat," the Post said there were "several" of these comments. Jane Hamsher: There is a big difference between "several" and "hundreds." Is it a "dozen" as Strauss said, or "hundreds" as Brady said in the Hugh Hewett interview? unless Brady is sitting in Maryland removing the comments by himself, I think his math works. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 26, 2006 12:33 AM | Permalink oh c'mon bj- you can do better than that ... you quote Brady saying he deleted 50 himself and then you question whether he is deleting them himself? and you ignore the difference between 150-200 and several? Those were the Post's own words. ... but gosh, it did allow you to repost Brady's slam of Jane as "Columbo." Perhaps in your next comment, you can work in the bit about Jane and Hollywood that the moderator of the "chat" found worthy of posting rather than a more substantive question. Guess that's easier than dealing with the lack of a correction and the lack of transparency.
Posted by: siun at January 26, 2006 12:47 AM | Permalink it cracks me up that a community that has no problem with calling someone a full-on, four-flushing idiot can be so wounded by "Columbo." Posted by: bush's jaw at January 26, 2006 1:02 AM | Permalink Brady says he deleted 50. my guess is that he was not the only person on the site deleting comments. there were other staff people deleting comments. so 150-200 isn't a stretch. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 26, 2006 1:10 AM | Permalink Then why say "several" in the writeup for the chat? genuine question - if Brady and the Post are watching this issue so closely, why the discrepancy in numbers? do they honestly not know or are they spinning this? Posted by: siun at January 26, 2006 1:34 AM | Permalink I'm afraid I'm not on board with the great Brady comment deletion cover-up investigation, and the charges that derive from it. Others see far more merit there than I do. My guess is after his media and online blitz Brady isn't going to address you anymore because you clearly don't believe him, so the case is "in" and awaits your full prosecution. In the end the person in the entire Washington Post empire who is most willing to trust you, and your participation, and put his butt on the line for more of it, will wind up the mistrusted one, by you. Where that gets you--where it gets anyone--I honestly don't know. To me you're turning a W into a Tie and possibly a L. Jim can and should be criticized, especially because he's capable of learning. He should be strongly criticized, if people feel strongly that he's done them wrong. But the charge that he wanted to kill criticism of the Post was misguided from the start, in my view. Count me out for the remaining rounds. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 1:54 AM | Permalink [I'm afraid I'm not on board with the great Brady comment deletion cover-up investigation, and the charges that derive from it. Others see far more merit there than I do. My guess is after his media and online blitz Brady isn't going to address you anymore because you clearly don't believe him, so the case is "in" and awaits your full prosecution.] I generally agree, there is a bit of the old "missing the forest for the trees" aspect to this situation, and it actually serves the purposes of the old guard at the Post to get engrossed in such a dialogue, as it allows some of the fundamental issues related to Schmidt's and Howell's journalism and how the Post perceives its readers, and how it intends to deal with them in the future, to recede into the background. Obviously, I don't find Brady very credible, but I also see little traction in continuing to emphasize the issue as to how the Post operates its website. I also think that the Post has learned the wrong lesson (blame the readers), and we will, unfortunately, be revisiting this problem in the near future. Brady can open up the paper through the web, but he can't avoid the fact that the Post retains some recalcitrant reporters, reporters who practice a form of access journalism that is increasingly repellent to a lot of its readers. This is the combustible mix that will probably explode again sometime soon. [But the charge that he wanted to kill criticism of the Post was misguided from the start, in my view.] I think Brady panicked when the old guard dinosaurs at the Post got upset because, by their standards, they believed that the blog was out of control. I also think that he initially pandered to upper managment in a really embarrassing way, such as when he participated in that terrible interview with Hewitt, and that, not surprisingly, is, in my opinion, the biggest albatross that he has to overcome, and that's why I am still very mistrustful of him. But, realistically, we are at the 'one day at a time' stage, as in watch what he and the Post does, and take it, "one day at a time" Posted by: Richard Estes at January 26, 2006 7:31 AM | Permalink What I think bothers FDL'ers is that Brady went out of his way to give the impression that the post was deluged with the most obscene comments possible --- and those of us who were checking the comments section regularly are pretty damned sure he is lying to cover up what he was deleting --- accusations that Howell was "lying", or "incompetent", or "stupid", or "a republican hack". There were "hundreds" of people calling her those kinds of names -- but if Brady had gone on television and told the truth and said Well, Deborah Howell said something that was not true, and refused to admit it and apologize for it, and lots of people called her a "liar" and "incompetent" and "stupid" and a "republican hack" because of her actions Everyone would have treated him a lot differently, given the level of political discourse set by cable television. So Brady had to be dishonest, and emphasize the words "b*tch" and "wh*re" which were used far less frequently than he would have the world believe. And Jane Hamsher, I’m sorry, because I’m certainly not calling her stupid, but if there was ever a situation that depicts General Honore’s “stuck on stupid” it is this. Her questions support that. Someone said she was “Staying on topic….,” ?? I thought the topic was ethics and interactivity? Good grief, objective people could name a dozen similar or much worse press errors that not only did not get the obnoxious responses, but also didn’t get "their own live blog.” Enough already. gosh Kristen, every time you show up here, you sound like a troll... Jane Hamsher was invited because she represented a community that had been accused of "unethical" behavior by Brady --- and Brady had grossly exaggerated and misrepresented the nature of and reasons for that community's actions. Brady wanted the discussion to be about the ethics of the audience. Jane wanted it to be about the ethics of the Howell's and Brady's --- because FIRST THINGS FIRST..... without the ethical failures o Howell and Brady, there would be no cause to discuss the subject. "Brady wanted the discussion to be about the ethics of the audience. Jane wanted it to be about the ethics of the Howell's and Brady's --- because FIRST THINGS FIRST..... without the ethical failures o Howell and Brady, there would be no cause to discuss the subject." Jane Hamsher, above: "I was told at the outset that Brady did not want to discuss Howell or defend her actions because she worked for the Post and not WPNI. I'm sorry if I confused anyone by agreeing to, and then observing, the ground rules." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 8:29 AM | Permalink Brady's approach to fixing the problem reminds me of a certain administration's approach to "fixing" the problem: Go out on a big PR camapaign -photo ops, interviews, paid and unpaid op/eds -- espousing how great they are about fixing the problem. The problem is, they don't actually Fix the Problem. Katrina, anyone? Iraq, Prescription Drug Coverage? Leave No Child Behind. Forcibly quashing the voices of those who point out that the problem isn't fixed. Engage in inflammatory name-calling and character assassination. Correcting an indisputably incorrect statement? Shutting down comments when too many hit too close to home. Escalate the description of those who wish to point out the error from about a dozen comment[s] "that failed to make a substantive point and were simply personal attacks on Howell and others." to hundreds and hundreds of personal and violent -- violent in language -- attacks on her from the "fever swamps" and so on. Okay, fine, that's playing hardball. But the fact remains that they haven't issued a correction (which means posting the correction WITH the column) nor have they produced any documented evidence of their other "indisputable" claims. What good is a newspaper when they won't do that? Posted by: Phredd at January 26, 2006 8:54 AM | Permalink Since there have been a number of pot-shots taken at Hamsher in this thread, I will offer a note of appreciation. Firedoglake is very substantive and well-written, and has been one the must-read blogs on the Plame leak investigation. I appreciate all the work and writing that Hamsher and her co-FDL'er's do. My day-after take on this whole affair: The post.com (or Brady or whoever) successfully changed the subject. Howell wrote something inaccurate. Complaints were made via the post.com blog. That medium was shut down. The conversation became about that medium, the people who use it, what unrelated parties think about that medium, and what the post.com will do in the future. See how far away from the original offense we are? It may not be Brady's position to respond for Howell's writing. But there has to be a better way of addressing these complaints then shutting down and pointing fingers at the rabble. Tish truely appreciates the substantive and well written firedoglakers. Posted by: fireDoglake at January 26, 2006 10:22 AM | Permalink ami, phredd and lame man have it right by my lights - the issue of how many comments, etc is raised simply because Brady raised it and used it as a call to the media to be very afraid of these cyber-ruffians who would swamp your servers with filth - and that's why he got so much air time. He was playing into msm's fear of blogs as competition but also the fear the right seems to have instilled in many newsrooms that they must toe the party line - if they now have 2 competing pressure groups on their case, uh oh! Since he used the quantity as a major part of his public pitch and won the PR game. Not surprising given his level of access but not indicative of the legitimacy of his claims. Still no correction linked to the original article - that contradicts all Brady's claims at concern for ethics and good journalism. After all, it would be a simple matter to add a link on the Jan 15th Howell column page to the latest column in which she says she was incorrect. Without that, the Post has replaced journalism with smoke and mirrors. Posted by: siun at January 26, 2006 10:34 AM | Permalink Do you know that phrase the narcissism of small differences? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 11:18 AM | Permalink It appears that Katie Couric repeated the lie that Abramoff gave money to Democrats. Considering how easy it is to ascertain the truth, and considering the brouhaha over at the Washington Post, it is a little difficult not to call this reckless disregard for the truth. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 26, 2006 11:34 AM | Permalink Do you know that phrase the narcissism of small differences? if you are referring to the Post's continued failure to actually put a correction on the original Howell column, and the focus on that effort, its not a small difference. It is the essential act that will make this whole thing go away. Or perhaps you are referring to the narcissism of Howell and Brady and the Post, who refusal to make a "small difference" on the orginal Howell column by adding a correction to it has turned what should have been a relatively trivial matter into a "major" media scandal.... Consider: What if, on Sunday, Jan 15, Howell receives a couple of emails pointing out the factual error in her column that day. Howell requests that the paper print a "correction/retraction" in Monday's paper, and that the website put that correction at the top of her column. None of this would have happened.... Who is the real narcissist? It appears that Katie Couric repeated the lie that Abramoff gave money to Democrats. Considering how easy it is to ascertain the truth, and considering the brouhaha over at the Washington Post, it is a little difficult not to call this reckless disregard for the truth. its not actually "reckless disregard", because of the Post's continued refusal to PRINT A RETRACTION of the original false statement. In the heat of this heartfelt and unfathomably durable discussion over whether St. Jane was attacked by being compared to 'Columbo,' and we count (and recount) precisely how many nasty characterizations were made at post.com and continue the rationalization of whether 'brain-dead poopy head' is TRULY a personal attack, something is missing. Oh yeah, a discussion on the original reporting that helped bring Abramoff down. Good and valuable journalism? Partisan hackery? Who cares? We've got a blog war to fight. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 26, 2006 11:49 AM | Permalink Since we're wondering who the narcissist is now, how about a recap of the symptoms of Narcissism Personality Disorder? - inordinate self-pride; Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 26, 2006 11:55 AM | Permalink Oh yeah, a discussion on the original reporting that helped bring Abramoff down. The Abramoff story was broken by the late David Rosenbaum on April 3, 2002. Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 26, 2006 12:23 PM | Permalink "gosh Kristen, every time you show up here, you sound like a troll..." FDL'ers seem to have a weird, name-calling version of Tourette's syndrome. ; ) Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 26, 2006 12:32 PM | Permalink Ron, as a supporter and reader of FDL, let me say thanks for painting me with that little smear brush you've got there. Do you have any other pigeon-holes you'd like to place me in? Posted by: Lame Man at January 26, 2006 12:48 PM | Permalink Ron, Lame... and everyone else. Fair warning: I have zero interest in hosting a flame war about "FDL'ers," which I don't think is a meaningful category anyway. (Actually less than zero.) Many different people read that weblog; it's popular, and deservedly so. Making categorical statements about such a user base in the many tens of thousands is a waste of time. If you want to criticize what someone said, then say it about the someone. In order to enforce my warning, I will not hesitate to kill posts. And I don't get into the game of explaining why I did it, or listening to your gripes about the unfairness of it all. I kill those posts too. I do hope that is clear. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 12:51 PM | Permalink yawn.... "The Abramoff story was broken by the late David Rosenbaum on April 3, 2002." Stop believing everything you read on blogs. If you want you can go as far back as February of 1999 and read Jeff Stein at Salon reporting about Abramoff, DeLay and trips and donations. But it was Schmidt's story Everyone can beat the drum all they want about Howell or Brady...but the dismissal of Schmidt's work on this story over the last two years is ludicrous. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 26, 2006 1:01 PM | Permalink Jay, fair enough. Please accept my apologies. Won't happen again. Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 26, 2006 1:01 PM | Permalink Thanks. And thanks for those links, Ron. Got any more about the reporting of the Abramoff story? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 1:06 PM | Permalink Thanks, LM. One thing I discovered in 28 months or so of blogging with comments is that rules work best when paired with alternatives. You can't do this, but you can do that. The one contribution I may have to make to the science and art of preventing comment breakdown is that instead of attacking each other or plowing the same ground, participants can and should argue with links. Give us a new, interesting, relevant, useful (you know, good) link, instead of your counter-punch, or along with it. The reason? Even if I hate what you say, I may love your link. Unsure of how to participate but want to participate. Offer a link and tell us about it, why it might assist. It's simple, very simple. But it works when people do it. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 1:21 PM | Permalink "Sigmund Freud called this behavior the narcissism of small differences. It is the natural tendency for similar people, and especially similar groups of people, to exaggerate otherwise superficially minor differences to sufficiently high levels to create hostility. The more alike the groups, the more they will seek ways to differentiate from each other. It is precisely because the groups or people are so similar that they can see these small differences, allowing them to view each other as significantly different.” -- Christel Fonzo-Eberhard also this article by Sam Vaknin Posted by: Kristen at January 26, 2006 1:55 PM | Permalink Stop believing everything you read on blogs. If you want you can go as far back as February of 1999 and read Jeff Stein at Salon reporting about Abramoff, DeLay and trips and donations. ron, stop being disingenuous. Abramoff is mentioned only once (and fairly peripherally) in the story in Salon. Rosenbaum's April 2002 piece in the Times was all about Abramoff -- and just because no one followed up on it does not mean that he didn't "break" the story. As for Schmidt --- she's covering for the Bush administration in here work. Note how she treats the whole "CREA" issue.... Tribes have given to two political organizations associated with Norquist; one of the groups, the Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy, was founded by Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, whose department oversees Indian affairs. Norton is no longer part of the organization. Abramoff said he recommends that tribes contribute to conservative groups. Notice how CREA is actually about Norquist, not Norton, and how no mention is made of the fact that Norton continued to attend fundraisers for CREA after becoming Secretary of the Interior, including one in February 2001 with leaders of vairous Indian tribes --- after which these tribes were hit up for $100,000 to cover a survey that (according to the email) Norton wanted CREA to do with tribal funds. Instead of the central figure in this scandal that Norton should be (she is the connection between Federici at CREA and Griles at the DoI) Schmidt (and the Post) have done everything they can to keep Norton's name out of it. Now, if that was being done because the evidence of wrong-doing against Norton was not air-tight, I could respect it....if Democrats were being given the same kid-glove treatment. But they obviously aren't by the Post in general or Schmidt in particular. So Ron, stop acting like an apologist for the Post.... Here's another on Couric's folly. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 26, 2006 2:20 PM | Permalink What's worse is that Couric's audience dwarfs Howell's by a magnitude of many times. No, Steve, what's worse is that, just like with Howell and Brady, when Couric finally gets around to acknowledging the error, she will still try and imply that Democrats are "tainted" by the Abramoff scandal when there is absolutely no evidence that justifies implying Democrats are "tainted". Its like today's Post blog insisting that its reporting that Abramoff "directed" money to Dems is accurate --- without ever explaining that there is not a shread of evidence that suggests that Abramoff ever said "Give Money to Senator X." He handed lists to tribes that included the names of Democrats -- but that's not the same thing --- especially when those lists include requests for over $300,000 in contributions -- and the account they were to be drawn on had less that $50K in it at the time --- AND especially when of the 61 checks listed on the "Coushatta list", only 17 were reported to the FEC in a month, and about 40% were never handed out at all.... The Post needs to define "directed" --- because a "director" is someone who tells people what to do, and they do it. And that is NOT what happened with Abramoff's check requests for Democrats. Jay - a question if I may With your narcissism comment and some of what you wrote above, are you arguing that Brady is "on our side" or has done what he's done in good faith? working so I can't respond fast but I am interested in a clearer understanding of where you come down on this Posted by: siun at January 26, 2006 3:28 PM | Permalink In the WaPo chat one reader from LA asked: "Is there any movement within the newsroom of The Washington Post to sift through the complaints you received to address any legitimate complaints you might find, such as a call for documented evidence of Democratic complicity in Abramoff's crimes?" Rather than answering that question Brady's response was to start whining about the profanity again. He still doesn't get it... Posted by: A Hermit at January 26, 2006 3:39 PM | Permalink BLOGS VS. THE MSM I: Vapor Trails. National Journal's Blogometer reviews yesterday's Q and A and the reaction to it. CJR on Katie Couric. A working link. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 3:56 PM | Permalink Here's Susan Schmidt conspiratorially leaving Gale Norton out of it: link. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 26, 2006 5:10 PM | Permalink Why isn't Howard Dean criticized for not explaining to Couric what the truth really is? That while Democrats weren't given money directly by Abramoff they did receive money from tribes that he lobbied for. He doesn't even have to use the word "directed." Maybe if Democrats spoke factually instead of just trying to counter spin the truth would emerge. But by pretending that it didn't happen - or that it's known for sure that every donation to every Democrat was done on the up-and-up with no quid-pros attached - it makes things worse. This is a GOP scandal...but it has long tentacles. (and i'm no WaPo apologist...just criticized them today...but I think they do some of the best reporting in the world...while The Times, in comparison, has better editorializing) Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 26, 2006 5:17 PM | Permalink Countering the CJR spin, here's the right-wing spin to the Couric/Dean interview (this stuff is fascinating):http://newsbusters.org/node/3760 Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 26, 2006 5:25 PM | Permalink Here's Terry Steichen (someone I do not know) at Poynter's E-Media blog, commenting on Steve Outing's, Taming The Comments Monster. I think it's a sound analysis, similar to what I said in the Post Chat. It's appropriate to look at technical and procedural means to control the publication of "off-the-wall" comments. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 6:06 PM | Permalink This link to a press release by Judicial Watch shows that Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal apparently followed up on Rosenbaum's article in April of 2002. I don't have access to Nexis right now but someone else can follow-up if they want (not sure if the Washington Post ever covered it). Oh. The author of the Wall Street Journal article happens to be Jim VandeHei who now works for the Washington Post and has also been accused of shilling for the GOP. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 26, 2006 6:13 PM | Permalink Here's how I phrased my observation: The Post can say it "only" took four days for Howell to acknowledge something amiss, but it only takes four minutes to realize that she was wrong in what she stated as fact about Abramoff and the Democrats. Moreover, she was wrong in a way that "tracked" with Republican spin, which makes it different from a garden-variety miscue. And on top of that her first statement was begrudging in tone. This created the storm conditions that "stunned" Howell, and lit up the comment board. Meanwhile... Mark Glaser's new blog for PBS, Media Shift, has a feature, The Week's Top Five: People, Trends and Tech on our Radar. Number One this week: "Washington Post ombudswoman ignites firestorm." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 6:14 PM | Permalink Why isn't Howard Dean criticized for not explaining to Couric what the truth really is? That while Democrats weren't given money directly by Abramoff they did receive money from tribes that he lobbied for. He doesn't even have to use the word "directed." because the truth is that this is a GOP scandal, and Katie Couric would never give Howard Dean the time to outline the nature and extent of the scandal, and how there is no known democratic involvement in anything scandalous. Stop apologizing for sloppy, "balanced" reporting, Ron --- including the schmidt piece that you claim is about Norton. That piece goes OUT OF ITS WAY to avoid critical facts about Norton (like the fundraiser she attended in 2001 that was followed by a check for CREA) .... while in the same article, Schmidt tries her best to implicate a quid pro quo involving Harry Reid.... The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. I hate to break it to you, Ron, but this "check" was issued on an account that was overdrawn by $285,000 at the time the "check" was issued -- and it wasn't registered with the FEC until the very end of June --- while $25,000 checks for Brownback and Burns were written on the same day, and cashed at the end of March. Now, either Steno Sue did not do her homework, or deliberately attempted to establish a quid pro quo relationship by implying that Reid GOT A CHECK "the next day". He didn't. LOTS of people for whom checks were issued that day NEVER got that check --- including Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland. Abigail: CJR Daily doesn't "spin." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 26, 2006 7:21 PM | Permalink Reading between the lines on this board and elsewhere, it is apparent to me that the journalistic fraternity (with a few exceptions) has circled the wagons around Ms. Howell and the Post. They have decided that this is an instance where they need to show solidarity with their beleaguered colleagues at the post. The left, by definition, has a tendency to fracture easily, and the cracks have allowed Messrs. Downie and Harris to triangulate (and quadrangulate). The Post pressroom will win this battle but its slash and burn tactics (by turning what was simply a case of incompetent reporting that warranted a quick and simple correction into a hate speech issue) will have eroded considerably the already dwindling support base for the notion of a free and independent press, which idea these days seems to be largely confined to the liberal left. Posted by: village idiot at January 26, 2006 7:40 PM | Permalink on the issue of Sue Schmidt piece that Ron claims is about Gail Norton... Here is the "check register" that includes the check to which Schmidt referred as having been "issued the next day" to Harry Reid's "Searchlight" PAC (its check #1112) of course, Schmidt isn't alone in trying to imply that the list of checks was part of a quid pro quo. According to ABC, "A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan's political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use." That would be check number 1074 for the Great Plains Leadership PAC... This Dorgan check at least has the "virtue" of being registed with the FCC on March 31, 2002, so there MIGHT actually be some relationship between Dorgan supporting schools, and the tribe contributing to his PAC a mere 20% of what Abramoff recommended for his GOP buddies' PACS controlled by Brownback and Burns. Again.... this is the kind of complete CRAP reporting by Sue Schmidt that I'm talking about Ron. Where does she get off with implying a Reid quid pro quo, based on this "evidence"? And where do you get off on defending her "reporting"? Why has the Associated Press escaped such scrutiny. Here's the AP on Reid's donations: link. The Associated Press along with at least one Texas newspaper (along with the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs) have seen some of the lists that the Washington Post is accused of making up. Could you give me links to the stuff about bankrupt accounts, ami? I'll trade you for a good one that sort of explains how complicated this story is and why there seem to be conflicting reports about who gave what to whom and when. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 26, 2006 8:07 PM | Permalink Ami, You're right. Not all the checks in that account went to everyone as stated in the ledger. There's an AP story (can't find right now) that talks about a GOP related check which was changed to something else and there is at least one payment I saw that wasn't accepted by a Senator. I think the checks were made out on that date but weren't all necessarily mailed out. Following the money...most aren't traceable until at least June of 2002. There's one donation that just became traceable because it was added to a current PAC just recently (but that's all I'm saying). Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 26, 2006 8:17 PM | Permalink People not familiar with the Abramoff story won't get the news from AP. The only place where they will learn the entire Abramoff scandal is from Howell's Jan. 15 column. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 26, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink Why has the Associated Press escaped such scrutiny. Here's the AP on Reid's donations: link. nice attempt at changing the subject, Ron -- worthy of Richard or Jason, in fact! ;) But we'll stick to the subject at hand -- the Post's reporting. The previous post provides the URL for the "Account QuickReport" of the activity of the Coushatta Management Company on March 6, 2002. This appears to have been a "computer generated" list from a bookkeepping/accounting program (it looks like something generated by QuickBooks to me, but I'm not an expert on bookkeeping programs) of that days's activities on that particular account. What appears to have happened is that someone shows up with the list created by Abramoff, and the checks are entered into the system, and printed out..... but not all the checks were distributed right away, and some were never distributed. (One very big question is who controlled the checks....) The account in question starts with a balance of $51,274. The total amount of checks written on the account that day is $336,300. The account never went "bankrupt" as far as I know -- what probably happened is that funds were added to cover these checks over a period of time. And some of these checks were never sent... (and it appears that this was a "general funds" account, and not a "political" account) There's an AP story (can't find right now) that talks about a GOP related check which was changed to something else and there is at least one payment I saw that wasn't accepted by a Senator. there is a who BUNCH of wonky stuff about these checks, Ron. For instance, the list that was handed to the person doing the data entry originally said $50,000 for CREA.... but the check that was written was for $100K. Lots of the money was refunded --- the Coushatta were throwing "hard" money at Tim Johnson left and right -- and throwing "hard" money at Landrieu in the same way -- and most of the donations to those two candidates that appear on the Coushatta list were refunded. ....and don't even get me started on Pete Sessions, and what happened with his money.... Following the money...most aren't traceable until at least June of 2002. There's one donation that just became traceable because it was added to a current PAC just recently (but that's all I'm saying). actually, almost all the checks that were delivered were registered with the FEC by June 30, 2002. However, because the FEC keeps track of its data based on election cycles, not all checks show up when you look for contributions made in 2002 -- for instance, the check for Ben Campbell was credited to the 2004 election cycle (and IIRC, returned). Its not surprising that some of this money is just now "showing up" if a check was made out to something like Louisiana Senate 2006.... (is that what you are referring to? :) ) village... I'm not sure ... are you toying with me? :) Certainly not, Kristen. I don't dare mess with Akron natives; it is too close to Youngstown for my comfort! :-) Posted by: village idiot at January 26, 2006 9:03 PM | Permalink Jay: With your narcissism comment and some of what you wrote above, are you arguing that Brady is "on our side" or has done what he's done in good faith?... am interested in a clearer understanding of where you come down on this Brady is not on your side where "side" means the political struggle in which you are engaged. You should realize that, and never forget it. Of course, I didn't say he was on your side, or imply it. I said he was on the side of the angels in the sense of wanting a Washington Post that is more two-way, more interactive, more open to what the Web is making possible, and more open to participants outside the usual "Washington conversation." That's my conclusion based on everything I have observed him doing at washingtonpost.com. In my previous post I wrote: "About transparency and the need for the Post to engage with critics, you’re not going to find anyone in the national press who gets it more than Jim Brady does." And, yes, he is acting in good faith, but that does not mean without error. I know it was just filler (because it involved what I said in the Q and A) but Brady did agree that "civility" was the wrong thing for him to demand. Which means incivility was the wrong charge for him to make. This was one of the things people had jeered at him for (underlining the left's incivility while Howell stood by her untruths) but here he abandons it and you don't even notice. I did, and to me that's a sign (though certainly not "proof") of someone acting in reasonably good faith. He's not on your side; but he's more open to having you and yours (Jane) in the conversation than any other "executive editor" around. By fixing on discrepancies in his explanations, inconsistent details in his statements and other slights capable of instant rhetorical inflation (of which "shilling for the GOP" can stand as example) you are engaging in the narcissism of small differences. As Dan Glover wrote at Blogometer: "For the interested liberal bloggers, much of the focus has moved away from Howell toward the removed comments." Brady has been slammed because Brady is talking to you about his decision, and yet not on your side or inside your narrative. In my opinion, responding that way isn't wise, it isn't fair, it isn't effective, it isn't far-sighted, it certainly isn't progressive, but it is expressive and it is the online left. It's likely they'll come for me too, eventually. Or next week. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 9:12 PM | Permalink know it was just filler (because it involved what I said in the Q and A) but Brady did agree that "civility" was the wrong thing for him to demand. (Which means incivility was the wrong charge to make.) This was one of the things people jeered as him for, but he abandons it and you don't even notice. I did, and to me that's a sign (though certainly not "proof") of someone acting in good faith. Jay, having flogged the "incivility" thing to death in every media outlet he could get access too, isn't it a teensy bit inadequate for Brady to just kind of suddenly "abandon" it without some kind of big announcement? Especially since the "incivility" meme that he flogged relentlessly dominates the narrative of what happened last week? BANNED POSTER-- Site Administrator. Just trying different options out. We'll use them or not use them as we see fit. As I said, it was filler, so I can't really blame anyone for missing it, but here is what he said at washingtonpost.com: Jay Rosen: ...I don't think "civility" is an especially good guideline. Jim shouldn't ask people to be civil, but to be real, to say what they think, to obey some minimal rules. Sometimes there's a lot to discern in an angry, uncivil response, but if you're worried about civility you're not going to be very discerning. But that's not enough for you. Brady: I was wrong about civility. Left: Louder, Jim, louder. And are you working on that apology yet? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 9:35 PM | Permalink village.... Akron native? Am I missing something? Never been there. Posted by: Kristen at January 26, 2006 10:02 PM | Permalink May be I am imagining things, but I vaguely recall somebody saying s/he is from Akron. Getting old, Kristen; my memory is not what it used to be. :-( Posted by: village idiot at January 26, 2006 10:17 PM | Permalink The Knight-Ridder empire, or the Knight part of it, soon to be sold away from all known heirs, began in Akron. At the Beacon Journal. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 10:24 PM | Permalink that's ok... by defintion, we're all getting old! :) Actually, I'm an east coast native. Posted by: Kristen at January 26, 2006 10:25 PM | Permalink This is getting insane. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 26, 2006 10:32 PM | Permalink Maybe the problem is people have a grip. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 26, 2006 10:35 PM | Permalink
Aha, the upper west side; gotcha! (I think it is actually catrina who may be from Akron, and I mistook you for her in a momentary lapse of memory:-)) Posted by: village idiot at January 26, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink comment deleted by request of Evor Glens. Posted by: Evor Glens at January 26, 2006 11:23 PM | Permalink Maybe the problem is people have a grip. You got that right, brother. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 26, 2006 11:23 PM | Permalink Jay, with all due respects, could you please get Mr. Brady to do the talk show circuit with Hugh Hewitt and his ilk, and announce as loudly as he first did about "uncivility" that he has now retired the civility issue? And why he might have made a mistake on the take, if not the data? Posted by: Valley Girl at January 26, 2006 11:32 PM | Permalink Thank you, Evor Glens; that was very .... ummmm .... ad hominem! (whatever that means; Jason and Ron use that term often, and it sounds very 'artful', unlike Debbie's prose!) Posted by: village idiot at January 26, 2006 11:36 PM | Permalink Abigail: CJR Daily doesn't "spin." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 26, 2006 07:21 PM | Permalink And the earth is flat. Posted by: Walter Duranty in the House at January 27, 2006 12:11 AM | Permalink Valley Girl: could you please get Mr. Brady to do the talk show circuit with Hugh Hewitt and his ilk, and announce as loudly as he first did about "uncivility" that he has now retired the civility issue? I can't "get" Mr. Brady to do anything, except maybe another Q and A down the road and some comments here and there to PressThink. But I see what you are asking for-- Brady should engineer a public reversal with the same visibility he claimed for the proposition now reversed. But don't you see how that gives to him all the agency, all the platform, all the power? Whereas I think it's my job--our job, yours too, VG--to hold him to what he said about retiring the civility god. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink the earth is flat. ask Brady. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 12:20 AM | Permalink Village, Artful, overlooked, but apt, ad hominem. ; ) Ron Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 27, 2006 12:49 AM | Permalink Jay - just getting back from work so I'm heading back up to my question and your answer. You are very right about the "on our side" way that I framed the question - I understand that good journalists are not on a particular partisan side and I do not expect Brady to be "on my side." I did want to check my read of some of your comments and your reply at 9:12 was quite useful. Let me suggest a "side" I would like to see Brady on - and describe how his position looks at the moment. I know that you feel the questions about how many comments, what percentage nasty, etc is frivilous but I think we have to look at Brady's response to the swarm. Having made a mistake (shutting down the comments or not being prepared to deal with net uproars - take you pick) he then became the spokesman for the Post response. He went to quite a lot of media outlets - from your blog to PBS to Editor & Pub to Hewitt and more. He gave these outlets a highly charged account of what had happened, using hyped up numbers to describe the Post as being under attack by hate speech filled comments. At the same time he did not credit the comments which were reasonable or which raised serious questions about journalistic ethics. If Brady had gone to the media with an account something like the following, I could see your position much more easily: The Post got slammed with a sudden and very high volume of comments. Some of those comments contained language and personal attacks which we do not allow on our site. While it was a small percentage of the total number of comments, we were not able to filter that many comments to maintain our site standards so we had to shut them down until we could catch up. As a separate operation, we're not able to judge or decide the original issue (Howell's accuracy and whether a correction is needed) but we are re-evaluating our capacity to filter offensive comments while still providing a vibrant and open comment section for our readers. Now I'm not saying that answer would be completely satisfactory but it would be a whole lot less inflammatory - and more respectful of readers. He chose instead to take the public role of "offended host" under attack from an avalanche of nasty comments - and his comments in the media were quite heated and were designed to paint the site as the victim of those awful net hooligans. It was hype not journalism or even good management. And it was definitely chosing a "side." And that's why I don't get your interpretation. It's fine for Brady to now say that civility is not the issue but he only said that after he got the maximum play out of the hate speech charge. I guess your interpretation looks naive to me - this was spin and pretty obvious spin at that. Posted by: siun at January 27, 2006 1:22 AM | Permalink At Syracuse.com, one of the most contentious forums is devoted to a controversial development project known as DestinyUSA, a proposed megamall/resort. One of the business editors at The Post-Standard participates in the forum regularly. He answers questions, and the participants sometimes send him out to dig up information. Instead of stewing in its own juices, the conversation has a chance to be thoughtful and productive. http://www.syracuse.com/forums/destinyusa/ It's naive of a large media site to think it can start a completely open forum and not anticipate the trolls, flames, sock puppets and Godwin's Law. I'm curious about what people here would consider incivility from commenters on a site if you had one. Would repetitive or off-topics posts ever be enough to render a thread closeable? Is it the fate of any passionate thread that it will burn out in cries of "straw man!" and "ad hominem!"? But this thread has made it clear that charges of incivility are not considered a defense against sloppy reporting. Posted by: Brian Cubbison at January 27, 2006 1:41 AM | Permalink "ami" has decided to reveal that "she" has all this time been "Paul Lukasiak," who a year ago used to comment here, and specialize in Rosen-bashing, conflict-seeking, bile-spewing, scorched-earth, I-am-truth-you-suck posts taking up a very high percentage of replies. (A typical example.) Why "she" decided to go this route I do not know. It may have been that "Paul" decided that "Paul" had invested so much of "him" self in discrediting me ("he" was quite determined about it, and had helpers) that "Paul" was stuck without flexibility when I took stands that agreed with "his" avenging-left politics. But I suppose we should congratulate "her" on a fine and very extended deception. Masterful! So cunning! What tradecraft! Replying to "her" latest seems beyond pointless. I have explained myself and my view on Brady and the great comment deletion cover-up as well as I could. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 9:14 AM | Permalink "ami" is the "civil" version of me, Jay. The one who doesn't feel the need to be completely honest about the conflicts of people who blog about other people. i.e. the one who doesn't feel the need to "bash Jay Rosen". and "ami" will continue to do so, even as you feel the need to "bash Paul Lukasiak" hugs and kisses.... (and btw, I assumed you knew that ami was me all along....) wait, ami = paul lukasiak. the self same? ami writes in a feminine tone. see Evors Glen hilarious, but personal attack. let me beat a dead horse, i don't get Jane's insistent questioning about Paul L.'s and Richard E's deleted Howell posts. it's not like those comments can't appear elsewhere at the Post or anywhere on the web. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 9:49 AM | Permalink Village, Not because its germaine to the subject but its possible I was the "Akron" native you were recalling? I used Akron as some kind benchmark in the discussion about mid-sized cities and the number of potential blog-readers there might in a city of Akron (as opposed to the Long Island suburbs). I was a resident of Akron for 19 years..and probably will move back there this year to work on one of the Ohio races. I never worked for the Beacon Journal but grew up with that paper and never realized how much it sucked until I started getting the Washington Post regularly. As much as the Post has problems...read your average mid-sized city paper and they start looking like high-school class productions. They started looking like one long repeated list of street fairs, car accidents, and "ODOT reports closings" articles. Useful in its own way but hardly engaging. Posted by: catrina at January 27, 2006 9:54 AM | Permalink there are some excellent mid-size papers. i'm going to drop names here. i worked at the N&O, but had no hand in that project. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 10:25 AM | Permalink “Would everyone please go back and read the entries on the narcissism of small differences? That's what this ridiculous discussion has devolved into -- natural allies trying to differentiate themselves by arguing about exactly how many angels are dancing on the head of the pin.” --- Steve Lovelady Mmmm… I read them, Steve, but confess that there are so many groups involved here that I was left a little unclear as to where Jay was going with his original reference so I just dropped it b/c I didn’t want to show my ignorance, I guess… I mean, maybe he meant that the Wapo Staff and those who I consider far-left entrenched ideologues are normally the two allies (but somehow I doubt it); or, he could have meant that, frankly, the far-left and the far-right today are so similar to each other to make issues irrelevant because they use the same tactics and have the same thought (or lack of) processes that forces them to be broken records and go on and on and on. Then again, maybe he meant ANY group, left, right, whatever, that wants what should be accuracy and fair reporting from the press vs. the Jim Brady’s of the world, and he'll be equally supportive of the cries from the right the next time they occur (probably tomorrow). I wasn't sure then my mind got tired of pondering it and I gave it up. Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2006 10:51 AM | Permalink Unfair to Jarvis and Reynolds, but extremely funny and well worth a read: Poor Man Institute, Let’s stage an all-star panel on blogger ethics in my pants. Kristen: I explained that comment as well as I could here. here's "ami" channeling some version of "Paul," who may in fact be "Shirley" channeling "Paco." btw, I assumed you knew that ami was me all along.... What a ridiculous lie. Anyway, no, I didn't. And you forgot the quote marks around "me," and furthermore why don't you go have energetic coitus with yourself? Your tactics disgust me. But I'm sure you're having quite the chuckle now. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Permalink Jay, so did Evers asked for a deletion after finding out ami was paul? Todd Harrison (subscription needed) writes in different character depending on his feel. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 11:33 AM | Permalink Sorry, Jay, my bad, didn't even see that whole post. You have to give me credit for the alternative scenarios, though. It took me awile to think them up where they could still work without a big stretch! :) Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2006 11:33 AM | Permalink These articles are from 1999, John Suler, author… The Basic Psyhological Features of Cyberspace Healthy and Pathological Internet Use Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2006 11:46 AM | Permalink No problem, Kristen. Jaw, that Evers request came before. Unlike the ami-paul-shirly-paco-dolores whats-its-name whomever bot, Evers has some honor. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 11:49 AM | Permalink in my defense... I adopted the "ami" persona after Jay banned "paul lukasiak". although there is an assumption that one adopts a pseudonym in order to say things one would not otherwise say, I adopted "ami" for the opposite reason --- "ami" is "paul lukasiak" trying to play by the rules of "civil discourse". See, I don't censor my own opinions when writing under my own name -- ask Josh Marshall, or Jeff Jarvis, or even Steve Clemons. "Ami" is the persona that does censor herself, that doesn't say the kind of things that "paul Lukasiak" says here... oh, and jay, its not a lie when I said I thought you knew. As Bush's Jaw pointed out, the website linked to "ami's" name is "paul Lukasiak's" AWOL Project. "Ami" is "paul lukasiak" trying to play by your rules in your house....and both of us are sorry that you feel that represents some sort of "disgusting", "dishonorable" tactics. Amy Gahran at her blog: I think there will always be a need, demand, and place for traditional (one-way, professional) journalism and publishing, with an emphasis on traditional journalistic practices and ethics. That is probably never going away, and I wouldn't want it to go away. I believe that both approaches to news, information, and media are complementary. Amy: that is extremely well said. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Permalink You know, a lot of these conflicts come down to the fact that I am not a radical. I'm more interested than a radical would be in the "messy" practical problems of professionals who are learning how to: * establish their authority in general matters of first-wave fact-gathering; at the same time, while everything Amy just said, "You really can't control or even manage a public conversation" begins to dawn on them. It's not just the lost control. It's the altered balance of power; users have more than they did before. They aren't as dependent. Doesn't mean they don't need you. Does mean that if they decide to trust you, it won't be the same way because today they have the means to "check" your power. And by becoming more open, you are suddenly more open to their check. For these reasons, most of the new media thinkers the newspaper profession has spun off--like Amy, Steve Outing, Steve Yelvington (both graybeards, both smart)--think Brady probably over-reacted, and also think the Post could have been more prepared. Here they are in substantial agreement with Jane Hamsher and her crew. They also know that within an actual organization, the workplace itself from Akron to DC, it takes these blow-ups to solve lurking problems, create the internal resolve or clarify the missing piece. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 1:07 PM | Permalink There's a lot of churn in this thread, to the extent that the initial incident has almost been forgotten. Let me try and bring us back to where we came in. As a non-journalist (as in: I don't get paid for writing, I have a "day job"), the central issue that started the furore remains unresolved in my mind; the Washington Post has yet to utter any public mea culpa over the initial factual error. Instead, the Post has used the avalanche of comments that it received as a smokescreen to hide behind, while issuing several statements "clarifying" their initial comments, which in my opinion only succeed in proving that the phrases "we made a mistake" and "sorry" do not appear in their lexicon. My confidence in print and television media was close to zero until last week. The Washington Post incident and the more recent incident where Katie Couric hit Howard Dean with the same meme about Democrats receiving contributions from Jack Abramoff further re-inforces my tentative conclusion that many media organizations are currently unable to perform even the most basic factual research before writing the scripts for their columns or their anchors and commentators. I have no real understanding of why this is the case, and perhaps full-time journalists and other media folks reading this can try to enlighten me, for until we understand where and how things went wrong, we can't fix the underlying issues. What I can tell you, as a consumer of information, is that I lose respect PDQ for anybody who, having been shown to have made a mistake, proceeds to hide behind a mixture of synthetic outrage, sophistry, avoidance and arrogance in order to avoid saying "we goofed". (Incidentally, pointing to "profane" postings as a justification for temporarily shutting down a debate channel is nothing more than a transparent attempt at shooting the messenger. I stopped falling for that fallacious argument years ago). The strong and honest admit their mistakes; the weak and dishonest try to BS their way out of a hole. Guess which category I believe the Washington Post currently belongs to? Posted by: Graham Shevlin at January 27, 2006 1:08 PM | Permalink You have to give me credit for the alternative scenarios snaps to Kristen, this is a great observation about any blog: This “community” of people start believing that simply because of the strength of their agreement that that proves their viewpoint. but that is why we hang at blogs we like, for like minds. snaps to Jay that PressThink gets the full political spectrum of comments. digby is the sharpest liberal blog, imho, though i don't agree with everything. another great place is The Young Turks. Cenk & Co. discuss issues, not endlessly nitpicking the press. Young Turks invite reporters (and pols) to discuss their stories. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 1:19 PM | Permalink Where to begin? To Graham Shevlin: No, we have not forgotten the "initial incident". We have been beaten over the head with your talking points for at least a week now (seems like years). Give it a rest---you've convinced everyone who will be convinced---you're just boring the rest of us. In the Aftermatters section here, Jay points out that Katie Couric pulls a "Howell" and of course, the "non-spinning" CJR Daily is on the case. All I can say is these are strange days, indeed, because today Katie, Matt and Arianna whipping-boy, Tim Russert (not e×actly right-wingers) countered Howard Dean by quoting statistics from the Center for Responsive Politics to prove that while Howard was "technically" correct, this really was a scandal involving both parties. My guess is that the liberal elite are scared witless by the Moveon.org/FDL crowd and are attempting to discredit them. Will FDLers start "informing" NBC with the frenzy that they "informed" Howell? Just askin'. But still, I'm wondering what the FDLers will do for an encore? There are bound to be more egregious errors by big media in the future. Have the FDLers already shot their wad? Who will take them seriously after this unhinged display, where there is a case to be made (by East Coast Liberal Elite Media, among others) that this really does touch both parties? To catrina: Please do not diss non-national press. My local paper was recently featured in E&P concerning a reporter who made 1500 FOIA requests, spent 6 months on a story and went back time and again to get information from players who refused to play. When that failed, he appealed to the IL AG to force compliance. No "unnamed sources" were harmed in his report either. Try to find that in either WaPo or NYTimes. To Lovelady: I should have anticipated your "they spin, we don't" reply. So please, provide the appropriate word in this sentence: Both CJR Daily and Newsbusters.org _____. My nominee is "provide diverse opinion". I'll admit "spin" is a loaded word. Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 27, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink [As Dan Glover wrote at Blogometer: "For the interested liberal bloggers, much of the focus has moved away from Howell toward the removed comments." Brady has been slammed because Brady is talking to you about his decision, and yet not on your side or inside your narrative. In my opinion, responding that way isn't wise, it isn't fair, it isn't effective, it isn't far-sighted, it certainly isn't progressive, but it is expressive and it is the online left. It's likely they'll come for me too, eventually. Or next week.] at the risk of instigating a flame war, I don't think this is accurate I personally think it is online liberals who have a greater degree of confidence in the American political system, as opposed to the online left, which includes me when I periodically post over at Joe Wezorek's American Leftist and, for example, defend Joel Stein about his published refusal to "Support the Troops" (and, note, that, in this case, where we actually had some significant responses on a highly contentious subject, everyone was actually pretty "civil") [You know, a lot of these conflicts come down to the fact that I am not a radical. I'm more interested than a radical would be in the "messy" practical problems of professionals who are learning how to: * establish their authority in general matters of first-wave fact-gathering; actually, I again think this is wrong this is a radical subject, as demonstrated, I think, by the fact that I, as someone who openly identifies with the left as opposed to liberalism, indirectly touched upon some similar themes in my immediate responses to the Post roundtable here earlier, as well as her I certainly engaged in more than my share of attacks upon the Post's credibility, some of them quite snarky, but it is essential that the issue be placed in a larger context, and the Internet, rather strangely, and rather consistently, seems to drive people in the opposite direction, into the "narcissism of small differences", as I have observed, and (confession) participated in myself, for many years with Brady, it is a challenging proposition, as I don't find him very personally credibile as a result pulling all those comments, and that horrible Hewitt appearance, but, he does serve the purpose of everyone who wants to see a more accountable media when he pushes for a more open, interactive, responsive Internet presence for the Post but, he only gets one bite at the apple if the Post pulls down comments like that again, he's done and the refusal of the old guard at the Post to deal with its errroneous coverage of the Ambramoff scandal is just going to fester until the next eruption of discontent, which will probably be just as legitimate as it was in this instance finally, can't resist a reference to an old Talking Heads song, which is often applicable to myself and others who post in places like here: "Say something once, why say it again." --David Byrne usually, by the time I remember it, it's too late
Posted by: Richard Estes at January 27, 2006 2:11 PM | Permalink So ami is the civil version of Paul ?! And Walter Duranty is ... let me guess ... the short-winded version of the loquacious Kilgore Trout ?? Whatever. Paul, darling, my deeply-felt apologies for calling you "dear" -- instead of something more manly, like, oh, I don't know, "ace," or "sport," or "stud," or "Big Fella." ( ... as in, "Easy, Big Fella .. .") Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 27, 2006 2:56 PM | Permalink Richard E., you left out the appropos parts of the Psycho Killer: I can't seem to face up to the facts I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire Don't touch me I'm a real live wire Psycho Killer Qu'est-ce que sais? fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far far better Run run run run run run run away Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 3:11 PM | Permalink The scene has shifted to Open Letter To Chris Matthews, if you're tracking the surge in direct action by the online left. Here's Dan Froomkin's brother Michael, a law professor, taking you inside one part of it: the advertiser pressure. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 4:31 PM | Permalink Ami" is "paul lukasiak" trying to play by your rules in your house....and both of us are sorry that you feel that represents some sort of "disgusting", "dishonorable" tactics. that must be a crowded house. who wears the pants? a comment below Prof. Froomkin's post. "Meanwhile, I'm thinking there were over 100,000 visits to the Open Letter site before I got there. I can't really be the first person to actually write to Intuit, can I?" Posted by: bush's jaw at January 27, 2006 4:47 PM | Permalink Glenn Reynolds says: SHADEGG FOR MAJORITY LEADER. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 6:00 PM | Permalink This week the fun part about being the guy who thinks about new media stuff at our newspaper was fielding all the e-mails staff members kept forwarding me about the Howell/Brady thang (typically offered in the spirit of "I-told-you-the-Internet-was-a-big-mistake"). It being a busy week, I didn't actually say anything in response, but sent each of my correspondents the links to these threads. Thank you, PressThink. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 27, 2006 6:43 PM | Permalink Dear Abigail, I am not going to shut up just because you think I am "boring the rest of us". If that is your idea of contributing to a discussion, then I suggest that you go try slapping other folks about someplace else. Posted by: Graham Shevlin at January 27, 2006 7:18 PM | Permalink ... but, he [Brady] only gets one bite at the apple.
Has anyone told Donnie Graham of this startling development ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 27, 2006 7:43 PM | Permalink Here's an example of how irate commenters can get a correction from a newspaper in a matter of hours. An article by The Toronto Star, which referred to Jimmy Carter as our "most beloved ex-president", was posted at the right-wing site Lucianne.com today at 2:13 PM . The protests to the Star by Lucianne commenters began immediately and by 6:32 PM, the Toronto Star had capitulated and posted a correction. The posts in bold print are the conversations between the Star and Lucianne. http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=257594 Posted by: jayhawker at January 27, 2006 9:10 PM | Permalink To Lovelady: I should have anticipated your "they spin, we don't" reply. So please, provide the appropriate word in this sentence: Both CJR Daily and Newsbusters.org _____. My nominee is "provide diverse opinion". I'll admit "spin" is a loaded word. First of all: Hi, Kilgore. Welcome back ! (That's quite a jump, from a fictional Kurt Vonnegut character to a fictional Freddy Cannon character. But I admire the transmorgriphication. Few are so versatile.) Second, let me help you with that fill-in-the-blank: Both CJR Daily and Newsbusters.org _____. My nominee would have to be "have a strong opinion about Brent Bozell." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 27, 2006 9:25 PM | Permalink The talented Ms. Hamsher: This ethics conference should be a real hoot: Peggy Noonan will talk about the secret communiques of Vatican II as revealed to her by Flipper, Fred Barnes' chin will be dusted for George Bush's ball prints and Tim will serve up $50,000 worth of pontification on his favorite theme -- "It's news if I say it is." She should be on the Pulitzer short list for the most original prose! Posted by: village idiot at January 27, 2006 9:26 PM | Permalink Graham Shevlin sez: "I suggest that you go try slapping other folks about someplace else." My deepest apologies to you Graham----I didn't realize you were co-host of PressThink with Jay. Please forgive me, I would never tell you to "shut up". Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 27, 2006 9:28 PM | Permalink the Toronto Star had capitulated and posted a correction. In my estimation is was a warranted capitulation. No offense, but I'm not sure this is appropriate for a "news" story. and hold your fire (JIC), would you approve of this if were applied to Reagan or Ford? I think leaving opinionated distinctions out of "news" stories serves us all. Posted by: topsecretk9 at January 27, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink The Toronto Star reporter was quite endearing in that exchange on Lucianne. What was that editor thinking when he added that in anyway? Do you think any of the complaints came from Clinton's office? :) Posted by: MayBee at January 27, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink Alex Jones called a group together at the National Press Club, bloggers and professional journalists, entitled "A Discussion of Blogging and News Values," first of many to be hosted by the Carnegie-Knight task force he's a part of. (See Pressthink, June '05 on what that is.) According to National Journal's Blogometer, "the bloggers in attendance implored the press to 'do your job' while the establishment journalists argued that their mistakes did not warrant the harsh response." As you might expect from a room full of bloggers and MSM types, things got heated and voices were raised. But what we didn't expect was a surprise guest -- Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell. ... Read the rest. She asks them if she should have a blog. In a second post, Dan Glover at Blogometer compares comment policies across political blogs left and right. I thought this part was incisive: Liberal blog readers expect that a blogger make space available on their site to facilitate discussion, whereas conservatives argue that anyone can start a blog and it's not the responsibility of the blogger to give others a soapbox. It's their soapbox, of course. The difference here is one of conservatives touting the virtue of ownership and individual initiative vs. liberals expressing a desire for community. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 11:37 PM | Permalink Read the rest. She asks them if she should have a blog. sure. if she wants a blog, she should just go for it. she just shouldn't be the Post's ombudsman. BANNED POSTER-- Site Administrator. Just trying different options out. We'll use them or not use them as we see fit. The difference here is one of conservatives touting the virtue of ownership and individual initiative vs. liberals expressing a desire for community. I'm not sure that is altogether true. There are a number of more than left of center blogs that don't provide a comment feature (Eric Alterman, James Wolcott) and I don't see a big outrage about this. Additionally, this ignores the community blogs on the left that routinely delete comments even if they don't politely toe the host's line. I know that Huffington Posts allows comments, but sift through by hand and whose to say WHAT their policy on posting is, some make it some don't. Also, I am aware of more than a few conservative blogs (while feisty) still afford the so-called trolls or rousers space (without deletion). I think many are under-estimating the traffic and or notoriety factor. I think it less likely to expect a well know or massive traffic blog to host comments or crab because they don't. I'm sure there would be just as much senseless garbage left on Wolcott site as Instapundit. And hey, it's a free country...if people want to delete comments because they simply don't agree with them -- their blog, their right. And if people don't want to host them same applies. Posted by: topsecretk9 at January 28, 2006 12:33 AM | Permalink post.blog has a new entry up, signed somewhat mysteriously: "-- Post Editors." It begins: Posted at 11:33 AM ET, 01/26/2006 Abramoff Coverage by The Post You have to e-mail comments in. Rest. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 12:41 AM | Permalink [The scene has shifted to Open Letter To Chris Matthews, if you're tracking the surge in direct action by the online left. Here's Dan Froomkin's brother Michael, a law professor, taking you inside one part of it: the advertiser pressure. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 27, 2006 04:31 PM | Permalink] AAARGH! This has nothing to do with the "online left", and everything to do with liberals! Have you, perchance, heard of indymedia, infoshop and numerous anti-globalization, anti-war sites, in which the travails of Chris Matthews would, at best, be considered trivial? Or, to give one example, Eli Stephens' ascerbic, Left i on the News? A lot of the people signing the Matthews letter would find his blog incomprehensible. Indeed, to the extent that the left beyond liberalism flourishes at all, it flourishes online Perhaps, this is being narcissistic, but, isn't language supposed to mean something in journalism? Posted by: Richard Estes at January 28, 2006 1:06 AM | Permalink Rather than another round of banning and phony identity construction, we are currently trying other solutions and this was recommended. "ami" is a banned poster who insists that his (her) rights overrride our decisions. We thought you'd like to know that. gosh, I don't recall insisting any such thing. Does anyone else? ....oh, and does anyone else remember ami doing anything wrong? BANNED POSTER-- Site Administrator. Just trying different options out. We'll use them or not use them as we see fit. I'm not sure your choice of language is any more precise, Richared Estes. Posted by: MayBee at January 28, 2006 1:28 AM | Permalink Jay, you quote Dan Glover with, presumably, agreement. But you and he both seem to miss the point of his following paragraph: Among the highest-traffic liberal blogs, it's hard to find someone who doesn't have comments: the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and Crooks and Liars do, Huffington Post does and Tapped just added them. Talking Points Memo does not, although its sister site TPMCafe does. Most of the A-list conservative blogs do not -- Instapundit, Power Line and Michelle Malkin do not, but then Captain's Quarters, RedState and PoliPundit all do. They all have active boards does, albeit not at the level of Eschaton or Little Green Footballs, 2 of the biggest on the left and right, respectively. Move down into the mid-tier and lower- trafficked blogs on both sides of the political divide, and nearly everyone has comments -- comments are a scarcer commodity, and certainly less of a hassle. That cracks me up. Gosh. Why on earth would high traffic conservative blogs not allow comments, when high traffic liberal blogs do? I know! Let's invent a philosophical difference that explains it. And then he undercuts his observation without apparently even realizing it--the supposed philosophical difference evaporates further down the ranking. New media types always want philosophical, personality-driven explanations and determinedly ignore the incentives that point to a much simpler cause. The top conservatives blogs generate traffic through readers. The top liberal blogs generate traffic through comments. That's the only reason liberal bloggers in the top ranks "allow" comments. Without the comments, they'd have a lot less traffic to report. Daily Kos is his comments--his site is much more a forum or discussion board than blog. The rest of the top liberal bloggers are relying on their comment traffic to keep their numbers up in the top echelon. Likewise, Little Green Footballs is not subscribing to the "open" community driven liberal view--he, like the liberal bloggers, just wants the traffic. Move further down the blogosphere and both right and left bloggers want traffic, so they allow comments. If a liberal blogger ever gets sufficient traffic to end the hassle of comments, he or she will do so. In fact, if you consider Sullivan mildly left of center, it's already happened. You must know that. It's hardly rocket science. So why are so many people determined to find some overarching philosophy behind it? "Jay, you quote Dan Glover with, presumably, agreement." Totally unreliable assumption. I thought it was worth reading-- that's it. One of the reasons was the possibility of its triggering a response like yours. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 1:51 AM | Permalink How about changing the color of Ami's typeface to scarlet? :) Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 28, 2006 3:29 AM | Permalink The Washington Post's blog entry is kind of interesting in light of the new study commissioned by the American Prospect in view of Abramoff directing his clients to give to Democrats. Jay do you think when the Washington Post chooses to make announcements like that or for that matter issue corrections they are or should be reprinted in their paper edition? I'm kind of curious if they will reprint a statment like their blog entry in the paper itself or is the online version statement permenant or "official" enough. I always feel (and this may be an anachronism) that while online statements of correction or annoucments are good, if the Wash Post wants to make something "official-official" they also put it in their fish-wrap edition. So in my mind (for example) an online correction is good, I also like seeing them actually PRINT the correction outside of their blog. One reason for that I believe that for Lexis-Nexis to see a correction it has to be printed in the paper, not in the blog. Posted by: catrina at January 28, 2006 9:36 AM | Permalink Posted at 11:33 AM ET, 01/26/2006 Abramoff Coverage by The Post I find it difficult to comprehend why they have decided to correct their narrative of the story in a somewhat sly manner without being upfront about it and issuing a proper retraction / correction. Contrary to the speculation of some (and the implication of Ms. Howell's 'stay tuned' phraseology), the Post is now saying that they do not even have any confidentially-sourced information that Democrats are involved in the investigation which clearly undermines Ms. Howell's claims. The Posts behavior is sort of like what one would expect from Wall Street; furious denials and PR battles followed by a settlement agreeing to pay a big fine without admitting any guilt. No wonder they are attracting language that seems to be more suited to a self-serving stock broker. Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 10:17 AM | Permalink B.J.: Yes. Opinions expressed without a good deal of personal effort are no opinions, eh? The value of an opinion is directly proportional to the cost incurred by the opiner in advancing it; got it! Sounds like an argument that Jeb Bush could use :-); Let us make sure that all the riff-raff that stuff ballot boxes on voting day with their cheap opinions think twice before they do it. Let us make it as difficult as possible to come in and vote; it goes a long way in enhancing the value of the ballot! Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 10:50 AM | Permalink Jay: just out of curiosity, who exactly is "the online left?" I'm not asking for a comprehensive list or anything, but I'd be interested in knowing what kind of entity you're thinking of when you use it... MayBee (not out of idle curiousity but genuine interest): What do your liberal friends give a fig about, and what is it that makes them liberal for the purposes of that comment? i.e. are you talking about friends who explicitly identify themselves as liberals but are not otherwise vocal about their political views, or friends whom you have identified as liberal based on views that they expressed? Posted by: radish at January 28, 2006 11:05 AM | Permalink BANNED POSTER-- Site Administrator. Just trying different options out. We'll use them or not use them as we see fit. (don't you think it far more effective at the top of the comment, Jay?) ...We'll also be using arbitrary deletions, as well as deletions of posts that respond to banned posters. -- Site Administrator. Posted by: hester prynne aka ami at January 28, 2006 11:57 AM | Permalink vi: huh? that is Seth's opinion which i thought was interesting. i have no opinion on the activism, go for it. i think Seth's point is that while there were 100,000 visitor to Open Letter, Prof. Froomkin might have been the only one to write Intuit. (I think calls were made.) and if a marketing VP at Intuit wasn't aware of Open Letter or the issue, then what is the point of activism if your intended audience is not getting the message? jeb bush, riffraff stuffing the ballot boxes? wtf? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 12:59 PM | Permalink Haven't heard from Jason and Richard in a bit, and I had been wondering what is up? This is what is up, and I am sure they are busy at LGF or someplace making a case for 'embedding troops in newsrooms':-):
Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 1:01 PM | Permalink jeb bush, riffraff stuffing the ballot boxes? wtf? B. J.: I could take that up and you (and the others who subscribe to the 'WaPo was abused by hate speech' meme) would have a great example of how and why language deteriorates. But on the other hand, I have taken anger management classes and hence do not have the need to be profane to make my point.;-) Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 1:10 PM | Permalink Catrina, That WaPo notice isn't a correction. It's an attempt to answer questions from the online left (should be called Dems or partisans not liberal because liberal because that means open-minded) without having to run anything that they haven't finished investigating yet. Just because no Dems are under investigation right now (which isn't a news flash) doesn't mean that some aren't implicated in some way (and they have been...read the linked articles). That American Prospect survey isn't worth the bandwidth that it consumes. In some cases...it's comparing 14 year periods to 12 month spans. But it proves what some want it to prove so by all means partisan bloggers link to it and continue to destroy your credibility. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 28, 2006 1:24 PM | Permalink Jay, "Totally unreliable assumption. I thought it was worth reading-- that's it. One of the reasons was the possibility of its triggering a response like yours." Well, then, Pavlov (woof!), do you acknowledge that there's a link between the decision to allow comments and the desire for traffic? Available evidence suggests that bloggers allow comments to increase traffic stats (misleadingly, I might add). While some bloggers allow comments out of a sincere desire to engage in a conversation with no regard for traffic, they all have readerships that are either highly specialized and well-behaved or small enough that management is minimal. Both you and Jeff make a direct connection between commenters and the larger audience. (Jeff: "they should take advantage of -- that is, enable and share -- the wisdom of their crowds". You: " I think we should start debating not the user's right to speak through comments, but the journalist's right to hear, and discern what users of their work are saying.") As I said last time, the research on lurker to commenter ratio consistently demonstrates an enormous gap, usually 10:1 or better. There's been a fair amount of research demonstrating that commenters, like those who write letters to the editors, are very different from the larger community of readers. Start with the premise that the decision to allow comments is a function of management time vs. desire for traffic. Add in the strong evidence supporting the contention that commenters are not a significant or representative slice of the readership. If (a big if, I know) you start from these premises, would it alter your view on the definitive value of allowing commenters? Comments are one method of generating and encouraging debate in the greater online community. They aren't necessarily the best way, and they certainly aren't the only way. They are also extremely expensive, and it's well worth wondering if any high traffic site should enable comments and bear the resulting costs when their larger readership has no interest in the entire activity. bj - actually a number of people are writing and calling Verizon, Toyota and Intuit about Matthews. Unlike online comments, we can't count those but a number of people have posted their letters in comments at FDL and a few have reported having conversations or getting responses from the people they contacted. We also know that the voice mailboxes of Democratic Senators are all full and many emailboxes (I don't know how many fax machines have overheated tough) thanks to a concerted online push to call for a filibuster. While a part of me says "yep, online activism is cheap" we also know that marches and similar "harder" demonstrations of political opposition have been largely uncovered by the press while events like the Howell swarm have gotten the media's attention. No matter which side you are on, I think there's a significant question of how people can effectively exert pressure on behalf of their positions - at the moment we see some real impact from organized online efforts and I think it will be very interesting to see how this evolves. Personally, I've found in community organizing that you often simply need to find a way to get a few people to take a chance and speak up - once people see that it can be done, you suddenly find a whole lot of people with something to say who refuse to remain silent. Posted by: siun at January 28, 2006 1:44 PM | Permalink you (and the others who subscribe to the 'WaPo was abused by hate speech' meme) would have a great example of how and why language deteriorates. i'm just pointing out that you incorrectly read into my earlier post. just because i link to something or post something, that doesn't necessarily mean endorsement. (just become one appears on the Hugh Hewitt show that doesn't mean on endorses Hewitt.) i'll clearly say when i endorse something like digby or the Young Turks. filibuster show is still going on folks -- almost 48 hours! i don't subscribe to anything. i accept the Post's decision to shut down the comments because the Paper says it didn't have the resources to monitor and remove how ever few (1, 10, 100 or 1000) *offending* comments by the Post's standard. (i have no additional insight other what i've read here and elsewhere.) you are free to see the Post's action as censorship, PR, carrying W's water or whatever. anger management? that's telling. sorry you were offended by wtf? a thousand apologies. how about wth (hell). or from Blazing Saddles, "What in the Wide World of Sports is going on? I hired you boys to build a railroad, not dance around like a bunch of Kansas City f____ ." uh oh another derogatory term. for someone who is so enthralled with Hamsher's prose, you are offended by wtf. wtf and Columbo offend. now that's comedy. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 1:53 PM | Permalink wth is better; wtf did not offend, but invites a response equally personal and impatient, which would make you respond with something even more direct and profane, and there you have it; before long it will enter the realm of insults and hate speech. So, I try to stay away from that. anger management? that's telling.I am glad it registered; I was trying to tell, indeed;-) I am certainly enthralled by Jane's colorful language; it is very entertaining, but I certainly would not want to be the butt of it! Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 2:15 PM | Permalink vi, fair enough. wtf is short hand for "huh" with implied profanity. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 2:21 PM | Permalink we also know that marches and similar "harder" demonstrations of political opposition have been largely uncovered by the press while events like the Howell swarm have gotten the media's attention. siun, is the point to get media attention or to get through at the directed audience, those companies/advertisers you mentioned. this is what i see as the flaw with the Left's press attacks. The Right understands the media, how to manipulate it. It feeds the media the Clinton scandals and nuggets to further investigate. where all the Left seems to do is bitch and bitch about accuracy, the narticism of small differences. the point is to get Howell to correct the record, which she has. not to get a correction on the Jan. 15 column. you can't be serious that people will see that as a reference point to the Abramoff scandal. in another week, no one will remember the Jan. 15 column. feed the beast! the media just a method to communicate. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 2:40 PM | Permalink go to google, washingtonpost.com, technorati and search for "Abramoff." the Jan. 15 Howell column is no where near the top if it appears at all. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 2:51 PM | Permalink Jay, just out of curiosity, who exactly is "the online left?" It's my own shorthand, not a analytical term, and it simply means what you see happening, talked about, and getting big play at the major blogs and online sites: Daily Kos, Atrios, firedoglake, Crooks & Liars, AmeriBlog, Think Progress, Huffington Post, My DD, The Next Hurrah, Talking Points Memo being some of them. Cal: No Pavlovian intent. Much simpler: at PressThink, a link is not an endorsement. Period. A link means: "check this out, you may find it interesting." Or it means: "if you're following this as closely as I am, then go here." Or: "For a rounder view, try..." I don't know where you are getting your paraphrase of what I think about the comments issue, but it isn't right. Since I don't side with the Hatfields I must agree with the McCoys is, in general, a bad rule of thumb. In fact, I haven't said anything about the the "definitive value" of allowing comments. (I am interested in the potential use of them, however.) I haven't criticized the sites that don't have comments. Nor have I come up with any theories for why the top left sites have comments and most of the top rights don't. As most could tell who read the transcript, I was a little skeptical of Glenn's claim that the reason he doesn't have comments is that the media will atttribute to him what some nutty poster says in the comments. However, I don't see how Glenn could have comments without someone to moderate the action, and that costs money. And as you said, he doesn't need them to have a powerful and influential blog. I see the comment feature largely as you do, "one method of generating and encouraging debate in the greater online community. They aren't necessarily the best way, and they certainly aren't the only way." It may well be true that lots of bloggers like having comments because they increase traffic. However, I don't see how the traffic numbers generated by users who are frequenting threads would translate into the linking patterns that put Kos, Huff, Crooks, Atrios, etc in the Technorati Top 100. Finally, I'm not sure why comments skeptics may such a big deal out of the one-in-ten ratios. Who ever claimed that commenters were some stastically valid cross-section of the larger lurking readership? I haven't, and I wouldn't. The relevant comparison is not what the comments say vs. what the total user base would say if asked; rather, it's what I suggested in the Post chat. Prior to the Net, five letters and two phone calls was a "big" response to a work of journalism. There's always the chance that journalists who get more responses will become more responsive. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 2:58 PM | Permalink Marches and similar "harder" demonstrations have been covered more widely in the mainstream press than they have on the A list blogs that are supposed to be liberal. A few of the top ones have even criticized the rallies that attracted millions of people worldwide. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 28, 2006 3:00 PM | Permalink Well, kiddies, we may soon see if the left (liberal, progressive, Democrat, etc.) blogs really have the firepower they claim. Many of the left, liberal, progressive, moonbat,etc. blogs are calling for Democrats to filibuster Alito. Even the clueless NYTimes called for the Dems to commit hari-kari, then mocked John Kerry when he followed their advice. "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan said she would run against Feinstein if she didn't endorse filibuster, and Feinstein capitulated. (Where does Cindy get her money to attend conferences in Venezuela?). The Angry Left blogs will have won if Alito is successfully filibustered and denied a seat on the Supreme Court. Pay attention! This will be the benchmark and indicator of your power, Angry Left. Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 28, 2006 3:23 PM | Permalink Abigail, where are you getting your information about the filibuster? my personal (college) friends on the Right say the filibuster is a non-event, never will happen, Alito will be confirmed. Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 3:32 PM | Permalink .... Even the clueless NYTimes called for the Dems to commit hari-kari .... On the contrary, it is a chance to do CPR and inject some life into a moribund opposition, but I understand where you are coming from! Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 3:50 PM | Permalink Matt Stoller gets the Jack Shafer treatment, which I have experienced before. Stoller (20's, super-smart, part of the online left, writes at MyDD, worked for Corzine's campaign) was there at the National Press Club confab where Howell appeared. So was Shafer, who can be hilarious sometimes with his "everything you know is wrong" style, the sensibility perfected by Slate and The New Republic. Deborah Howell got there a bit late, but when she arrived, we really had no choice but to circle to the recent 'incident'. She talked about 'the incident', and the hate speech, and how awful it all was. She said a lot, but the line that was fascinating was when she said something to the effect of "I got all these attacks calling me a right-winger. My friends would howl at that notion." She took great umbrage at the flack she got for her column on Bob Woodward, which she called hard-hitting. Jack Shafer followed up with his description of the whole thing as an 'online riot', and analogized it to the race riots in the 1960s. It really sounded like the quasi-racist fraidy-cat suburban upbringing, personified. In fact, throughout the discussion, Shafer kept acting abrasively, challenging various bloggers to delete the offensive comments he would put up on their blog that very night. "Shafer acted just like a clever troll. It was like he wanted to be flamed, and was upset that no one was picking a fight with him." That's the Shafer I know. I bet he wanted to put those "cyber ruffians" (Josh Marshall's term) squarely in their place. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 4:07 PM | Permalink B-jaw, get a clue! My homey vi gives a view into the Angry Left mindset with this: "it is a chance to inject some life into a moribund opposition..." Haven't you heard about John Kerry phoning from Davos to urge support of a filibuster? What about the SuperStar Hillary who is also supporting a filibuster? Of course it's a doomed enterprise, but so what? What counts is appeasement and pandering to the Angry Left, who after all, supply the fundraising and the energy to the Democratic Party. Cross Kos and Cindy Sheehan at your peril! We'll soon see who has the power in the Democratic Party. Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 28, 2006 4:27 PM | Permalink Tish Grier had an interesting experience with the comment feature after she ripped into Jane Hamsher's qualifications, and got linked to by Glenn Reynolds, bringing on the Insta-lanche effect. See the reflections in her two posts here and here. Tish, much like the post.blog, changed her policy to "e-mail your comment in." Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 4:34 PM | Permalink Abigail, my point is where you are getting the info about Kerry and Davos? the MSM, blogs, which blog? The Right is deriding Kerry for calling from a *ski chalet.* Does it matter where you physically are when you call for a filibuster? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 4:37 PM | Permalink Way back in '03 when the Democrat hopefuls were prancing around in my backyard, I knew the fight between the extreme left and the centrist Democrats would be the fight to watch, and not Democrat Candidate X vs. GWB. All this is finally coming to a head. Who will win? The Koskids or the Clinton Centrists? Ooooh, I can't wait! Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 28, 2006 4:41 PM | Permalink Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center. "The center," of course, is where the journalist's wisdom lies. But sometimes the journalist's wisdom lies. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 4:48 PM | Permalink OK, b-jaw, you ask if it matters where John Kerry gives his "call to action". For some, the fact that Kerry was calling from Davos doesn't matter, for others it proves he is an out-of-touch elite. But what really matters is if Kerry is able to deny Alito a seat on the Supreme Court, no? Everything else is just salad dressing. Posted by: abigail beecher at January 28, 2006 4:52 PM | Permalink Jay, I know that just because you link to something, that is not an endorsement, but the VandeHei piece was one of the lamest "on the other hand" articles I have read today. Yeah baby, yeah! Bring on the View From Nowhere or Noplace or NoAccount or We'rethe PressAndYouAin'tWhatever. Posted by: abigail beecher at January 28, 2006 5:05 PM | Permalink
Wow; 'proves', no less! Does this 'others' include you, Abigail?;-) Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 5:09 PM | Permalink No, no vi, I would never be the "other". Posted by: abigail beecher at January 28, 2006 5:23 PM | Permalink But what really matters is if Kerry is able to deny Alito a seat on the Supreme Court, no? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 5:41 PM | Permalink I agree, Screecher, that the Post article is lame. (Blogs Attack!.) But it's lame in a way that's typical, and at times revealing. For example this: "fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience," his description of the conflict, is very close to "fiery bloggers and their inter-connected users vs. professional journalists trying to appeal to an atomized but broader audience." VandeHei identifies strongly with the professional journalist, and with the professional politician, both of whom look upon the Net hordes with a mixture of awe, fear, opportunism, and disgust. However, in his mind this is rubbish, and he's simply describing a familar conflict in politics, as old as the sun, without taking sides. In the minds of the cyber-ruffians that's rubbish, and without any better description of how VandeHei's identifications frame his account they fall back on personal facts: his wife used to work for Tom Delay. Bingo-- they understand him. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 5:55 PM | Permalink What counts is appeasement and pandering to the Angry Left, .... Depending on the poll you look at 30 to 40% of the population doesn't want Alito on the Supreme Court. I wish we had an 'Angry Left' that large.:-) On the other hand, it is probably not an entirely impolitical thing in letting Alito be confirmed. People voted (apparently) for Bush and they got what they wanted. They can't get rid of him now despite a close to 2/3rd disapproval with his performance. It will be the same with Alito; he might be the swing vote that helps rewrite the law on abortion,. And I am looking forward to it because it will be very interesting to watch the citizenry's reaction when the long arm of the government intrusively reaches where it has never been before. It will be sad, but such is comeuppence. Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 5:58 PM | Permalink second para of my above post: please read .... 'to let Alito be confirmed', instead of 'in letting Alito be confirmed'. Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink Hee!Hee! This is rich. VandeHei quotes Democrat lobbyist and Kerry shill, Steve Elmendorf as saying "the trick will be to harness their (bloggers) energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left." Well, the "activist left" known as Kos noticed this and took umbrage: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/28/10530/4735 Posted by: abigail beecher at January 28, 2006 7:32 PM | Permalink MayBee (not out of idle curiousity but genuine interest): What do your liberal friends give a fig about, and what is it that makes them liberal for the purposes of that comment? ---radish Self-identification as lifelong liberals and lifelong Democrats is what makes me describe them as liberals. Posted by: maybee at January 28, 2006 7:52 PM | Permalink A touch of humor for some (Instapundit linked to this) ... Simple rules for making a fool of yourself on the Internet His regular site for the daily bleat and other stuff Posted by: Kristen at January 28, 2006 8:00 PM | Permalink Oh, radish- I think it is interesting you asked me in the context you did. It is almost as if you doubt the liberalness of my friends/family members BECAUSE they are disinterested in the Hardball/Moore kerfluffle. Is that true? Posted by: MayBee at January 28, 2006 8:39 PM | Permalink Well, the "activist left" known as Kos noticed this and took umbrage: Kos (and most of the netroots) are concerned with the way that corporate media types like Vandehei charaterize people like Elmendorf as "centrist democrats", when the mainstream of the Democratic party has far more in common with the netroots than it does with "professional" political strategists like this Elmendorf guy. (I mean, look at his resume -- in 2004, everything this guy touched turned to mud... starts out with Gephardt, then goes to Kerry, where he is placed in charge of "battleground states" or some such (and we saw how well that worked out.) Having helped engineer Kerry's grasping of defeat from the jaws of victory, what does this guy do? Goes into business with Jake Oliver --- one of the GOP's prime money guys.) Vandehei doesn't bother interviewing any actual bloggers... just Democratic Party establishment types who have no connection with the people who actually make up the Democratic Party. So of course, the "other side" of Vandehei's headline is going to complain.... R.T.T., channeling ami, paul lukasiak. VandeHei quoted James Boyce at HuffPo. But Boyce worked for Kerry Campaign so that must disqualify him as a blogger. Posted by: hester prynne at January 28, 2006 8:59 PM | Permalink [I'm not sure your choice of language is any more precise, Richared Estes. Posted by: MayBee at January 28, 2006 01:28 AM | Permalink] Well, this is certainly true. Perhaps, the term "online left" is about as meaningful as the term, "weapons of mass destruction", i.e. either meaningless or subjective, in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not familiar with all of the blogs that Jay mentioned, but I doubt, if the ones that I do know are any indication, that any of them really are "left", although DailyKos has a number of people who post there who have left leanings. For me, "left" as understood globally, is defined by two primary characteristics, anti-imperialism and anti-neoliberalism. Accordingly, the online universe cited by Jay satisfies neither of these criteria. By contrast, Jay seems to arrive at his definition through a vague application of liberal activist political sentiments and the volume of traffic associated with the sites. His definition also seems to subconsciously integrate the right wing's attempt to characterize liberalism as "left" , which they do to try to delegitimize it, while I object before I consider an incorrect reading of social history. Anyway, I think that I will stop trying to substitute for William Safire. The point, I think, has been made. As for village idiot, as to my reduced number of posts, they are slowly declining, and there are a couple of reasons (although I do stop by and post daily, still): (1) I think that Post story, the Schmidt/Howell/Brady saga is on its last legs, until the next inevitable explosion; and (2) I have been busy posting as a co-blogger over at American Leftist, most recently about Katrina/New Orleans and The Power of Nightmares finally, for those who think that Jay is too soft on the Post, read his dissection of Jim Vander Hei posted above [Haven't heard from Jason and Richard in a bit, and I had been wondering what is up? This is what is up, and I am sure they are busy at LGF or someplace making a case for 'embedding troops in newsrooms':-): L.A. Times writer defends incendiary Iraq column
Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 01:01 PM | Permalink Posted by: Richard Estes at January 28, 2006 9:11 PM | Permalink Many on the Left describe themselves as "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of social progress. Posted by: left? at January 28, 2006 9:24 PM | Permalink I recall people mentioning that Jay prefers for us to disclose our identities and I have often wondered why that is. Like the adage goes, it is what we are when nobody is watching that defines our true character, and for that exact reason, I always thought anonymity trumps real identity because anonymity causes the comments to be more real (by several orders of magnitude) than they would be if one had to disclose one's public (but not necessarily true) identity. Of-course, if Jay wanted to really know the true identity, he could easily narrow it down to the IP address level, and maybe even further if he hires a good CS grad student .... Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 9:27 PM | Permalink Jay, You will always be one of my favorite people and a great blogger in your own inimitable way! T. Posted by: Tish Grier at January 28, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink Richard E., Sorry, I should have been clearer; I meant to address Richard Aubrey, who seemed to be a great supporter of the troops. While I do not question your patriotism on account of your seemingly progressive views (like the wingnuts might), I would certainly not presume an automatic love for all things military either. Posted by: village idiot at January 28, 2006 9:40 PM | Permalink wait, village idiot = Richard Estes? Abby Screecher had been Kilgore Trout, and Seymour Glass? ami=paul lukasiak=R.T.T. jay, what is PressThink doing to these peeps for them to mutate? Posted by: bush's jaw at January 28, 2006 9:43 PM | Permalink Dear Richard: you may have any definition of "left" you wish for. I would not dream of contesting a word of it. When anyone, in any context, tells me what the real left--the left properly defined--is saying, I always and immediately agree with them. The more intense their conviction, the more profoundly I am there in agreement. Experience says this is the wisest course, and in New York City the safest. Of course, to me, the real left is... is itself an argument within politics. You can be on one side, I can be on another, and the world still works. Re-labeling the political universe is a creative act, something I'm always up for. In the case that set you off, someone asked me what I meant by the online left; and so I told them: these sites. Go look! Judge for yourself. Don't agree? Bravo, who's your online left? So instead of staggering around in disbelief that the author of the blog you're at doesn't share your argument about where and what the real left is, why not shut up your histrionics and provide your ten links, Richard, your real left must have web sites, right? Just to be crystal clear: I agree that you know what the left is. I don't. But if you show it to me--in ten links--I might recognize there is sense in your description. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 28, 2006 9:58 PM | Permalink Many on the Left describe themselves as "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of social progress. Umm, no, I think the term actually arose when Teddy Roosevelt organized the Progessive Party and finished ahead of incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft in 1912. Did you miss that day in 7th-grade civics class, "left?" ? History -- it's so damned inconvenient. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 28, 2006 10:17 PM | Permalink Take it down, Steve. I was just quoting one of many lines of that Wikipedia link. Did mean to imply that one sentence was the definition. Posted by: left? at January 28, 2006 10:22 PM | Permalink didn't mean to imply Posted by: left? at January 28, 2006 10:22 PM | Permalink "left ?" : Meantime, try to find a better moniker. Even "Abigal Trout" or "Kilgore Beecher" would help us find our way better than "left?" Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 28, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink it's a throwaway moniker to link to Wikipedia page on Left-Wing politics. that sentence seems to bug you though. Posted by: left? at January 28, 2006 11:05 PM | Permalink Why did the Washington Post allow Jim VandeHei to write a story about the influence of bloggers when up until Howell stepped in (and back before woodward came out) he was public enemy #1 at the Post to many liberal bloggers for his Plame reporting? Why doesnt VandeHei write "First, liberal Web logs went after" me anywhere in the article? Why doesn't VandeHei include any quotes from any bloggers that he didn't read online? Why doesn't VandeHei name any other blog other than Huffington Post? While I don't think it's much of an attack piece...it seems to me that there should have been more thought behind how it would be perceived. It smells. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 29, 2006 1:43 AM | Permalink Abigail uses the "Kerry at ski chalet" gambit which provides a perfect example of the rightwing talking points which somehow gain traction in MSM reports. Kerry was at Davos for the meeting of the World Economic Forum - not a luxury ski trip though he may havve fit in a little skiing but also not exactly a wacky location for a former presidential candidate and US Senator to be. Yet the republican pr machine is so agile that his location is almost immediately turned into a slam and gets repeated ad infinitum. This sort of verbal attack has become a standard form of political discourse and is accepted - but a critique of the Post's lack of accuracy and demand for correction is a scandal - to some of us, this is pretty kafka-esque. The online push for filibuster is pretty amazing, whatever the outcome - Abigail, it may not work and we're very aware of it but reports are coming in that the democratic caucus is humming with news of flooded fax machines, emailboxes, and voice mail. At the same time, many of the usual suspects have given up already on Alito and are ignoring the move by other blogs to join in the push. As a participant on FDL, I'd like to say that not all of us see this as part of the left (my sense of "the left" probably is much closer to Richard Estes and I find infoshop and indymedia much more useful than the ego games of kos). I think this "movement" has more of a populist feel - and is more driven by everyday folks who are just plain fed up. More common sense than dialectic, more kitchen table than political cell. I must say that reading here is like being one of the subjects of some sociologist's thesis research - interesting how much of the essence gets lost on the dissection table. Posted by: siun at January 29, 2006 2:16 AM | Permalink "I haven't, and I wouldn't. The relevant comparison is not what the comments say vs. what the total user base would say if asked; rather, it's what I suggested in the Post chat. " Your comment: "the journalist's right to hear, and discern what users of their work are saying." I understood "users of their work" to be the entire readership, not just those who bother to write back. Sorry if I misunderstood. However, it's not a relevant comparison. In the old days, people wrote letters to the editor on their own dime and the choice to publish was entirely up to the newspaper. In a comments section, the "letters" are written on the publication's dime. So it's extremely relevant to decide whether this additional cost is incurred on behalf of a large proportion of its readers, or to represent views that reflect those of the larger readership. Suppose as a result of this hooha, Brady decides not to expand its blog section due to the increased costs of monitoring the comments section. Instead of adding 12 new blogs, he decides to add a staffer to monitor blog comments. Is he serving his wider reader community, or the small percentage who want to write on his site? The wider reader community might trade the opportunity to read comments for the opportunity to read Post writer blogs. Is it then relevant to "compare" the preferences of the 1 to the 10? "Who ever claimed that commenters were some stastically valid cross-section of the larger lurking readership?"--Pretty much everyone in the debate, it seems to me. "There's always the chance that journalists who get more responses will become more responsive." Do we want journalists to be "more responsive"? Should they commit journalism after carefully listening to the readers to decide what they should say? That would be worrisome enough if the reader response were an accurate sample of the community. I know you aren't in favor of journalism by vote, so why suggest that more responses should, ideally, lead to more responsiveness? Glenn Reynolds identified the other problem with becoming more responsive: " I think that the real danger to bloggers comes from the commenters with whom they agree." Or, for that matter, be deluged with angry emails when the majority of his readership isn't bothered at all. On your Technorati observation: Of course. Influence and traffic are entirely different. Many top traffic blogs have no influence, and vice versa. But ads pay on traffic, for the most part. Besides, if you have more traffic, you're higher on the traffic rankings, and get more attention--which may lead to more influence. Pretty fiesty, don't you think, for somebody who kept the story under wraps for over a year? January 29, 2006 Better late than never, I guess.:-( Posted by: village idiot at January 29, 2006 10:25 AM | Permalink wait, village idiot = Richard Estes? but Richard Estes's village idiot 9:11 p.m. post was from neither Richard Estes nor village idiot? Certainly not; Jay can have that established pretty easily, by looking at the IP packet header info.;-) Posted by: village idiot at January 29, 2006 10:59 AM | Permalink I was reminded of a previous thread (.... I am a citizen of the world) when I read this in today's Post: "For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world." The Bush administration blocked Kyoto under the spurious claim that the science of global warming was not established, and the press played along for the most part by faithfully reporting the talking points in article after article. They thought they were doing their duty as long as they slipped in the obligatory one-sentence counterpoint unobtrusively in a small para at the end. In the end, this may turn out to be a costly example where, simply saying 'we report, you decide' not only did not work but was irresponsible. By shunning the judgements that needed to be made to be able to best serve the public's interest, the fourth estate failed the world. Maybe nationalism has something to do with it, or maybe the anti-science, anti-intellectual rhetoric of the right has a chilling effect, but whatever the reason, one can only hope that we still have enough time to come out of this unscathed. The press now seems to be on the case, somewhat belatedly, but firmly. Posted by: village idiot at January 29, 2006 11:45 AM | Permalink Ron B. I noticed the same thing about the VandeHei piece--that he turns to a "blog" that is essentially a rich chick's media outlet to paint the entire left blogosphere. What, then, was the point of the piece? A plug for HufPo and Kos? It stinks more than the Fulton Fish Market on a hot summer afternoon. Posted by: Tish Grier at January 29, 2006 12:46 PM | Permalink Would've been nice if WaPo looked at other blogs and adequately backed up their claim about the left. but I think WaPo likes big media as blogs not blogs themselves. Posted by: Tish Grier at January 29, 2006 1:06 PM | Permalink Betsy Newmark has an entry today about the literal rewriting of history possible via Wikipedia that House members have been doing. I like her "caveat lector." Posted by: Kristen at January 29, 2006 3:39 PM | Permalink Tish, Maybe it goes without saying, but Arianna Huffington has cenrtainly accomplished plenty over the years. Her celebrity-laden site may rankle some hard-working bloggers, but she deserves more than to be dismissed as a "rich chick" with a vanity website. Ron Posted by: Ron Martinez at January 29, 2006 4:52 PM | Permalink Cal: "Who ever claimed that commenters were some stastically valid cross-section of the larger lurking readership?"--Pretty much everyone in the debate, it seems to me. Uh, well, okay, so could you name one? Have a quote from someone who is claiming that comments are a "stastically valid cross-section of the larger lurking readership?" I guess your overall point is: "comments are meaningless, a big bother, and subject to manipulation by a few, so why is everyone making so much noise about 'em?" But then what are you doing in a comment thread, Cal? siun: I must say that reading here is like being one of the subjects of some sociologist's thesis research - interesting how much of the essence gets lost on the dissection table. Huh? I have trouble seeing what this refers to. Thesis research? My thesis was 300 pages. Some stray comments and a handful of snarky digs from posters here is a "thesis" and a "dissection" of FDL? Weird. Seems to me that you're looking for something to object to. There has been no sustained analysis of Firedoglake here-- just some remarks. You're not under anyone's microscope. And no one is doing PhD research about you. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 29, 2006 4:54 PM | Permalink Tish -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 29, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink v.i. wrote: In the end, this may turn out to be a costly example where, simply saying 'we report, you decide' not only did not work but was irresponsible. By shunning the judgements that needed to be made to be able to best serve the public's interest, the fourth estate failed the world. Yes. I have been really perplexed over the last -- oh, maybe ten years -- as to why global warming stories are relegated to inside pages. You would think that planetary devastation would be front-page news, but it is not. This is a failure of the press to understand the issue -- and perhaps a failure of scientists to get it across to regular folk. Perhaps the problem is the commercial model: if news is based on giving the people what they want, and people don't know or don't want to know the extent to which catastrophic climate change threatens human existence, then it won't be given adequate coverage. Imagine: Moon-sized Asteroid Careening Toward Imminent Earth Impact (Science Tuesday page D7) That's how GW has been covered thus far. Clearly, the "tipping point" is in U.S. media coverage -- not in the scientific understanding. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at January 29, 2006 7:59 PM | Permalink in fact, Jay is very supportive of FDL. Young Turks are still filibustering the filibuster. more than 72 hours continuous live Posted by: bush's jaw at January 29, 2006 8:03 PM | Permalink Data point: I'm mostly a lurker. I do comment from time to time, and get sneered at. That's fine. I disagree with what appears to be the majority of you, and don't expect better treatment. But I would divide blogs with comments into two categories, one smaller than the other: those like Jay's that attract lots of comments, and those that attract (or allow) relatively few. On high-comment blogs, reading the comments as a lurker can be at least as valuable as reading the main post. People do tend to sort themselves out; there won't be many far-right posters here, for instance, and I believe that the overall level of literacy scares off the postadolescents and equivalent, the ones who write 400-word paragraphs devoid of capitalization. As a result this is a marvelous place for me to come to "get the pulse" of a group who maintain a line of thought I don't usually follow along with. As a reader I prefer that sort; so, while I visit Reynolds every day, I mostly use him as a sort of reference section, and some days I don't follow any of his links. My favorites are probably Goldstein (well right of center) and Harry's Place (well left, but a strain of leftism I can deal with). So when you're talking about the cost of maintaining a comments section, keep that in mind. I enjoy Jay's posts tremendously and always follow at least some of the After Matter, but my reasons for being here are almost as much to see what ami, Steve Lovelady, and a few others are on about as they are Jay's take on things. The conversation isn't just between the commenters and the blog owner. Think of a really good speech. The side-conversations in the foyer afterward can be extremely valuable. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at January 29, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink Thanks, Ric. Very helpful. Re: "I do comment from time to time, and get sneered at." Possibly this is because when you do comment, your words contain their own sneers. But I suspect you know that. Anyway, I enjoy your posts. Re: "Reading the comments as a lurker can be at least as valuable as reading the main post." True. This is one of the most common observations readers of PressThink offer me; that's how I know it's true. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 29, 2006 8:50 PM | Permalink re: Postman. Yes. Why? Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 29, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink You, sir, have a little treat coming: next post. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 29, 2006 10:24 PM | Permalink
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 29, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink Okay, tell you what.... I swung a little publishing deal and managed to secure the rights to print for the first time online a new introduction written for the 20th anniversary edition of Amusing Ourselves to Death, which was just published by Penguin Books. It is written by Andrew Postman, Neil's son, a writer and author with many talents, some of them recogizably his Dad's but many not. It's quite good, and will especially interest those who know and love the book. I am working on the post now (now=11:15) and hope to finish it around 1:00. Give me a paragraph I can bullet, 4 to 5 lines, less being more, about why Postman matters today, and I will run in the After to the Intro... with your name and of course a link. Its the 20th anniversary of Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. What do we know? Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 29, 2006 11:20 PM | Permalink I wish I had checked in here a few days ago. I realize I'm showing up just in time to notice your segue into Postman. But I was busy writing this, and then I was busy sleeping. Jay, I generally enjoy what you write, and I think what you said in the WaPo panel was astute. But I'm perplexed at your willingness to give Brady a pass. "The shift to trying to prove Brady a liar was a mistake, in my opinion." In my opinion, it's not a question of trying to prove that Brady's a liar. It's a question of noticing that there are many substantive problems with his narrative. I think those problems are inescapably obvious to anyone who takes a close look. I think you and I can imagine all sorts of reasons why it would be a good thing for Brady to be successful. I don't see how he can do that if he lacks credibility. And I don't see how he can have credibility if the serious problems with his narrative are not addressed, one way or another. "the charge that he wanted to kill criticism of the Post was misguided from the start, in my view" I think it's a good idea to try to avoid speculating about someone's motives. Trouble is, Brady's statements don't add up, in very material ways. In the absence of plausible clarification, speculation about sinister motivations becomes hard to avoid. "Others see far more merit there than I do" Needless to say, I certainly don't expect you to write 10,000 words on the subject (like I did, and that's only counting my most recent article, and not the three that preceded it). But it would be enormously helpful (and I think I'm not alone in feeling this way) if you could offer some explanation for why you're inclined to look away from the gaping holes in the story Brady has told. I'm not even clear where you stand among the following perspectives: 1) There are no holes in his story. 2) There are holes, but they're small and therefore should be ignored. 3) There are big holes, but we should be willing to look the other way because generally speaking he's on "the side of the angels." (Of course I realize maybe your perspective isn't reflected on this list, somehow.) Here's where I stand: there are big holes, and ultimately no one benefits (not even Brady) if they're swept under the rug. Posted by: jukeboxgrad at January 29, 2006 11:43 PM | Permalink Thanks for commenting as a close reader, jukebox. Good questions. Can't answer them now. I am working on a new post. But I'll think about it: why am I defending Jim Brady? Just because I think he's a good guy? No, it's a lot more than that. So I'll have to get back to you on it. See new PressThink post: Thanks to all for their comments. Thread closed. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 30, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink but my reasons for being here are almost as much to see what ami, Steve Lovelady, and a few others are on about as they are Jay's take on things. sorry Ric, but ami doesn't exist anymore. Hell, Rin Tin Tin won't be around very long either -- and someone else has appropriated Hester Prynne! :(
|
|
Print
