I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Wahed?
Okrent wants us to believe that since he gets letters from both sides, that must mean the Times is fair and balanced.
I hate that craven bullshit. Nagourney is a Bush whore.
Do all those people whine so much? geez...
Clean your own house Okrent. jackass.
Okrent has gone natve. He's drank the kool-aid. Now, maybe his coworkers will like him.
poor reporters.... waaahh...
just wait until we dont need them to help us elect Big John.
If they are crying now...
This is now open warfare.The right has become so unhinged that there is no other choice but to call this uncivil war.
Junior has done his job very well.Divide and conqure.Nothing like a great president to wreck a country eh?
once again proof that the real problem with the media isn't whether it's right or left, but that the ovepaid whores think it's all about themselves.
I say we all write him using names like Cleetus and Billy Bob and complain that the Times loves Kerry because it's a tool of the Amish.
I'm glad you picked up on this one; it shocked the hell out me when I read it, a couple of hours ago. For what it's worth, I think the NYT is truly spooked--by Jason Blair, by Patrick Fitzgerald, and by bloggers all over the place, whom they continue to treat like mushrooms and toadstools--cute, possibly dangerous (if you consume them), and utterly ephemeral. But they're in denial, rather like Bush: their credibility is very weak, and no one seems to care very much about the fate of that disastrous witch, Judith Miller. Might they not ask themselves why?
"As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year."
How does Okrent know the letter writer was from the left and not a sabateur like that asshole from West Virginia whose son dressed up like a union member and tore up his daughter's sign?
Typical NEW YORK TIMES reporting. Leaps to conclusions without getting the facts.
oh yeah, and what smalfish said. i know i have never seen an uglier election and i remember nixon, ok i was 12 but i remember.
and that should read overpaid WHORES!
OT, but I just find this funny as hell.
From Campaigns and Elections:
Jesus' General
Highly conservative and anti-liberal, the blog discusses religious aspects of the campaigns and issues involved.
Category : Republican Anti-Kerry
Blogger : JC Christian
URL : http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
Everybody ought to write an obscene letter to Okrent and identify yourself as a Repuke.
And I've been wallowing in pity all night for myself, 'cause I can't figure out what was so debased and vile about what that writer had written to Nagourney.
I am impressed that the general has washed over the world and made a dent into the spin media.
THe General is THE MAN!
I have never read on any blog encouragement to write intemperate emails. I think most bloggers understand that would be counterproductive. So what's with trying to peg an intemperate, impolitic comment on blogs?
He knows which side his bread is buttered on.
THe General is THE MAN!
smalfish | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 2:14 am | #
In a heterosexual way, of course...
Every time I see Adam Nagourney on-air, I'm reminded of the screen version of Gollum. It's that seeming sycophant pandering to celebrity, or is it media? He's an amalgam of several people I remember from high school, and none fondly.
But before I turn over the podium, I do want you to know just how debased the level of discourse has become. When a reporter receives an e-mail message that says, "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war," a limit has been passed.
I would think that the limit had been passed when an actual death threat has been made. Like, "I'm gonna blow your head off."
And I know many journalists and bloggers have received numerous such death threats. And the vast majority of them come from the right.
Jesus' General
Highly conservative and anti-liberal, the blog discusses religious aspects of the campaigns and issues involved.
Category : Republican Anti-Kerry
Well, it is on-topic, in that it shows that it's really easy to fool stupid people into thinking that one is "highly conservative," or from "the left." I would think that there would be a reading comprehension test before one could be an ombudsman.
Mainstream medias are scared shit of blogs.
They just can't handle the pressure we put on them when they lie or distort the truth or pretend they're balanced when obviouly biased.
They're not doing their job, why should we respect big media?
Okrent obviously can't understand why the progressive electorate has decided to play the ref the way the reactionaries have for the last 20 years. He's upset because he had a nice easy ride, not having to worry about catching incoming from both wings of society. Oh, yeah, it was just so much easier just rolling over on the progressives and placating the wingnuts. Screw him.
Nagourney deserves to be fired. He obviously doesn't have enough backbone to do his job. Okrent says so, by his having run his piece. Nagourney has proven his craven attitude toward Dubya's regime, which makes him worthless for the New York Times. Keller needs to be pushed to allow Mr. Nagourney to join the ranks of the unemployed.
I hope his retirement account is emptied by republican off-shoring and elaborate revenue scams involving cheating little old laides for the price of energy, forcing him to die in poverty.
Is that better?
So, can I have Adam Nagourney's home address and phone number?
Fair's fair, right?
Is there anyone here who does not love Adam Nagourney's kids?
If Okrent's target is reading this, what did you write to Nagourney.
Has the Okrent piece been edited since the link went up? I don't see anything in it about the sender of the email having requested his name not be used.
Atrios is right about Okrent, and it's apparent that Okrent isn't exactly conversant with a right-wing ouvre that includes Ann Coulter, let alone the little trolls who don't get published except by HaloScan.
On the other hand, anyone who thinks it's fine to make a remark such as the emailer did is wrong. We got enough dead kids to cope with already.
Editors have been getting letters like that for ages, and I've gotten some nasty hate mail myself, I even got a threatening phone call when I had an anti-DeLay letter printed in TIME magazine...
If the so-called "professional" media can't stand the heat, they should get the hell out of the kitchen...
STUFF!
Have A Nice, Hot Cup O' Joe!
Hmmm.
Pardon me for not jumping on the dog pile, but what's the complaint, exactly? That someone should have the privilege of being threatening, obscene, whatever, in private, without any threat of being asked to take some responsibility for his words?
It's one thing to post amusing gibberish in places like this, choosing whatever nom do plume comes to mind, but if you're going to cross the line into physical intimidation, do you really get to expect to be treated with dignity and respect in return?
Sorry, Steve from San Francisco got what he deserved. And yes, I do hate Bush with the intensity of a thousand suns. But that's not an excuse for acting like a prick.
Umm. Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a Republican war, no? One that the NYTimes did not seem fit to editorialize against. In fact they issued a mea culpa on their own coverage.
So in a strange ironic twist, the Okrent/NYTimes is guilty of the very behavior it accuses the left of displaying.
So who is really the 'coward'? I would say the NYTimes is because their articles actually sent troops to die.
OT, but I just find this funny as hell.
From Campaigns and Elections:
Jesus' General
Highly conservative and anti-liberal, the blog discusses religious aspects of the campaigns and issues involved.
Category : Republican Anti-Kerry
Blogger : JC Christian
URL : http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
patriotboy
That is the funniest thing I have seen in a LONG time.
General, you have ARRIVED! Kudos!
Why on earth do you watch tv, de Sade? Does it give you pleasure? Are you, perhaps, a masochist?
It's the Message, Stupid
The lunatics are now running the asylum inside the bush camp; be prepared for almost anything in these next 25 days, my bitches
the hinges are coming off the doors, the candidate is melting through the floor boards -- this election is going to be won on solid will and not on issues
don't let the freaks get you down
speaking of letters to editor and Jesus General-he's got a link to the emails section of the Lone Star Iconoclast. Fun reading. I think this one is my favorite:
--
----
I believe the Democrats would nominate and vote for a vine ripened
tomato as long as that tomato was "a good socialist". That's right, a
tomato. All the (democrat) "talking heads" on television would tell us
"their tomato" would raise taxes on the evil rich, and be "fair" and "for
the children". Their tomato is pro-abortion, pro-queer, pro-black, and
environmentally friendly. And that their tomato would be "strong" on defense
by "working with our allies" and the UN. Their tomato is for "FREE"
education, health care, welfare, childcare, and medicine for the
"unfortunate illegal aliens" who just want a better life picking "our
tomatoes". And that Republicans are anti-tomato, and would ruin the air and
water as to "destroy" and discriminate against "all tomatoes" by "drilling
for Oil in the tomato patch". And that Republicans "have a plan" to keep
tomatoes from voting at the polls by chopping them up and putting them "in a
salad"!
craigie: was Steve threatening to start a Republican war and draft the reporter's child? If not, how was it physically intimidating?
Is Atrios aware that troll hat approvingly directed readers to that Okrent column in the open thread, saying the last 2 grafs were about Atrios? I was wondering about the use of the guy's name too, though it's more puzzling how a newspaper that publishes Judy Miller and William Safire can suddenly start setting limits to vileness. Maybe they're the experts.
Speaking of media misbehavior, a commentor over at Pandagon has pointed out that CNN.com ditched their earlier "poll" on the 2nd debate and has a new one. Bush is currently leading the new one...
GO!!!!
In hindsight, I regret writing about the Campaigns and Elections post in such a serious thread on someone else's blog. I just thought it was funny and wanted to share it.
Hopes are not threats. Threats you report the police.
'Hopes" about my declining health are frequent. I don't consider them threats, and I've never considered reporting them to the police. More relevantly, I've never even considered reporting the information of the people who have expressed such hops.
The only thing intimidating about the words printed in the ombudsman's article was that the reporter was asked to confront his own bias. Scary, perhaps, but not a mortal danger.
I'm more confused than ever. If Okrent acts like a corporate apologist, why is he called an 'ombudsman'?
In light of ongoing efforts, I feel it is my responsibility as an American to share with you something I have held to myself for some time, despite the fact that it should have been aired openly long ago.
I used to work at the National Air Intelligence Center at Wright Patterson AFB, and I can tell you for a fact that not only was there a report in 1997 distributed to the national intelligence community through daily message traffic that spoke specifically of a terrorist plot to fly hijacked commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center, and not only was marked with the highest reliability rating of any classified intelligence shared at that level, but that it was definitely forwarded up my chain for immediate attention.
I also know somebody that tried to share this with the 9/11 commission, and was systematically ignored.
And no, heaven and earth were not moved. Go figure.
craigie = gourdhead
jeebs, I'm guessing you're one of those trolls we're supposed to ignore. Maybe you are stupid. I'm sure you aren't evil, even though you're smirking sycophantic drivel sounds like it is straight from Satan's playbook. I won't judge you. I will simply wish your whore momma would have aborted you. Have a nice day, demonspawn.
As a blogger, I encourage everyone to tell Okrent, in public, that he sucks at his job and that you hope he gets fired. I take full responsibility for this extremism.
Yeah, I'm with underwhelm. As a parent of two daughters, 5 & 7, I am doing more politically than I ever have before as I desparately need Kerry to win. And completely horrid reporters desparately needs a sincere fuck you response. Which is what Schwenk provided. That and nothing more.
hey Ty Moore, I've lived under WPAFB my entire life. And I was the "anonymous" jeebs fan just above.
you know what really ought to happen?
all democrats, all kerry supporters should within the next week UNSUBSCRIBE.
AND STOP BUYING THEM AT THE NEWSTAND.
IMPOSE AN ECONOMIC BOYCOTT ON THE NYT AND THE BOSTON GLOBE.
you won't be missing anything.
imagine how many millions of subscribers, buyers could disappear in an instant?
the time has come, i think, to boycott the nyt.
and the wapo, and the newspeak.
all of them.
let us tell them what we think in the most capitalist of methods - walking out on them...denying them our capital.
i would like to think that would bring them to heel. and even if it didn't, we would still have torpedoed their pocketbook. and you can be sure that the rethugs aren't going to save them[or are they?].
if atrios and kos can raise thousands of dollars for anti-fascist candidates for national office, don't we have the strength to remove milllions of dollars from the bottom line of these fascist shills?
it is war. and you know it.
sic semper tyrannis
Sorry. Again.
There was a report in 1997 distributed to the national intelligence community through daily message traffic that spoke specifically of a terrorist plot to fly hijacked commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center, it was marked with the highest reliability rating of any classified intelligence shared at that level, and it was definitely forwarded up my chain for immediate attention.
So now I'm the traitor, right?
craigie: was Steve threatening to start a Republican war and draft the reporter's child? If not, how was it physically intimidating?
It's intimidating the same way "I hope your wife gets raped" is intimidating.
It's the happiness about the injury, and it's the dragging the kids into it. It's both together. I just think it goes too far.
Anonymous, jeebs was citing an e-mail to the "Lone Star Iconoclast". He found it amusing, and I think he's right about that.
OT but fun
A cartoon-style nude painting of US President George W Bush has been taken down by a museum in Washington.
Kayti Didriksen's Man of Leisure, King George, shows a nude Mr Bush being attended to by a man resembling Vice-President Dick Cheney.
It is based on Edouard Manet's work Olympia, which hangs in a Paris museum.
see it at http://tinyurl.com/6kcvt
Make of this what you will
Maybe this is public knowledge, maybe it's not, maybe I am reading too much into this, and there is really nothing wrong with this lifestyle anyway.
But it is curious to note.
Imagine how they are going to whine when we kick the republicans asses, and then head for the offices of the new york times. Metaphorically speaking of course.
oops...sorry jeebs! Carry on...
Repeat after me.."don't post drunk"...
Atrios, dont worry about this, the rats have noticed that the ship is sinking and are trying to get ahead of the pitch.
craigie: was Steve threatening to start a Republican war and draft the reporter's child? If not, how was it physically intimidating?
It's intimidating the same way "I hope your wife gets raped" is intimidating.
It's the happiness about the injury, and it's the dragging the kids into it. It's both together. I just think it goes too far.
"It's intimidating the same way "I hope your wife gets raped" is intimidating."
Which is to say, it's not intimidating at all. It's just an impolite "fuck you" to an elite someone with a very high barrier. It's just a "fuck you" meant to get the reporters attention.
they sure don't like criticism, do they? They're not used to it but as long as they keep pulling the same old SCLM crap, it's not going to stop.
I bet they wish bloggers would just go away... not gonna happen.
craigie, it does go too far, but they are trying to say "the liberals" sent it. and that "people" are out to get them. Everbody gets letters from crazy people, angry people. I get them too, but I dont post them on our blog. I dont whine about it.
jebus, general, your a winger? who would have thought.
my fav.Commander and Chief. He has enough on his mind lately, than to wonder if his home town, the town he chose to raise his family, will make a spectacle of him; by publicly denouncing him.
Chief George? as for making a spectacle of himself, i think he's doin' just fine on his own.
anon
i think it's pretty well known. which makes the prospect of his kid getting his head blown off doubly hypothetical.
you know, people write all kinds of crazy shit to the newspaper. This has gone on ever since the first editor invited readers to write in to the paper.
It's nothing new for them to receive nasty letters. It's not like the emergence of blogging incited this. So why all the outrage now?
Maybe we are getting under their skin. Maybe the truth hurts.
Seems like it's time for Okrent to take another vacation. I mean, Christ, you can't expect a man to churn out this thoughtful, high-quality prose a whole 20 times a year, can you?
If you really want to get angry, read the piece that Gilliard has up about the press. Crowley, Pickler, et al. written by RollingStone. That got me pissed off.
craigie: your analogy removes the obvious difference between the two, in that one is directly related to the policies of the Bush administration and one is indiscriminately vulgar. For example, if the reporter was writing stories that said rapists should be fined rather than imprisoned, "I hope your wife gets raped" would be quite apropos.
There is a lot seriously wrong at the NYT and mediawhoredom at large, as evinced the presidency of GWB, etc., etc...
But my guess is that almost none of the self-righteous whiners in this thread, Atrios included, has children...to the few of you herein who do have kids, I say, go run for local office, and make a speech opposing assault weapons, then see how you feel on the recieving end of commentary like that Okrent mentions was directed to Nagourney, jerk that he (Nag) may be...
So Sad! Once one could say "I Read It In The Times". Those days are over and will probably never return! The times,Wapo,Time magazine,Newsweek,ect. down the tubes!It makes it so hard to converse or argue with someone when you don't have a trusted source to use! We're now in a cycle where Drudge and that ilk are definitive. How does Pinch look at himself?
That whinefest almost could have been written by one of the more literate trolls.
Fuck, when the paper can't be bothered to question the leaders, and basically serves as their accomplice in misinforming the public, why should it be trusted to tell the truth about those who would question the leaders or the information they give?
The Times is a big business and like the rest of corporate America, it's only real public interest is how much $$ it can soak out of the public.
self-righteous whiners in this thread
go fuck yourself.
Thanks for the response Rrose. The logical google followups yield so little I wasn't sure if this was as public as it seems to be, or if I was misunderstanding the article. It does explain some of the humor in "his blog".
Nagourney is the whiner.
I agree with Atrios, Okrent's column is really pretty stupid. As Bob Sommerby has pointed out numerous times, the guy barely writes enough to adequately critique his paper's performance. And to use the bulk of his last monthly! column before the election to criticize readers for their profane comments seems pretty low.
There are any number of ways he could have addressed the basic problem he seems to be talking about - one day you are attacked as biased from the right, the next day from the left. But to address it in this way seems like a really childish response and doubtful one that won't simply illicit more slashing emails.
As far as Nagourney--I've watched him on TV and read his stuff all year. He basically hangs around, waits until the CW is set, gets some juicy on the record quotes from senior campaign types or his personal favorite "Democratic strategist" and then lays out a story line that contains pretty much what those of us who are addicted to this shit already know. I don't believe he is biased, he's just not particularly interesting. I think someone like Ron Brownstein of the LA Times blows Nagourney away and is the real star of this years' campaign press.
However, Nagourney may be a wimp, but he is pretty fair. I fully expect that if things keep going down the flusher for Bush he will eventually write an article with lots of Republican bloodletting - a pre-election post-mortem similar to what's in today's Times:http://nytimes.com/2004/10/10/weekinreview/
10sang.html
So let's get this straight, according to reporters at the New York Times.
Witness to treason: don't reveal source.
Get an email that makes your tummy feel sad: identify source.
I wrote Okrent and asked him to tell us the name of the blogger who encouraged people to write letters like that. He's offbase there.
At first I thought that this really long complaint was a joke. Then I realized it was (but wasn't meant to be).
A reporter's job is hard, really hard. They get up every morning to see what's happening, and it's hard.
I think someone like Ron Brownstein of the LA Times blows Nagourney away and is the real star of this years' campaign press.
agree, eric, brownstein has played it pretty straight down the middle this go round - and who would have though the LA Times would have great campaign coverage with cali pretty much out of the picture in this cycle
While I agree with "Fuck you, Adam Nagourney," after reading Okrent's article I wish you had cursed him out instead.
After all, he personally attacked each one of us lefty bloggers with his article.
I hope Daniel Okrent gets what's-the-frequency-Kennethed by somebody;
the dirty douchebag.
That's enough bile for me today...gonna get some rest for my weary anti-bush head.
Right on, underwhelm.
While granted the remark by the reader was pretty vile -- "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war" -- it does NOT qualify in any meaningful way as a threat, despite Okrent's implication that it's even worse than threats of, say, violence or rape against women reporters, and so, unlike those actual threats, worthy of subjecting the perpetrator to highly public ridicule.
Okrent is a dishonest, moralizing monster, who will gladly damage people's lives when those people have done nothing that might actually wreak any kind of real harm on the reporters they attack verbally. He is more disgustingly an apologist for his reporters and for the institution of the Times than the editors he is supposed to be standing up to.
Okrent is the so-called "public editor" at the Times? Once again, we see how, at the Times, it is always and everywhere the protection of the entitled bureaucracy that is of paramount importance. If truth and fairness and a sense of proportion must be trampled upon to maintain the appointed and exalted and very comfortable positions of reporters and editors, so be it.
Who cares if Judith Miller's broadcast of pure lies were key in bringing us into an unnecessary war? Who cares if an angry reader who wrote a rather ugly, but non-threatening email suffers disgrace a thousand times worse than any discomfort he might have inflicted on the reporter he lashed into?
In the world of Okrent, and of the Times, these things mean nothing; the little people who die in wars, and sometimes get very angry at reporters are not the NY Times.
Steve's wish to Nagourney may seem mean-spirited, but it was hardly a threat. Not seeing the full e-mail or knowing it responded to, I can't know, but I'd guess it was meant as "I hope you personally suffer the consequences of the policies you so glibly support."
Face it, few politicians or pundits have any personal risks from this war. It's not their kids on the battlefield. I'd be surprised if they even know anyone whose child is. Their high incomes shield them from the war's worst economic effects. So easy to support something that poses no risk to you; so hard to empathize with "the little people."
I'd be interested to know if Steve has or may have lost a family member or friend in Iraq. That would make his comment fully understandable.
He's not an ombudsman; he's the "public editor."
It's not the paper of record -- he says so himself.
And it's not a newspaper. It's the New York Times. "We don't work. We don't have to." That New York Times.
If the man who wrote so nasty a note to Adam Onnagurney, or whatever his name is, had instead given Gurney an anonymous briefing so that the Times could help lie us into another "Republican war," presumably Gurney and Rent-boy would go to jail rather than reveal his name.
The sanctity of journalistic ethics which protects some sources. I'm so overcome.
I don't see what the big deal is, Mr. Atrios. Daniel Okremnt has a different POV, and policy based on that, on what to do with what he considers flame e-mails.
Now, it might have been nice if he also had listed a Bushista flamer by name, but as a general policy it's nothing more than a difference of opinion.
To me, it sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I just don't see what the big knicker-knotting deal is.
NYT's modus operendi is print enough articles to placate armchair liberals, while still pandering to the 'right,' in order to sell the most papers. Follow the money.
All very good points, Atrios. I believe that the shock and awe that arrives on the doorsteps and emailboxes of shoddy reporters and editors is what Okrent is feeling. He talks a good game when he says he doesn't want to discourage thoughtful criticism of his paper, but in reality he isn't adapting to modern changes brought on by the internet. Perhaps a simple 1 hour book on resistance to change, such as "Who Stole My Cheeze", would be good for Okrent to read.
Where the hell did this idea come from that an equal amount of criticism for each side equals fair.
If one side is evil incarnate and the other side is a saint shouldn't the former have more negative coverage and the latter more positive coverage?
The measure of fairness is not the amount of negative or positive stories. The measure of fairness is the accuracy of the reporting.
Just a couple questions: are these quotes from standard Letters to the Editor or, separately, letters to the ombudsman? If the latter, are they governed by the same regulations, namely, that all letters are exclusive and intended for publication with attribution? If so, you've got no cause to gripe with Okrent (over the matter of revealing names, at least). Furthermore, he did not publish addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses. Overall, he's been pretty lame at policing the Times through an historically lame period in its history, but this is not the battle to fight.
Long, long ago the NYTimes taught us to be afraid, very afraid....of the NYTimes. But then it started to crack...and when? Well, for one thing, when it tried to become a national paper, more than just an Eastern establishment paper. And it failed in this enterprise because it couldn't stop being the provincial paper that it's always been, one whose national reporting always was, and still is, something of a joke--as compared, say, to the WSJ, or USAToday (the WaPo, which never tried to go national, is also the stronger paper).
And now come the blogs! Though they'll never challenge the NYTimes in corporate wealth (or at least I hope they never do), they can easily challenge, and test, the NYTimes in the quality of its reporting. And the NYTimes doesn't scare blogs--for the same reason that elephants don't scare mosquitoes (though mosquitoes can, and do, threaten elephants).....All these problems are at work in Okrent's column (it probably matters, for example, that the offending e-mail comes from San Francisco).
But my guess is that almost none of the self-righteous whiners in this thread[...]
Nevermind that your post is a predictable whimper about offending the tender sensibilities of concerned parents. So now that we've acknowledged the inherent ineffectuality of words, it seems rather stupid for someone in Okrent's position to attribute them an importance they don't have just so he can complain about how they "cross the line." In my view words are incapable of crossing the line. Rather, crossing the line is defined as when words stop and violence begins.
Jesus' General
Highly conservative and anti-liberal, the blog discusses religious aspects of the campaigns and issues involved.
Category : Republican Anti-Kerry
Blogger : JC Christian
URL : http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
Did you notice that these guys classified Free Republic as non-partisan? What a bunch of idiots.
If Free Republic is non-partisan, then Judith Miller and Nedra Pickler must both be 'liberal' journalists.
I suspect that "the lone ranger" is really Okrent, or Nagourney... lurking whining punks.
That column is clear evidence, that Mr. Okrent needs to find a new line of work.
That guy's name and hometown will be spread throughout bloglandia. What Okrent has done is paint a target on the guy's back, and on the back of anyone unfortunate enough to share his name.
I would urge everyone who gives a damn to very politely write Okrent and tell him he just did something irresponsible to an extreme.
/
As I've been trying to convince a "Conservative" friend of mine (though lately I've given up), the problem isn't that the mass media are biased, the problem is that the mass media are incompetent. Or asleep at the switch. Or more interested in selling papers than getting at the truth (big surprise, huh?)
As for Dan Okrent, jeez let's cut the guy a little slack. I've met Okrent and I've been reading his work for a long time, and I can happily report that he doesn't have a forked tail or little horns growing out of his head.
I do think Okrent erred in reporting the name and city of that e-mailer, though, because of course Okrent can't know for sure that it was actually Steve Schwenk of San Francisco who sent that awful message to Nagourney (unless Okrent actually contacted Schwenk, in which case it's at least somewhat defensible).
That's my two cents, at least. I get some pretty offensive e-mail in the course of my job, and I can unhappily report that sometimes it does get to me (though I've never outed somebody like this).
Here's what makes Okrent's column monstrous: he might have made the very same point WITHOUT identifying the person who wrote the email.
The sole point of identifying the writer was to subject him to whatever harm the Times can bring upon a person by public ridicule. This Okrent did, according to Atrios, despite the writer's expectation that his email would NOT be published -- or at least not without his permission.
Can ANYONE honestly say that the "harm" done to Nagourney, by a letter that could never reasonably be construed as a genuine THREAT, could possibly approach the harm done to the reputation of the writer -- who has no regular public forum in which to defend himself?
Only at the Times, I think, could an Inquisitor such as Okrent ever be given the job of "public editor".
Well done Atrios, it's good we have someone who would stand up for the NY Times... this newspaper is a disgrace and always has been (during the Vietnam war etc.)
Okrent and Nagourney:
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen, OK?
I don't like the content of the letter Nagourney claims to have received. If you're against the war, fine, be against the war, but don't hope for someone's kids to be killed because their mom or dad is a jackass.
That said, Okrent has been amazingly craptacular as his job. Jayson Blair made up puff-ball human interest stories; obnoxious and unethical, but ultimately harmless. Judith Miller published one fabrication after another, supplied to her by Chalabi and his erstwhile companions in the Bush regime, leading to the deaths of thousands of people. Only one of these people was fired.
Why?
Call me confused, but anyone would agree that someone's kid is going to have his head blown off in Iraq in short order. Is there any reason that kid shouldn't be Nagourney's?
The editor at the daily I used to work at, he used to say that all the time: "If you get criticized by both sides, that must mean you're doing your job right."
It's the bullshit axiom of journalism.
If one side's criticisms are based on ideology or fanaticism, or are moronic, but the other side's criticisms are based on rational thought and have merit ... that doesn't mean you should close your ears to both.
My feeling was that, if everyone is criticizing your newspaper coverage, perhaps the problem isn't with everyone else. Maybe your newspaper really does suck.
I know that newspaper I worked at did.
Not to mention Judith Miller is also under investigation in regards to the passing of intelligence to Iran and Israel as well as the Plame outing.
What's that about casting stones?
Isn't a thick skin in the job description for a journalist. Damn! Is everyone gonna' turn into a pussy before this is all over?
If you can't stand the heat then get off your knees!
Just a couple questions: are these quotes from standard Letters to the Editor or, separately, letters to the ombudsman? If the latter, are they governed by the same regulations, namely, that all letters are exclusive and intended for publication with attribution?
Okrent said the one from Steve was an email to Nagourney. Therefore, it wasn't a standard letter to the editor OR a letter to the ombudsman --it was a piece of personal correspondence. What do YOU consider to the the policy for personal correspondence?
And if you read the linked piece, you could answer these questions for yourself, Pickabone.
Not to mention Judith Miller is also under investigation in regards to the passing of intelligence to Iran and Israel as well as the Plame outing.
Susie Dow, I didn't know that. (It's entirely possible that it's common knowledge and I simply missed it -- I've been avoiding the news lately to keep the blood pressure down.)
I'd love to know more about Miller's involvement in this, though. Would you have a cite/link handy?
That said, Okrent has been amazingly craptacular as his job. Jayson Blair made up puff-ball human interest stories; obnoxious and unethical, but ultimately harmless. Judith Miller published one fabrication after another, supplied to her by Chalabi and his erstwhile companions in the Bush regime, leading to the deaths of thousands of people. Only one of these people was fired.
Why?
Because it's hard. It's hard work being the editor of the Times, and he's going to keep working hard until it's not so hard anymore.
JP,
From the Times:
A federal judge held a reporter for The New York Times in contempt of court on Thursday for refusing to name her sources to prosecutors investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent.
The reporter in the above article is Miller.
but don't hope for someone's kids to be killed because their mom or dad is a jackass.
Somewhere in Iraq there is a 19 year old kid right now being ordered to his death. Nobody's *hoping* he'll die, he's being ordered to die, and by golly he's going to do it for real. He signed up to protect America, but he doesn't want to die to win Bush's election and he's scared shitless. When he buys it, his buddies will freak out and cry and rage and go crazy and they'll do that for the rest of their lives. Some hours later the souls of his parents will be crushed and they won't regrow. His girl friend who got pregnant the night before he left Iraq will raise his kid without a father. He'll come back under a flag and almost noone will be able to witness it. Bush will denegrate his sacrifice by lying about the war, and the whore media will pretend that things like that don't even happen.
Warning: Blog Whoring in Progress
Go to Google News and search for Okrent.
Okrent seems to have a vague notion that accountability is good. But he has no understanding that people in power have to be held accountable more than the powerless, and that it is the press' duty to hold the powerful accountable.
The public is angry because the Times no longer represets the public interest. It serves its own interest by serving the interest of those in power. It is the Times' own fault that the nation is so divided. The public is justified in being angry, and the Times simply has to deal with that.
But rather than deal with it, they just put Okrent in place to be the public's last resort. And now what's Okrent doing? He is scapegoating the public. He's holding Steve in San Francisco accountable for being angry, while giving the organization that betrayed Steve's interest a pass.
This is unforgivable. Did someone say boycott? I'm in.
Just a reminder, here's how well the new democracy in Afghanistan is going, the one touted repeatedly by Bush and Cheney-bot.
"With great power comes great responsibility, as a wise man once said."
I think it was Uncle Ben from Spiderman who said that. . . .
Okrent needs to be fired immediately. Where the hell do we write to to get this asshole fired?
A couple of commenters said that they felt that it was OK for the Times to publish any letter because there was implicit consent. While this may very well be the case, every paper or magazine that has published one of my letters has always contacted me first in order to make a cursory check that I was who I said I was, and that I was comfortable with my name and city appearing in their publication.
If the Times contacted the letter's author (doubtful) Okrent's action might be OK. Otherwise, not. It's sad to see what the Times has become.
Poor Steve in SF, how sad for him. Imagine, you sit at your keyboard and type "I hope your kid's get their heads blown off" in the most constructive way possible, and then ask "pretty please don't print who I am." (three times!), and the next thing you know, they ignore your request....
Oh, the Tragedy! The Outrage! Yawn.
Not to be, um, critical or anything, but in order for public or professional correspondence to a journalist to be kept confidential, doesn't there have to be a prior agreement on the part of the journalist? What kind of dumb ---- do you have to be to write something to an editor or writer without a prior agreement and NOT think it could be published? I was under the impression that their de facto is that anything sent to them is their property and they can print it or not as they see fit and names will be held as requested but still under the PAPER'S discretion. If you don't want to look like a jackass, don't write like a jackass.
Frankly, I love it when Alterman exposes right-wing idiots on his blog. It's amusing, and I'm glad he doesn't follow the "I owe over-the-top, borderline lunatic, maniac posters anonymity" line. Sure you can't out them all but hasn't it always been the practice in life to put a few heads on stakes as a warning to the others?
And speaking of heads on stakes, I subscribe to the Sunday Times and would have never even read Okrent's article or known of Steve's shame if a link hadn't been posted HERE, so I think Steve owes Atrios a little thanks in helping to parade around his big fat melon. (Steve's I mean).
Cheers, and let's move on to something that will get BUSH THROWN OUT!
I dunno. The guy signed his name and city in a letter to a newspaper reporter. Isn't he kind of taking his chances? I don't mean to be flippant about it, and I obviously use a pseudonym - but that's why I use a pseudonym.
Good grief, first Steno Sue calling a guy's boss because he used company email to write to her, and now this. I'm in on albert's boycott. But then, I've been in. Nothing gave me more pleasure than when the NYT mistakenly thought I had subscribed to their paper (I hadn't). I learned about it when they sent me a bill for papers I hadn't received.
I called them to inform them that, first of all, they hadn't sent me one damned edition, and, second, I wouldn't have used their lying, Bush-apologist rag of a paper to wipe Bin Laden's ass, much less read it. The woman on the other end sputtered in outrage, but I'd made my point. I never got another bill. And I told her to put something in her system that if anyone ever tried to send a paper to that address, to call Saddam Hussein to drop some WMDs on my house immediately. I don't think she got the joke.
Patriotboy -- thanks. Actually, I did know about Miller's trouble with the Plame thing. It's her involvement in the passing of intelligence to Iran and Israel that was new. (I know about various fools in the Bush administration being investigated, but I didn't know Miller was involved...?)
And I love your highly conservative, anti-liberal blog, and I salute you, General.
that's funny, the only "journalist" I've heard threatening the NYTimes in any recent memory was Ann Coulter...
Add these to the Plame investigation above:
NY Times Wants Reporters' Phone Records Protected
The U.S. Department of Justice is subpoenaing the records from telephone companies as part of a probe into whether government officials tipped off the reporters about investigations of Islamic charities, the newspaper said in court papers.
The reporters were identified as Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, who both cover homeland security and terrorism for the newspaper.
Wider FBI Probe Of Pentagon Leaks Includes Chalabi
There appears to be at least two common threads in the multi-faceted investigation. First, the FBI is investigating whether the same people passed highly classified information to two disparate allies -- Chalabi and a pro-Israel lobbying group. Second, at least some of the intelligence in both instances included sensitive information about Iran.
US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
More also at Kos on all that's going on around Miller.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that Judith Miller is in very deep doo doo.
You know, they may be talking about me under my real name. I've been in my "Fucking Over It" phase with the Times for a while now.
Let me check my emails. I'll send Oaktrent permission to publish them.
MLL
Susie D -- there's some good reading in them there links. Thanks.
Might as well point out the Daily Howler of a few weeks ago, in which Somerby tore Okrent up over his outstandingly dumb "I've returned from my six week vacation" piece.. ("tore up" is used metaphorically, should Okrent be reading this.)
For all we know the reader in SF had his relative's head blown off or cut off in Baghdad.
I wrote a few spirited letters when my cousin was still serving in Iraq (one AP story detailed how convoys were able to evade many IEDs). People take this stuff seriously. Sometimes emotional letters are sign of mental imbalance or an anti-social personality -- sometimes they are a sign that current events are getting average people outraged and rightly critical of newspapers that appear to be glossing over important issues.
Not everyone is good at making their point in a diplomatic way. That's why their writing emails and not writing for the NYT's competitors.
Reporters: Get over it. If you get a death threat you think is serious turn it over to the police. If you get a crazy left threaded wingnut or right threaded wingnut letter stop reading it and move on to the next one (unless you find it humorous -- in which case remove the identifying information and post it in the break room). Yes your getting more from the left. All the branches of government are pwn3d by the right and the left has few avenues to vent frustration. That's why we win all of the internet polls (at least the ones that are not taken over by zombie computers). If you let letters from crazy people, emotional people, or disingenuous political types shape your view of events or politics you are an idiot. To use an extreme analogy -- I'm sure the letters of Hitler's opponents seemed uncivilized and strident also, but they weren't neccessarily wrong.
As a national journalist, I'm sure your email box is full. The people are engaged in the political debate and yes many are a little misinformed and a little exciteable. If you're pissed about your email box you have two choices. Start publishing the names of your critics in an attempt to stifle their discourse. Or hope like hell that a centrist with good policies for the country will get elected so the people will start watching those other reality shows on TV.
underwhelm
So let's get this straight, according to reporters at the New York Times.
Witness to treason: don't reveal source.
Get an email that makes your tummy feel sad: identify source.
--------------------------------------
Hey you-why don't you hit the nail on the head-thanks!
Seems that both sides are right and wrong in this debate.
There is a degree of privacy expected in sending a letter in the mail and/or e-mail. Then again, the receiver of such correspondence has a reasonable expectation of civil discourse. And the person receiving such correspondence has the ability to either acknowledge or refute it.
Basically, nasty-grams are the same thing as junk-mail in your mailbox....you toss it in the nearest round file cause the Post Office is required, by law, to deliver it whether you want it or not.
In this case, once the author was known to be a pest, all correspondence should have gone to the bit bucket without being opened. To open it is to invite...just like opening an e-mail with the subject line: I Love You.
Crackpots are not in any short supply in this world, especially one's of the republican persuasion. They tend to generate tons of opinions with little or no regards to the facts. And just like children, they should be seen and not heard.
I do agree that to publish the name and address of a person venting their displease is in bad taste. However, to set them up for public ridicule is vindictive. It calls to question their ability to report the news professionally.
regards from the edge of the point of no return
.
I don't see the big deal. I would imagine the guy that sent that letter to Nagourney would WANT to get credit for telling Nagourney he hopes his kid gets killed in Iraq.
Also, I wonder, if I send a letter to Judith Miller suggesting various unnatural things that I wish Kobe Bryant would do to her, some of which would require a spotter because of their complexity, could I get my name listed, too? I'm a real whore for publicity, and I just kinda wonder, you know?
btw, one of the NYTimes lawyers is....Kenneth Starr.
Defending Judith Miller, II
Of all the ironies in the case of The New York Times Company v. Ashcroft, perhaps the most splendid is that, according to court filings, one of the lawyers the Times has hired to represent it in its dealings with the Bush Justice Department is Kenneth Starr.
[..]
As for the Global Relief Foundation, the Times's Judith Miller reported on February 19, 2000, that it was on a list of more than 30 groups being examined by government officials "for links to terrorism."
"Witness to treason: don't reveal source.
Get an email that makes your tummy feel sad: identify source."
Yeah, that's VERY well put!
Fortunate Son:
Although I like his book, Alterman is an egotistical ass for wasting his column space deriding random wingnuts of all types that get under his skin.
With positions of power come cluttered email boxes. Get over it.
Atrios,
Dude, I sincerely hope you've saved up for all the therapy you need...
Seems that for the last 5 days there's been a really shortage of news.
Nothing going in Congress. The debates and all the spins seems to fill the void.
What is extremely alarming is there aren't any really in depth news reporting going on. I'm getting tired of the spinning. I'd rather read something about Bush, based on real facts that are substantiated (if there were any), than listen or read spins. It's almost as if the news reporters are afraid.
Something is wrong...just can't put my finger on it.
regards from the edge of the point of no return
.
More Judith Miller fodder:
In Its Critique of Rush to War, 'N.Y. Times' Does Not Spare Itself
The first hint of self-criticism in the Times article comes just past the midway point, when the writers observe that on Sept. 8, 2002, the top article on page one of their newspaper "gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program."
That Sept. 8 story went on to quote an unnamed senior administration official saying that the closer Saddam Hussein "gets to nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card."
Today's Times story dryly observes: "The article gave no hint of a debate over the tubes," adding, "The White House did much to increase the impact of The Times article."
Vice President Cheney, in fact, specifically cited the Times story in stating, later that day, that he knew with "absolute certainty" that Saddam was buying the tubes to build nuclear weapons.
The Times reporters, however, do not identify the names of the authors of that crucial Sept. 8, 2002, article: Judith Miller and Michael Gordon.
I am sorry, but I fail to see the outrage in this. Okrent is a lameass who let Judith miller off the hook. Nevertheless, if I wrote a nasty email to somebody, i will not have a problem with that guy revealing my email to the public.
I am not defending Okrent here, but it is a very small crime compared to the many other crimes by the press. It's not like the guy was a whistleblower. He made a tasteless joke that admittedly had a point. Still, I don't see anywhere in the article that the guy didn't want his name anonymous. You make provocative statements about a bunch of jerks , good for you. But have the guts to stand up and say it proudly to the world.
What's with the games?
Um, dudes, I hate to say it, but Okrent was right: A blog *did* request a torrent of critical emails and phone calls to be sent to Nagourney:
*** PROJECT REFORM NAGOURNEY *** was a drive Majority Report Radio ran from September 20th on, to get listeners to email and call Nagourney, to complain about his bias toward Bush. Someone, in mentioning harm to kids, committed the same type of error our armed forces did in Iraq, in capturing and harming innocent bystanders, in the pursuit of evildoers.
We might have to adopt some unsavory tactics, to match those of the opposition, but this shouldn't be one of them.
In this brave new world, my heroes are such as this:
The FBI wants to know who checked out a book from a small library about Osama Bin Laden. But the library isn't giving out names, saying the government has no business knowing what their patrons read.
The library in Deming isn't much larger than a family home. Located in rural Whatcom County, it hardly seems the site for a showdown with the feds.
"I think we all figure it's places like the New York Library System that's going to be one of the first we hear about," said the attorney for the Whatcom County Library System, Deborra Garret.
At the center of the issue, a book titled "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America." The FBI confiscated the original book after a patron reported than some one hand wrote a bin Laden quote in the margin that read: "Let history be witness I am a criminal."
The FBI demanded to know the names and addresses of everyone who ever checked out the book.
"Libraries are a haven where people should be able to seek whatever information they want to pursue without any threat of government intervention," said Director of Whatcom County Library System, Joan Airoldi.
Librarians are our heroes! Fuck you Ashcroft!
Why are people being arbitrarily banned from this site? Who is the webmaster here? Do you know what you're doing? Why are you bannning people for ONE post that YOU misunderstood. ONE POST WITH A LIGHT TOUCH OF SARCASM to point out the NONSENSE of this administration. One post that was instantly recognized by other commenters as being ironic and fuNNY. Does the webmaster even bother to check the other posts by the commenter. Either people are being ARBITRARILY banned from this site by the webmaster or someone else is playing games with your system. It is astounding that the vile trolls are allowed to rule the roost in here and yet at the same time others, who are big fans of this site, can be banned for one misunderstood comment.
Who was banned?
Where the hell did this idea come from that an equal amount of criticism for each side equals fair.
If one side is evil incarnate and the other side is a saint shouldn't the former have more negative coverage and the latter more positive coverage?
The measure of fairness is not the amount of negative or positive stories. The measure of fairness is the accuracy of the reporting.
esther
I'm a bit surprised to see you agreeing wiht Okrent since I thought the purpose of this thread was to bash him unmercifully. Perhaps you didn't read the part of his article where he said:
I will stipulate here that I'll be voting for John Kerry next month and will further admit that I have bent over backward to listen to pro-Bush complaints, in a conscious effort to counterbalance my own prejudices. I don't buy the argument a couple of Times editors have made, that because charges of bias come from both liberals and conservatives, the paper must therefore be doing things right. This makes as much sense as saying that a man with one foot on a block of ice and the other on a bed of hot coals must feel just fine.
So let's bash Okrent for what he's said, not for what he hasn't.
Dare say, 75% of Times readers lean a little to the left. Why does the Times shit on their readers?
Does the Wash Moonie Times, the Whores, NY and Wash Post shit on their readers? You will never see the WSJ shit on a winger.
Fuck the Times and the Wash Post.
Its ok to protect the identity of Ms Miller and Novaks informant, but its ok to expose a reader to all kinds of freeper attacks.
Pathetic.
It's time the press starting realizing just how badly they suck at their jobs. I'm sorry they're touchy about the criticism, but hey, get over it.
And no, when I send correspondence to anyone either by email or snail mail, I don't consider it fair game to be published for the world to see. Okrent is being both vindictive and irresponsible.
Well, if we're going to criticise Okrent for what he said...
As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year.
Anyone still have screen shots of the Free Republic thread where they posted pictures of a shot up UN helmet of what election observers to the US could expect?
How about the posts from the righty blog that gleefully described a Rachel Corrie Pizza-thon?
About time for us to update the ongoing collection of pizza for the IDF and our own soldiers fighting terror all over the world, in celebration of the anniversary of St. Pancake's flattening on March 16th.
Visit THE VICIOUS INSTAPUNDIT BLOGROLL CONTEST if anyone needs a refresher on what 'vileness' in posts from the blog world really are.
Hubris--My guess is nobody.
Just a random splooge attack.
Why would sin cities biggest newspaper endorse GW for pres?
Las Vegas paper endorsed Bush.
Curious minds would like to know.
Could it be Repubs are bigger gamblers and whoremongers?
Sorry.....I can see Okrent's point here and Nagourney's.
Let's remember folks that one of the BIG criticisms we have all had over the past several years is how the neo-cons and the wingnuts have shouted us down and called us names and used nasty language. We have repeatedly lamented the loss of civil discourse and in fact a number of members of Congress in announcing their resignations have specifically noted that problem as among their reasons for quitting...
I don't care WHAT your feelings are in this race (and mine are angry and fervent) but when you send someone a message and tell them you hope their child gets their head blown off, this is taking things WAY to far. That sinks us to their level.
For the past two and a half years, I have tried to do my part in opposing Mr. Bush by sending out a periodic e-mail to a list of about 50 friends and acquaintances with copies of articles which I have felt have helped document the differences between the CLAIMS of the administration and the REALITY of what they are doing. In so doing, I have tried to avoid name calling and simply put forward what I believe are documented facts or reasoned editorials and commentary.
Some here will say these guys are evil and liars and without scruples....and I will say to you....you are right. But when we start doing the same thing, we diminish ourselves and our case.
Let's think about the flaming language when a freeper comes to call...and when we make statements about the administration and its tactics. There is plenty of ammunition out there and I would hope, somehow, that we can keep the discipline to keep things on a better plane.
As for Mr. Okrent and Mr. Nagourney, I have worked in journalism and in politics and today, both professions, for the folks who are trying to do a decent job, have become a giant pressure cooker. Stand back and look at what Okrent says....he gets blasts from both sides about the same story or photo or graphic and both sides are ABSOLUTELY
dweb, you're missing the point. Agree or disagree with Okrent if you like, but it isn't right for him to publish the names of people who have written in to the paper without their permission.
It's petty and irresponsible.
Okrent's argument is just bizarre. Is he really saying that no one should ever e-mail anything unless they are comfortable having it attributed to them in the NY Times?
Making an anonymous threat is one thing, but that's not what this guy did. First of all, it clearly wasn't a threat. Second, he identified himself to Adam Nagourney. If Nagourney wanted to e-mail him a reply, he was able to do so. Person to person. On equal terms. Wanting the correspondence to remain on those terms isn't cowardly. It's fair, because the e-mail writer doesn't have the ability to quote Adam Nagourney's e-mail in a New York Times article.
I don't know much about Orkent, but he writes like he must be about 100 years old, senile, and pining for the days when news coverage was simple: Just print what the War Dept. tells you to print. His arguments don't follow logically, his metaphors are strained (Jackson Pollock? Wha...?) Jesus. Did the NY Times pick him because they knew he'd be feeble, toothless, and bore his readers to tears? Couldn't they dredge up AM Rosenthal, or maybe even retire Safire then give him the gig? Why even bother, then? It isn't as if they're required to have an ombudsman. I thought they really wanted to reform, but apparently not. I've been liking the LA Times better lately, but I wish the NY Times would clean up its act because there isn't anyone quite ready to take their place.
(sorry....hit the key too quick)
CONVINCED that they are right. Reporters know they are going to get blasted whatever they do because we are all so fervent in our beliefs.
Having worked for a U.S. Senator, let me offer a bit of perspective. The office gets thousands of letters a week about hundreds of subjects. For most of the writers, the fact that they are writing means they feel strongly about the issue and it may well be the one issue that will decide how they vote for that political office, whether it be abortion, gun control, or new regulations for pickle manufacturing.
The Senator (or any office holder) will over time be asked to make decisions about hundreds of such issues...big and small. the majority of politicians get into office because they do care about issues and want to get involved. When they make a decision, chances are they are going to piss off a significant chunk of people who care about that particular issue. And those who lose think....How could that a...hole be so stupid. Over the course of their term in office, they will make some good decisions and some bad ones and it all will depend on how each of US feels about the choices they made. Then we decide whether or not to vote for them again.
Bush has made an incredible number of bad decisions...in fact I find it hard to think of any good ones...I am going to vote against him. I am doing everything I can to convince others to do so. I think the team around him is so ideologically fixated that it is incapable of making wise decisions.
But I do not think that sending letters to reporters telling them I hope their kid's head gets blown off has any place in a true democracy. When we start getting down to that level and firing at each other with that intensity, it isn't to much further to the barricades.
dweb: I'm sure the job can be a pressure cooker. (Thing is, you can say that about a lot of jobs.) But when the "public editor," whose job is to review comments and complaints from the public, writes something like:
(I can't wait to hear what readers think of the Kerry portrait today on the cover The New York Times Magazine, much less the article itself.) (Check that: Yes, I can.),
that just reeks of contempt for the readers. As a reader, I want the public editor to do his job -- not bitch about how hard his job is. If it's so hard that he can't keep his job-related frustrations out of his column, then he needs to quit, the poor baby.
And another thing -- I'm sure Paul Krugman gets a lot of hate mail himself. He doesn't seem to waste many column inches in pissing contests, though.
I'm done now. I think. (And dweb, my annoyance is aimed at Okrent, not you or your post -- in case it's not clear.) 
Okrent could have chosen to write...
Faith M.
Scott L. of Chevy Chase, MD
Michael M. of Darien, CT
John O. of San Francisco
Al M. of San Francisco
Samuel L. of Manhattan
Francis M. of Avon, CT
Sherrie S. of Manhattan
Eric K. of Scarsdale, NY
Steve S. from San Francisco
...and the intent of the article would have still been clear. That he used their full names and identified where they live was deliberately malicious if they did NOT consent to the use of their names and statements.
Do we know for sure that the man wasn't contacted?
FWIW, my niece's husband was badly wounded in Sammrah in July. He's recovering but it will take time. He's more fortunate than some and we're thankful for that. I do understand Steve from SF's feelings. I've never said anything like that out loud, nor have I written it, but I sure have "thought" it.
dweb -- Thank you. That was very well put. But you might send Okrent a link to LGF and ask if he might not want to revise his opinion of who is running ahead in the vileness sweekstakes this year.
After reading your comments, maybe some of the Haloscan breakers who depend so heavily on your goodwill will display a sense of shame.
Not likely.
That's it exactly, Underwhelm. We go to jail to protect the name of a traitor on the government payroll who undermines the security of the United States, and we willy-nilly publish the names and addresses of private citizens who have the nerve to express a private opinion.
And obviously under these strict criteria of nice behavior, Bob Dylan should be in maximum security for what he wrote in, say, "Masters of War."
If Nagourney supports the war then he doesn't care too much that otherpeople's kids get killed. This includes Iraqi children. Your not going to have a war without kids getting killed. The writer of the e-mail by wishing this on Nagourney's kid if his father supports an unjust war is trying to make Nagourney feel this pain that the parents over in Iraq have already felt. I think the bigger point that a true journalist would pursue is that we are in a War for no reason-and to the great shame of our society-as a society we seem to feel no guilt over the death and destruction we have brought to the innocent Iraq people. Unless Nagourney gets off his fat ass, goes to Iraq and spends the rest of the war writing from the perspective of the Iraqi children-he is nothing but a bag of hot wind. Ya HIS kid'S life is special but an Iraqi child's life is expendable.
"I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war,"
What? to many syllables?
A couple of observations from the person who has now lived everyone's worst nightmare: dashing off a quick, angry e-mail only to see it selectively misquoted in the NYT.
They edited out an important part (99% of it, actually):
"It is because of lazy reporters like you (and pathetic journalism by the NYT, as it has admitted) that hundreds of young men have had their heads needlessly blown off already."
It was a rhetorical device, not a threat. Adam is gay. He has no kids.
And he took special interest in me because he thinks I am behind this blog:
AdamNagourney.com
They went to great lengths to track me down. Adam pushed it. Okrent could give a flying f.
Adam and i corresponded about it on Friday, and I objected to him publishing my private e-mails to him. He pulled a tough guy attitude, though, and said in substance that I crossed him and this is what i get.
As for Okrent, he's a mindless buffoon:
"Dickens invented characters like Okrent, as he strove to describe a world in which idle, privileged, insolent people felt unvarnished contempt for their social inferiors. Okrent strolls straight outta those novels. But make no mistake—powdered people like Daniel Okrent are now in control of American discourse. Lazy, pampered, self-indulgent and stupid, they’ve made a sick joke of your interests for years. At some point, the public will have to find ways to end their control of our discourse."
Bob Somerby (9/13/04)
If only the NYT would go after the people who mindlessly led us to war the way they went after me. If only the NYT would be so unforgiving of thier own errors in covering the build up to the war as they were toward my poor choice of words in an angry e-PRIVATE mail.
They wanted to harm me. Adam sure did. And they did harm me. Can you imagine someone doing this to you over a lousy e-mail. But that's OK. No one died because of my errors. They can't say the same thing about theirs.
Off?
I have to disagree with Atrios on this one. If you show your ass, you deserve to have it shown for the world to see. We do it for those who compliment us, why not for those who choose to denigrate, as well? The choice is up to the receiver.
Steve from SF. you are not alone. Its great that you posted a response here.
personally, I hate these people with the power of 10,000 burning suns, but thats just me.
they should be forced to work in a VA hospital until their retirement.
thank you for standing up to those jackoffs.
oh and steve, a LOT of the "guys" supporting okrent on this thread, I have never seen post here before.
What I find missing in Okrent's rant at readers is any sort of indication that this one e-mail writer's inspiration came from a "left" corner of the blogosphere. Perhaps the e-mail itself proves the case, but Okrent does not make this clear.
Even if a blog organizes a "Project Nagourney," that does not obviate the possibility that poor Adam ALSO receives angry e-mails from others who are motivated independently, drawing their inspiration from the truly sucky reporting of Nagourney himself.
Methinks Paul Krugman should stroll by Okrent's office to give him a gander at the hate mail HE gets, before Okrent starts handing out prizes for "most vile" segment of the political spectrum. It seems that Mr. Krugman must not complain as much as Mr. Nagourney does.
Just wanted to apologize for the double-post up there. Took me long enough to get back on, though -- anyone else having problems with the site?
One more thing about Steve S. -- do we know for a fact that Steve S. isn't just an average, normal guy who banged out an email real fast while angry, and immediately clicked "Send" before calming down? Do we know Steve S. thought Nagourney would even have read the thing?
This should have been between Adam Nagourney and Steve S. Publishing his name only diminishes the Times even further.
Hi there, Steve from SF. Didn't see you -- I was writing my post before yours came up.
I guess you answered my questions.
I just read the times' op-ed about the 1st admendment and how judi miller is a traitor. Its funny how, when one of their own is sent to jail, that the nytimes gets around to thinking about what the fucking founders intended. fuck them.
Steve -- Thanks for pointing out the other side of the story. You might want to consider posting or publishing your entire e-mail exchange with Nagourney since Okrent has opened the door to this. Fair and balanced, nu?
nice point robert!
sorry, but i've had the same thoughts that steve schwenk from san francisco has had. only i had tim russert/chris matthews in mind and sentenced to an eternity of working at a v.a. hospital.
Steve -
I've been engaged with a war of words with the NYT for over a week now, with both Okrent and Bovino -- they seem to toss my complaint back and forth between themselves. What comes through always is condescension; the sneer makes itself felt in spite of the obligatory and artificial "thank you for your opinion." They seem deliberately obtuse about my points, as if that will put me off.
Thanks for posting here. It's an essential contribution to this discussion to get your point of view, which was something we could never hope to get from the NYT.
WOW, Steve. Thanks for posting. Amazing what a bunch of petty fools the so-called "liberal" NYT staffers are.
Did anyone notice the two lead articles on the web front page today re. Kerry's patrician roots and where he gets his money? I haven't read them yet but it sure is an iteresting juxtapostion considering Sommerby's comments about Okrent.
Two notable editorials from todays Times. In one, Friedman blames the insurgency on Saddam. In another, an oafish dimwit defends Judith Miller. With friends like these...
Thanks for all of the support. I really appreciate it.
Nagourney hopes this will shut everyone in blogsphere up, that you won't dare complain out of fear that you too will end up smeared in the NYT.
Funny, they called me a coward, yet they refused to allow me even one word in my own defense. Not one.
Thanks, Atrios. Thanks, everyone. Now I have to get some sleep!
Fahrenheit 9/11' Team Seeks Election-Eve Pay-TV
Steve, is this your first 15 minutes?
I heard Anna Quindlan speak at the National Book Fair yesterday. She was eloquent! She hears the outrage from both the left and the right [Ed: I bet she does!], but instead of blasting the idiots, she talked about those few letters in which her critic actually tries to take her to task with some semblance of argument. And how much she appreciated those rare letters!
After hearing her inject a little humor into the situation, I'll bet everyone in the audience went home and told somebody about her recommendation on how to further political discourse (or, at least, get on Anna's good side!).
Then again, Anna is a helluva good writer and social commentator, with a Pulitzer. Okrent and Nagorney are not. I blame the NYT editorial staff: They hired the hacks who cannot stand the heat. Too bad we cannot vote out on November 2 everyone who finds their jobs to be "hard work".
I heard Anna Quindlan speak at the National Book Fair yesterday. She was eloquent! She hears the outrage from both the left and the right [Ed: I bet she does!], but instead of blasting the idiots, she talked about those few letters in which her critic actually tries to take her to task with some semblance of argument. And how much she appreciated those rare letters!
After hearing her inject a little humor into the situation, I'll bet everyone in the audience went home and told somebody about her recommendation on how to further political discourse (or, at least, get on Anna's good side!).
Then again, Anna is a helluva good writer and social commentator, with a Pulitzer. Okrent and Nagorney are not. I blame the NYT editorial staff: They hired the hacks who cannot stand the heat. Too bad we cannot vote out on November 2 everyone who finds their jobs to be "hard work".
Let's not forget the inspiration for this particular unfortunate e-mail was the Republican nominee for VP in 1976:
"I figured out if we added up the killed and wounded in the Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans, enough to fill the city of Detroit."
As I recall, that remark was deemed so outrageous that it caused the GOP to wait 20 years to make him their nominee for president.
But at least he finally got some wood.
Nagourney hopes this will shut everyone in blogsphere up, that you won't dare complain out of fear that you too will end up smeared in the NYT.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA...
They have no idea whats coming after Nov 3rd.
shut us up? BWAHAHAHAHHAAHA
morans.
Steve S.
Would you consider posting the entire contents of your e-mail here for the record?
According to your post, your that sentence wasn't just taken out of context but was misquoted, and perhaps maliciously so.
Steve S. "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war,"
Okrent "It is because of lazy reporters like you (and pathetic journalism by the NYT, as it has admitted) that hundreds of young men have had their heads needlessly blown off already."
The two quotes are completely different and only have in common the phrase "head blown off"
Now we don't really know, if you really are the Steve S. in question, and if you are if that's what you really wrote (no offense intended, and I'm not really doubting that it is you but those are facts). But if you are who you say you are and if what you say you wrote is what you wrote then Okrent is also guilty of a major journalistic sin. I'm no lawyer but I wonder if Okrent's misquote does not also constitute grounds for a libel suit.
PS I agree with dweb tactically, since such e-mails while do nothing to convince and have instead the opposite effect of alienating the reciepient and as we see, can backfire by being represented by the balance-seeking press as being equivalent to the far more common wingnut death threat. But that doesn't mean that Atrios' point is wrong. I don't see why one can't maintain both, they are not mutually exclusive positions.
PPS The answer to Okrent's question is: No, of course not. Jackson Pollack was not a journalist but a painter. Fucktard. Really who did he fuck to get his job anyway?
What a Dick... Morris.
Bush is back! The president finally showed the guts, determination and focus that earned him victories in the three debates with Al Gore. He finally did his homework. He focused on his briefing points and mobilised his rhetoric to win the second debate.
(re: 2nd debate)
whatever happened to DICK to make him hate the Dems so much?
whatever happened to DICK to make him hate the Dems so much?
cold hard cash.
Kate: You should consider publishing those e-mail exchanges on someone's blog. What's fair is fair. Let's embarass the asses.
As much as I hate to say this--and I do frown all the time at NYT coverage, anyone who sends an email to a NYTimes or other reporter should KNOW it is a public comment. To think otherwise is foolish and not the way they operate.
you missed the point peterBOY
OMG patriotboy. I chuckled and I chuckled and I chuckled somemore. Some people have absolutely no sense of irony. And they're idiots.
But that is too funny. Mission Accomplished!
Steve in SF--
Thank you. The NYT needs to feel some heat for its failures. Maybe the e-mail exchanges with Nagourney got overheated and I'm sure that all of us would love to read them. But regardless of the words and tactics, the sentiment is absolutely correct.
The media has deeply, dangerously failed the citizenry, and reporters like Nagourney (and apologists like Okrent) are part of a very serious problem.
I long for the day when politicians live in fear of telling lies to a vigilant press. Presently it is comfortable reporters who seem to live in fear of exposing incumbent politicians in their lies. This is NOT acceptable.
Thank you for your efforts Steve, and frankly Atrios should set up a donation box for you. You have more friends than you can count.
Tim B. is absolutely right.
And those friends are patriotic Americans, not idiotic murkans.
Can the Chimp risk another debate?
Will the crowd face another Apegate?
Should he be on a chain,
Lest he freak out again?
Will he chest-thump, and then defecate?
The conventional media is afraid, in particular the commentary writers. When Talk Radio made it's impact in the 80's a number went on to become syndicated columnists. This is going to happen with the better blogs. TV media is now having bloggers on, newspapers are soon going to be dependent on their on-line versions to support their profit margin. It isn’t about getting your column in the Times, its’ about getting your syndicated column in the 100’s of local papers. Soon it will be about getting a high number of hits for your column on-line. If blogger-columnists become more popular than newspaper columnists then readers on the internet will decide by voting with a mouse click. The internet blog-commentators have proved they are not afraid of their readers talking back through the comments. But traditional newspaper columnists are terrified. This isn’t about being threatened by an e-mail, this is about being threatened by a blogsphere revolution.
OT...Why John Kerry's plan to increase tax rates on the wealthy is the right fix for the economy: www.taxwisdom.org
Linette
You know what I really like about the Times? It's complete and total lack of any information on how to contact them electronically. In fact, you have to email them if you want an email address.
Man, are they scared!
albert champion. Pulling subscription would hurt the Times in a small way, because they rely on circulation numbers to sell advertising, but it wouldn't hurt their bottom line because the price of a newspaper isn't enough to send them spiraling financially.
The pain comes if they can't get people to advertise in their paper, where the big money is made. Any kind of Times boycott needs to be directed at advertising.
Of course, if you just want to prove a point that liberals won't be reading the Times anymore, then subscription boycott is fine, if you want to hurt them financially, call their advertisers and tell them you are boycotting them as long as they advertise in that rag.
"Midnight Oil Singer Wins Parliament Seat
I would suggest Steve contact mediamatters.org with his story. I'm sure they'd love to run those email exchanges he had!
Blogs are the modern era pamphleteers with a whole bunch of new toys. They are informing a public now jaded by the ethics of the traditional news source. News media and press are facing with Blogs what the software industry is facing with open source software. Not only are the competition, they are working on a model the traditionalists cannot truly grasp. Another example of this is the music industry, again, blind to the momentum ot tech in the hands of the masses, always looking back to the past and its profit mechanisms.
you missed the point peterBOY
Hubris Sonic
Sorry to be cross-grained, but I think the point is well put, even if there are other points of more significance. With the people who pose as reporters/journalist you say
anything at your own risk.
It reminds me of a snippet from a Tom Clancy novel (Executive Orders, I think): "Why should I trust you -- you're a reporter."
correction : "Not only are they competition, "
It is bad enough I post, but worse when it isn't even 8:00 am. Need more caffeine.
Sigh. Whatever the email said, Atrios is right.
Nagourney should be embarrassed at his whimpering, petty revenge seeking.
I am a low-level reporter at a tiny-ass newspaper and I get flamed all the time, sometimes justifiably, sometimes by screaming cranks.
Sometimes they really bother you, but for me to try to take revenge in my own paper is laughable.
If I called up an editor or something and said hey I want to call some crank letter writer a coward in print and publish his name, will you do that for me?
He'd ask me why I was wasting his time.
Also, if someone sends me an email to my personal work address and it even seems like they meant it as a letter to the editor, we won't publish it.
And finally, I met a NYT reporter recently (not Nagourney) and he was friggen surrounded by an entourage of servants and gophers who ran around fetching him things and talking to people. Truly, these are not the advocates of the people.
renato asks: whatever happened to DICK to make him hate the Dems so much?
My guess is he was secretly in love with Bill Clinton and offered him a bj, but when Clinton spurned his advances, he went nuts.
You know what they say: A queen scorned. . .
his point was well put, I didnt say he was wrong. I said his missed the point of what happened. And if you read Steve's post, its clear he didnt post a blind email to the nytimes but was having a conversation with Nagourney.
besides, why doesnt Steve from SF get the same protection that Judith Millers traitorous contacts at the Whitehouse get? heh?
Yes, Steve, the Big Fat Whore Times will trash you and not give you the courtesy of a response.
And hoping a NYT offspring suffers from Bush regime's wars isn't a threat, it is a WARNING of WHO THE REAL DANGER IS HERE.
During the war in Nam, whenever I met a right wingloon slavering about how he wanted this war and wanted my brothers to fight it, I would ask him to volunteer to fight or to ante up with all his buddies and their kids to fight, ie, why have a damn draft when volunteers could easily fight.
Guess what?
NEVER did ANYONE take up my offer. The volunteers dropped each year, every year, until it was approaching zero. Then we quit fighting.
Period.
Oskrent should be hauled into court, Steve.
Re: 2:35 am post "make of this what you will" -- a link that points out Mr Nagourney is gay.
One expects homophobic bullshit language and innuendos from the right. It truly pisses me off when it enters the vocabulary of discussion here, a progressive site, which it does time after time as if calling someone or implying someone's gay or lesbian is an insult. That's playground stuff. Similarly noting the gender of someone when it is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion really goes beyond the pale.
his point was well put, I didnt say he was wrong. I said his missed the point of what happened. And if you read Steve's post, its clear he didnt post a blind email to the nytimes but was having a conversation with Nagourney.
Hubris Sonic
All true, but whether a blind e-mail or a conversation, relying on the "integrity" of a journalist for self-protection is a recipe for disaster.
Call me crazy, but I was one of the Times readers who eagerly scanned that piece HOPING Okrent would quote my letter, in which I described Adam Nagourney as "incompetent" and "an idiot who should not be allowed near a word processor."
Have to confess, I was disappointed to be left out.
Re: Steve, it seems to me that when you are sending letter to a newspaper, you are nuts if you imagine that they are somehow off the record. And his comment was out of line. That is the kind of childish sniping we expect of republicans. We can and should be better and smarter than they are, and when we are not, we should not take refuge in the expectation that no on is going to find out.
All true, but whether a blind e-mail or a conversation, relying on the "integrity" of a journalist for self-protection is a recipe for disaster.
unless its to protect a traitor in the whitehouse.
Front page this morning was an obviously fair an balanced piece "Wealth of Others Helped to Shape Kerry's Life".
You have to get to the second paragraph of the inside page to see. "Mr. Kerry's friends and advisers say the partrician label is unfair. Unlike President Bush, he did not grow up rich, ..."
Also note that Mr. Bush is President and Mr. Kerry isn't Senator. No soft bias there.
ugly.
c.
BTW, am I the only one who caught this:
Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public.
Is Okrent admitting that Schwenk's comment was "private"? As in, "not submitted for publication"? And he went ahead and published his name anyway? Despite knowing the communication was not "public"?
"I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war,"
I don't see anything wrong with that statement. My platoon had men in the 60s. Nagourney should sign up and get his head blown off in a Republican war along with his kid.
nice catch dave.
From now on when you write email to anyone in the media you should include the line: My name and content of this email is private and should not be published. If you publish my name or any part of this private email, I will get a lawyer and sue your ass off.
I think Steve should sue the NYT's ass off. Sounds like a case to me.
This isn’t about being threatened by an e-mail, this is about being threatened by a blogsphere revolution.
They are losing their power....to control the news cycle, to tell us what's good for us, to set the "conventional wisdom." The fact that we can talk back now really pisses them off. It's kind of funny to see the "public" editor of the NYT so worried about what one of us says.
All hail Blogista!!!!.....and thank you Al.
I'm starting to think Chuck Rangel (sp?) might have the only solution. For people like Nagourney, non-gay of course, to actually have their children's heads blown the fuck off! They seem to have no actual connection with the bleeding and the screaming and the dying. Let alone the wanton torture and abuse of the locals scarring their minds. Soon, if Bush's dreams come to fruition, we will not only be prevented from seeing the horrors we perpetrate, but they will be committed by fucking robots! UCVs= unmanned combat vehicles will do our dirty work while we sip tea.
Sigh, that was supposed to be BLOGISTAN!
Journalistic integrity: oxymoron
Steve:
You should drop a copy of the e-mail you sent to the folks at the Majority Report on Air America. I think if they interview you and read your entire e-mail--and listen to your account of your dealings with Nagourney--then this "nightmare" for you will end up being one of the best things that ever happened to you, and a move that the weasel Nagourney and sack-o'-shit Okrent will rue for the rest of their careers.
I'm confused.
Has this column been altered since it first went up? "...a coward named Steve Schrenk, from San Francisco..." does not exactly direct me to a person's home, place of work, and child's day school.
Hardly a violation of privacy, on it's face. You publish a statement like that (i.e., make it available to another person, especially via e-mail), you lay yourself open to a response (especially when you write to the reporter of a major newspaper).
I've noticed the level of civility in public discourse has plummeted with the Internet. Maybe it's the technology; maybe it's the "younger generation." Perhaps a generation raised on entertainment that includes children having their heads blown off considers such a statement about another man's child to be "harmless." Okrent says it crosses the line.
I agree with Okrent.
You can flame me all you want. You flame my child, you've crossed the line. You wish death and dismemberment on my child, even as an attempt to bring the horrors of war home to me, you've crossed the line.
Maybe, as I say, it's because I'm old fashioned. Maybe it's a generational thing, and threats ("flames") are suppposed to mean less than they do to someone my age. It's a sign of a different 'culture,' perhaps.
Makes no difference to me. I have no complaint, on the face of this, with what Okrent did. Did "Steve" mean to anonymously "flame" Nagourney? Then he shouldn't have used his name. Did he mean to wish ill on Nagourney, in frustration at what's going on in Iraq? Why shoot the messenger? (A common failing in Internet discourse, by the way.)
Are Nagourney and Okrent "thin-skinned"? Perhaps. That doesn't change the standards of civil discourse. The comment as reported truly "crosses the line." It might be levelled against Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice, etc., etc. It would still be childish and pointless, but the target would be closer to legitimate.
Levelling it against Nagourney is inexcusable. Mouth off like that, pay the consequences.
If "Schwenk" wanted to remain anonymous, his sentiment should have remained unpublished. He should have typed it up, and sent it to "draft," there to wither away as his reason gained the upper hand.
Soon, if Bush's dreams come to fruition, we will not only be prevented from seeing the horrors we perpetrate, but they will be committed by fucking robots!
Calling Magnus, Robot Fighter!
unless its to protect a traitor in the whitehouse.
Hubris Sonic
Ah, but that's a different matter. That addresses the right of a reporter not to burn a source unless it's to his or her advantage. Treason is in an entirely different category from petty revenge. <sarcasm>Exposing someone who writes you an overheated e-mail is all in a day's work, but defending someone who is suborning treason is defending the constitution.</sarcasm>
You cant have a conversation with a reporter that is not public. Why do you think all those flaks start off by saying: this is off the record before they establish ground rules for talking with Nagourney, Wilgoren, et. al. If the email was taken out of context, now there is a good complaint. They profession IS context. (I was the atrios fan who supplied you all with Nag@nytimes.com, a few weeks agol.)
Are you for real? Posts like this are likely to send me away from your site for weeks. I think you've become somewhat unhinged.
I expect no "privacy enforcement" when I write a letter to the editor. In fact, I have to say that part of what motivates me to express my views that way, are the kick I get knowing that thousands of other people are not only reading them but wondering who the hell Howard West is. Sad maybe, but true. I suspect most people are the same.
Whatever the "ethics" of including this information in the ombudsman's column, the Times is clearly not alone in its practice. Don Wycliff of the Chicago Tribune frequently does the same.
Okrent owes it to his public to protect them from themselves. Newcomers to the blogging and pundit criticizing hobby too often indulge extreme rhetoric and hyperbolic positions. The difference between the pro and the amateur is a certain degree of self-restraint.
Okrent, the pro's pro, should not have stooped to the level of the amateur critic. He should be big enough to trust the correspondent didn't mean what he was saying, literally, and he, like Nagourney and Atrios, should have the grace to not take such vitriol literally.
Sorry, Robert, disagree 100%, esp. since it appears the "offending" statement was grossly plucked out of context.
And especially esp. disagree with the statement "you lay yourself open to a response (especially when you write to the reporter of a major newspaper)." You lay yourself open to a response when you write to the chickenshit reporter of a podunk newspaper in a town where everyone knows everyone else, and even that reporter wouldn't pull this shit. When you're in the major metropolitan dailies, this shit is supposed to roll off your back, or get posted on the bulletin board for all to admire.
I expect no "privacy enforcement" when I write a letter to the editor.
This wasn't a "letter to the editor." Okrent seems to acknowledge it was not intended for publication.
Sometimes I get the feeling the whole country is being run by Paris Hilton.
--Molly Ivins
This tempest in a teapot has me wondering just how deeply into the national culture that influence extends.......
Posts like this are likely to send me away from your site for weeks.
Well, there's always a silver lining!
"Journalist" has it right. But thinking you can rely on their honor is iffy. After all, it is just journalism and ethics varies from one paper to another and even more--from one reporter to another.
so... here is a hypothetical, what if the nytimes threatened the love child of novak and the cia? would my email be private then? or would I be outed? AND what would the love child look like?
Sorry, dave, but I haven't got a clue what I posted that you are disagreeing with.
me either
Sorry, I was to talking to Jeffers...
Howard
It wasn't a letter to the editor. It was a private e-mail that was part of an ongoing correspondence between Steve S. and Nagourney.
I think some of you guys didnt read Steve from SF's post earlier in this thread.
and yes I understand the obvious that conversation with a reporter/news agency is not private (duh)
you should understand okrents piece was supposed to intimidate the blogsphere and its inhabitants, if you though it was about Steve you are mistaken.
Atrios, you're now officially a middle-aged white guy who's mad his life is a failure, despite your inflated sense of worth. Go join the rest of the failed insurance salesman at your local bar and whine about how the world isn't how you like it.
Okrent didn't do anything wrong with publishing the name of the miscreant sending some questionable mail.
Why are you so mad, Duncan?
Robert M. Jeffers, I disagree. The Jews went civilly to the Nazi gas chambers.
This wasn't a "letter to the editor." Okrent seems to acknowledge it was not intended for publication.
Problem: reporters are free to report what they want to. 'Off the record' conversations are not for publication, either. Until they get published.
Again, all I have from this is someone's name, and a city. A damned big city, BTW. How many "Steve Schwenks" are there in SF? I know of at least one other "Robert Jeffers" here in Houston, because he donates big money to NPR, and they mention him frequently.
It ain't me.
So what do I know about this guy, from Okrent? Nothing. What do I know of his opinion? It's rather childish, an angry.
Get the same thing here everyday from somebody, though most of them post under pseudonyms or anonymously.
This is a tempest in a teapot. Had Okrent published an address, a phone number, an e-mail, and encouraged his readers to "flame" "Schwenk" (which, after all, may be a pseudonym. Okrent puts the name in quotes, if you will note), then there'd be a problem.
Reacting angrily to one over-the-top comment? That's barely worth notice.
With all due respect to those who disagree.
Sorry, I was to talking to Jeffers...
dave
Oh. That's okay then. But be careful, he's a lawyer.
that disastrous witch, Judith Miller
Those of you who groaned and said, "Oh, no, here comes Hecate!" please feel free to skip this rant.
Judith Miller is not a witch. A witch is a member of the Wiccan religion. I'm a witch. Judith Miller is a bitch.
You wouldn't say, "that disasterous jew, Judith Miller" in order to show that you don't like her. Similarly, please don't use my religion as a slur.
Judith Miller is a bitch, a poor excuse for a journalist, and a sack of shit. She's not a witch.
Thank you.
who uses witch in that manner anyway, talk about outdate.... mom, is that you?
Methinks "Jeffers" hasn't read the thread and is trumpeting his ignorance of the affair. Perhaps he should re-read Atrios' posting and then the thread, and then, ideally, STFU. If I told Saddam that I hoped his kids were thrown into one of those fabled wood-chippers, would I be remiss? Is it so bad to hope that the Germans who died in WWII were actual Nazi party members? Or is that across your fucking line. If you want a fucking war, you should be prepared to send your fucking kids.
Robert M. Jeffers: Problem: reporters are free to report what they want to. 'Off the record' conversations are not for publication, either. Until they get published.
In other words, anything goes. That's really the point here, isn't it, that there is no longer any such thing as honor or integrity in journalism.
Lets see, the offending comment was "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war,"
That doesn't sound to me like the correspondent was really looking to engage in meaningful dialog. How about some personal accountability? What's the cardinal rule of email, don't write anything you'd be ashamed for the whole world to see? I understand that having one's name published by one of the largest papers in the country can be troublesome, but why should that person also expect the paper to hold all the accountability cards?
Turn it around the other way. Would you be quite so upset if the comment had been "I hope your child dies at the hands of some Kerry-loving Arab terrorist"?
He's right, the whole discourse of this campaign has become poisonous. I don't know what I'm more afraid of, that it won't end, or that it will. I can't see any good coming out of this election, regardless of who wins. It may even be worse if it goes the way I want, a Kerry win, because of the vileness likely to be perpetrated by the GOP on the Hill for at least the next two years.
integrity in journalism.
Good lord! who said anything about journalism! we were talking about the new york times.
Robert M. Jeffers, I disagree. The Jews went civilly to the Nazi gas chambers.
You really want to make that comparison, and still be taken seriously in this matter?
you should understand okrents piece was supposed to intimidate the blogsphere and its inhabitants, if you though it was about Steve you are mistaken.
And "Steve's" comment was meant to do what?
So we are in the position of "two wrongs don't make a right." If Okrent intended what you say (and I'm no mind reader, just a humble interpreter of texts, but I can't find evidence of that kind of intent anywhere), then he failed. I'm not intimidated.
If, on the other hand, Okrent meant to raise a hand for decency in public discourse (and since "Schwenk" and Nagourney are not, presumably, good friends, I'll assume this was not a private matter), then I stand with him.
It's not intimidation to say that outrageous comments like this, meant clearly to outrage themselves, add more heat than light.
As many have noted above, this is what our opponents do. But, as I have noted before, the irony is, that which you most strongly oppose, you most come to resemble.
McCarthyism didn't arise in a vacuum, after all. It was a response to the post-war terror of Stalinism.
That's an over-the-top comparison, too, and I know it. But if we are going to raise the level of public discourse from where Karl Rove wants to take it, we don't start by defending the right of "Steve Schwenk" to wish the brutal death of the children of an NYTimes reporter, just because "Steve" doesn't like how that reporter writes his stories.
Hecate:
I'm a Druid. Wanna party?
oh dear, he is a lawyer.
Civility has cost us the Senate, House, SCOTUS and presidency. I think it's time we stopped being decisively civil and change tactics with this new information.
goatscape: Like the nick. that's all folks.
Good lord! who said anything about journalism! we were talking about the new york times.
Hubris Sonic
Beautiful!
AND what would the love child look like?
Hubris Sonic
Paris Hilton?
goatscape: Like the nick. that's all folks.
And "Steve's" comment was meant to do what?
I dont know I didnt read the entire exchange, but I will give an anonymous blogger the edge over Adam Nagourney.
You really want to make that comparison, and still be taken seriously in this matter?
Yeah, I realize it's tired to compare everything to Nazis. But where else is this headed?
Robert M. Jeffers: Problem: reporters are free to report what they want to. 'Off the record' conversations are not for publication, either. Until they get published.
In other words, anything goes. That's really the point here, isn't it, that there is no longer any such thing as honor or integrity in journalism.
Telling a man you hope his child has his head blown off in a war is honorable? Displays integrity? Is not an example of "anything goes, because Nagourney started it by upsetting me with his reporting?"
Methinks "Jeffers" hasn't read the thread and is trumpeting his ignorance of the affair. Perhaps he should re-read Atrios' posting and then the thread, and then, ideally, STFU. If I told Saddam that I hoped his kids were thrown into one of those fabled wood-chippers, would I be remiss? Is it so bad to hope that the Germans who died in WWII were actual Nazi party members? Or is that across your fucking line. If you want a fucking war, you should be prepared to send your fucking kids.
Nice to see the public discourse on this topic is so civil, too.
Point out to me where I said I wanted this war. Or am a Bush supporter.
Point out to me, in any of the posts I've made on any of these threads, where I've said that.
Ask the regular posters here what my position is. You are the one displaying ignorance, not me.
Your ranting descent into childish obscenity underlines the weakness of your argument. Come back when you are able to reason.
RJM, your point is well argued, but I still dont like Okrent and his ilk. pardon me if I have my gloves off, theres a war on.
The discourse has turned poisonous for what boils down to one simple reason: One side is fundamentally dishonest.
What they say is demonstrably false, and when they are confronted with their own error, instead of acknowledging it, they turn to vitriol.
Sorry, it really is that simple.
"But if we are going to raise the level of public discourse from where Karl Rove wants to take it, we don't start by defending the right of "Steve Schwenk" to wish the brutal death of the children of an NYTimes reporter, just because "Steve" doesn't like how that reporter writes his stories."
Dude, read the thread! You're just fucking wrong. It was out of context and private. Ant, BTW, there's only one Steve Schwenk in S.F. You really need to see the context of his statement. Please?
Let's take a step back:
One thing that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq--from Michael Moore on down--have been trying to do is say, "What if it were YOUR kids?" Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc. are all cowards who once believed in a war but didn't want to fight it themselves. It seems to me an entirely legitmate thing to pose that kind of question to a reporter writing in support of such an administration. Maybe I would have phrased it as a question... But then, if Nagourney is gay and childless it certainly wouldn't have gotten under his skin the way it would under a parent.
oh dear, he is a lawyer.
And a pastor. And a yellow-dog Democrat. But try not to hold any of that against me.
Yeah, I realize it's tired to compare everything to Nazis. But where else is this headed?
Well, when Arthur Salzburger takes over the government in a putsch, and starts imposing martial law, we can resume this line of worry.
"Civility has cost us the Senate, House, SCOTUS and presidency. I think it's time we stopped being decisively civil and change tactics with this new information."
Lack of civility in the GOP has produced a party that has totally abandoned its historical prinicples and replaced them only with a lust for power.
Is that really what you wish for the Dem/Left? Maybe that's our problem, but I don't see a world filled with me-too Democrats being much of an improvement.
when Arthur Salzburger takes over the government in a putsch it will be too late.
Robert Jeffers,
I guess you approve of reporters taking stuff out of context, especially when they are losing the battle in a private email discussion?
Which is what Nagourney did.
A couple of observations from the person who has now lived everyone's worst nightmare: dashing off a quick, angry e-mail only to see it selectively misquoted in the NYT.
They edited out an important part (99% of it, actually):
"It is because of lazy reporters like you (and pathetic journalism by the NYT, as it has admitted) that hundreds of young men have had their heads needlessly blown off already."
It was a rhetorical device, not a threat. Adam is gay. He has no kids.
And he took special interest in me because he thinks I am behind this blog:
AdamNagourney.com
They went to great lengths to track me down. Adam pushed it. Okrent could give a flying f.
Adam and i corresponded about it on Friday, and I objected to him publishing my private e-mails to him. He pulled a tough guy attitude, though, and said in substance that I crossed him and this is what i get.
As for Okrent, he's a mindless buffoon:
"Dickens invented characters like Okrent, as he strove to describe a world in which idle, privileged, insolent people felt unvarnished contempt for their social inferiors. Okrent strolls straight outta those novels. But make no mistake—powdered people like Daniel Okrent are now in control of American discourse. Lazy, pampered, self-indulgent and stupid, they’ve made a sick joke of your interests for years. At some point, the public will have to find ways to end their control of our discourse."
Bob Somerby (9/13/04)
If only the NYT would go after the people who mindlessly led us to war the way they went after me. If only the NYT would be so unforgiving of thier own errors in covering the build up to the war as they were toward my poor choice of words in an angry e-PRIVATE mail.
They wanted to harm me. Adam sure did. And they did harm me. Can you imagine someone doing this to you over a lousy e-mail. But that's OK. No one died because of my errors. They can't say the same thing about theirs.
Steve from SF | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 7:20 am | #
Way OT, but a good chuckle as well as a wonderful illustration of a stupid BushCo policy: today's Kevin & Kell.
RJM, your point is well argued, but I still dont like Okrent and his ilk. pardon me if I have my gloves off, theres a war on.
Fine. You don't have to like him.
Myself, I don't care about this topic at all. Just wanted to put in my two cents worth. But the "group think" is thick as pea soup around here, and partisans quickly line up alongside whatever is posted, and quickly squash any dissent.
I merely rise to dissent. But that's enough. It's Sunday morning. There are better ways to spend the day that arguing this point.
And I'm not trying to "win" or piss everybody else off.
It's all yours, again. Enjoy.
"As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year."
Okrent has never visited Little Green Footballs, has he?
A few points:
-- Steve in SF: Get on Air America, NOW, and tell your story. Show that puke Nagourney that you don't scare as easily as he thinks you do. Call 'em up -- they'll be happy to dedicate an hour or two to your situation. (Howard Stern would work, too. Don't laugh: His audience is HUGE, and he hates the GOP/Media.)
-- This isn't the first time a chickenshit member of the GOP/Media axis has pulled this shit on a private citizen. Susan Schmidt tried to get a guy fired because he used his work e-mail addy to send her e-mail. She tracked down who his bosses were and sent them e-mails. Luckily, they were on his side!
woah... I welcome your dissent RJM. and I can think of no better way to spend a sunday then arguing the state of the press. maybe Steve made a mistake, and maybe we can all learn alot from it. But dont be put off by a few posters here.
Several people have bought Steve S. of SF's claim that he's the original Steve Schwenk now immortalized in the Good Grey Times. He might well be, but how do you know?
Twenty bucks says Adam N. has gotten e-mails just as bad, and probably worse, from the loony right. We're being held to a higher standard -- flattering, in its way, but annoying. Anyway, Schwenk's e-mail is presumptively not for publication and he may have a claim for defamation or invasion of privacy. He should see a lawyer, first thing tomorrow. Hit the Times where it lives -- in the wallet.
This is one of the dumbest threads ever posted here. First, Atrios, your "fuck you, Adam Nagourney," is completely out of line and is exactly the kind of uncivil behavior Okrent is railing against. Second, anyone who writes a newspaper and signs his own name to a letter is automatically violating his OWN "privacy."
It is completely within the newspaper's right to reprint any letter addressed to it for any purpose whatsoever -- EVEN if the writers says "don't print it."
If you don't want those words in print, don't send them to a news organization. This is easy.
we are far from winning a vileness contest.
A couple of observations from the person who has now lived everyone's worst nightmare: dashing off a quick, angry e-mail only to see it selectively misquoted in the NYT.
Actually, I did that privately. Got me in no end of trouble in my pastorate. Realized then that e-mails are too easy to write, too easy to send, and anger is not the best writing tool in the mental toolbox.
Live and learn.
Was "Schwenk" quoted out of context? Well, how do we know (I'll play lawyer a moment): where's your evidence? A post on this thread? A post somewhere else?
Hell, people post on this thread under other people's names all the time. I may not even be "Robert M. Jeffers," for all you know. Not saying the guy who posted here claiming the true story is lying. Just saying we can't verify it.
Did Okrent make this up, including the quote he included in his column, one that certainly appears to be accurate? If he did, that's an egregious violation of journalistic ethics, a real Jayson Blair situation. And I'd take that damned seriously. As a scholar myself, I value accuracy of sourcing above many things, especially in a publication.
But as a lawyer, and a scholar, I want to know: where's the evidence?
If it's simply "on line," and what's been posted here, that's not enough.
This is a tempest in a teapot. It's a big world out there. You post outraged comments, or send an outraged e-mail, expect to pay for it.
In some way, anyway. "For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction," is not just a law of physics.
>But the "group think" is thick as pea soup around here
And the only thoughts which really matter are yours, right?
Could you at least imagine how you would feel if your private words words were taken out of context, and you were personally screwed like this?
This is isn't group think, Robert...it is other people being able to identify with someone who was personally HURT by a public figure mischaracterizing correspondence.
Is that really what you wish for the Dem/Left? Maybe that's our problem, but I don't see a world filled with me-too Democrats being much of an improvement.
Howard West
That right, of course. So either way you're going to have the boot on your face forever. That's why I've been so pessimistic about the future.
and I do kinda take umbridge at being accused of suffering from group-think.
I could find two Steve Schwenks in SF (one Steve X. Schwenk). With phone numbers for both.
It seemed pretty obvious to me that "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war" was a rhetorical device. This was before Steve made his post, telling us this. It was not a real wish, and certainly not a thread.
Okrent only show what a small-minded vindictive bully he is by publishing Steve's name, and surname, and location. I can't see how the act is anything besides gross bullying and intimidation.
As 'journalist' pointed out, try to imagine a reporter fronting up to his editor, and asking, "Hey, I've been having a heated email argument with a reader, would you mind if I published his name and one line of his correspondence to make him look as bad as possible?" Okrent seems to be able to get away with this crap because he's an ombudsman (or whatever position it is he has).
It seems pretty clear that Schwenk and Nagourney exchanged more than one email; it was private correspondence; and Schwenk didn't want his name published.
I repeat: Okrent (and Nagourney) come out of this episode looking much, much worse than Steve Schwenk.
I think Jeffers is feeling his oats this morning.
All it means is that they do a shitty job all the way around and that is the truth
The group-think meme is so selfserving....sometimes one is just simply wrong, and not a victim.
Well, if I subscribed, I would cancel. I wish we could all just stop reading these newspapers and go back to the revolution answer of media -- person to person and leaflets.
Even now in the leadup to any war (er, that would be peace?) we drop leaflets on the public. Saying how we are the good guys and all.
We should drop leaflets all over america about how we want our country back, and we will not be defeated, and such. I suppose that would be pollution though.
However, re our current topic, I would remind Okrent about what is happening to that Texas paper that endorsed Kerry with a scathing editorial on Bush. His ads are being cancelled and his young reporters just going out to cover high school games are being physically threatened with death.
Someone tell Okrent to get on THAT story, wouldya?
"Uncivil Behavior"
Goodness. I must go doublecheck my glovebox and make sure I have enough for the next era of pleasant civility. I have the idea that some of my white silk pairs may need cleaning, and a button or two replaced. Since there can be no controversy allowed, no opposition, no dissent (no vulgarity, ever, never!), no bad acts, no poor judgement, no false step - welcome to the New America.
America, indeed....
I HEAR America singing, the varied carols I hear;
Those of mechanics—each one singing his, as it should be, blithe and strong;
The carpenter singing his, as he measures his plank or beam,
The mason singing his, as he makes ready for work, or leaves off work;
The boatman singing what belongs to him in his boat—the deckhand singing on the steamboat deck;
The shoemaker singing as he sits on his bench—the hatter singing as he stands;
The wood-cutter’s song—the ploughboy’s, on his way in the morning, or at the noon intermission, or at sundown;
The delicious singing of the mother—or of the young wife at work—or of the girl sewing or washing—Each singing what belongs to her, and to none else;
The day what belongs to the day—At night, the party of young fellows, robust, friendly,
Singing, with open mouths, their strong melodious songs.
Jeffers--
Steve has protested that his comments were taken out of context. That is meaningful and quite possibly underscores the broader complaint about journalistic standards with regard to the NYT.
Regardless, if Steve's dictoion and tactics are worthy of condemnation--it is a twig compared to the forest of weak reporting by the NYT in respect to fact-checking Bush. Excoriating the messenger as uncouth doesn't invalidate the message.
Lastly, Okrent took pains to identify Steve in SF and most certainly published identifying info that was immaterial to the condemnation. What other motive could there be besides vengeance? It's not only petty, it's irresponsible in today's political climate.
What is your complaint exactly? That he was rude and "crossed a line"? Please explain a little more clearly what that line is and what you think the appropriate consequence is for crossing it. A duel?
Atrios, you said:
The fact that the NYT's public editor, the person who is supposed to represent the *readers*, has chosen to publish the name and a clipped quote from a reader who never intended his name or comments to be published, and made that desire clear multiple times, is disgusting.
I did't see up thread or in your comments any indication as to how you know this reader asked to have his comments not be published. Is this something that I missed? Or just something that you know to be a fact?
Thanks
The quandary I am facing: Is the high NYT Home Delivery price worth Krugman, Rich, and the theater/movie reviews, which are the only things worth bothering with today, and which are available on web?
I'm less than convinced by the selective indignation of Mr. Okrent, who hasn't been caught fretting about right-wing flames.
>Yeah, I realize it's tired to
>compare everything to Nazis. But
>where else is this headed?
Well, when Arthur Salzburger takes
over the government in a putsch, and
starts imposing martial law, we can
resume this line of worry.
Actually, David Neiwert's series on fascism in the US has been pretty interesting (if typically Neiwert-style wordy). He's up to part 3 of 6.
Sure equating fascism/Nazism with the Bushistas is hyperbolic and shrill, but there are many dire ominous parallels between the American right wing and European fascism. Neiwert's site is worth a look if you don't already have it on your list of blogs to keep tabs on.
I've noticed the level of civility in public discourse has plummeted with the Internet. Maybe it's the technology; maybe it's the "younger generation." Perhaps a generation raised on entertainment that includes children having their heads blown off considers such a statement about another man's child to be "harmless." Okrent says it crosses the line.
whatever else i think of RMJs post i certainly agree with the above.
in other news, i live in orlando, where this grey haired preacher of the first baptist church is on TV, specifically advocating not voting for JK/JE because they don't hold core christian values. that crosses the line.
i get the feeling we are headed for some very ugly times. oh wait.
albert champion....the nyt despite its warts is still the best newspaper in the country. it still has maureen doud and bob herbert and paul krugman. it still has articles with substance. and what would you read if not the nyt? certainly not the nypost. the wsj perhaps? what a joke. no publication is perfect. if there were such a thing as a "perfect" newspaper, that is, one that only states your political views, it would be a pretty boring publication. I believe the nyt tries to be balanced. which is a lot more than I can say about most other media. and if you think you can get your news from the internet you're in for a big shock. most news essentially comes from the same source...the ap or reuters. the new good newspapers, like the nyt, send out their own reporters on major stories...and while they're not perfect...they're pretty good, adam nagourney and judith miller notwithstanding.
(my letter to Okrent)
Dear Mr. Okrent:
There are many things I could say about your column today, but others, such as Steve Gilliard, say them much better than I could. So let me restrict myself to one point: you and Adam Nagourney, as well as the editor who approved your column, are a bunch of pathetic thin-skinned whiners. Mr. Nagourney, instead of putting Steve Schwenk's missive in the bit bucket, ran to you with this letter and persuaded you to run it as an example of evil leftist perfidy. I thought you were supposed to be the PUBLIC editor, not the go-to guy for offended reporters.
If Mr. Nagourney or yourself want to really understand what it's like to be attacked for expressing oneself, I suggest you google my name. The first item, which is about me, is a link to a site run by followers of a particular belief system who were offended by the fact that I picketed their organization on several occasions. That website is full of information about myself that is either false or misleading. But they've been up for a few years, and after the first initial shock, I've grown used to the fact that they're there.
Let me suggest that Mr. Nagourney, as a reporter covering the campaign, is a rather prominent person and will get weird emails. I would hope that he'd grow a thicker skin instead running to you, crying that he's been so terribly offended. Basically, he, and you need to get over it. Moreover, it should never have been mentioned in your column. By running it, you seriously damage your position as the PUBLIC editor.
Sincerely,
Sure equating fascism/Nazism with the Bushistas is hyperbolic and shrill,
no, i don't think so. i'm not as smart as some of the posters in here, don't always grasp the entirity of the issues at hand, but fascism stinks, and i smell fascism.
just an uneasy sense i have about things, call it a morons intuition.
Remember when the WaPo admitted that angry emails from the right influenced their war coverage? Well now we've learned that we need to work the refs as well and the refs don't like it one bit. It's a lot easier when you're only having to trim your sails to tack in one direction. Maybe in the end they'll figure out that since they'll get angry emails from both sides they should just go ahead and do their fucking jobs.
And, having been subject to eight years of Clinton hatred, where the right accused the Clintons of everthing from rape to murder to drug dealing, I'm a little underwhelmed by all the "left wing hatred" or "Bush hatred" we keep hearing about this year. Wake me up when people like Smathews make their friggin' careers bashing Bush 24/7, ok?
And, I agree with those who've said that what the NYT and others are really worried about is Blogistan. And I like the smell of that kind of fear in the morning. I think we all know what it smells like.
Compared to a university education in the 18th century, which produced most of our Founding Fathers, today's college graduates only have an 8th Grade education. That's the point we're at now. Civility doesn't work anymore. Incivility from the left wont work either. There isn't even common sense anymore from ordinary citizens from our now deeply-dumb society. So we're fucked any way you look at it.
Why shouldn't we hope that those on the Times (much of the staff) who have facilitated Bush's war and political goals personally suffer, in their own families, what those in less privileged positions are suffering on account of the Times complicity and failings?
Nagourney's articles are central to the Times' coverage of Kerry, and they're usually incompetently written. The Times owes it to the Republic to put its best writers on as important an issue as the presidency and election to it. Nagourney's incompetence may not be a slant, per se, but it is a screen which prevents his readers from understanding who Kerry really is, and thus favors the Republicans by fogging the issues.
On the other hand, similar bad reporting on Bush doesn't balance things, but helps to hide Bush's truth - which is just what Rove would wish for.
Bottom line: The Times is as responsible as the White House for the war. In a world with more justice than this, the families in both cases would suffer tragedy in proportion to how they've brought it to others. Isn't that what the e-mail writer was awkwardly saying?
Maybe in the end they'll figure out that since they'll get angry emails from both sides they should just go ahead and do their fucking jobs.
excellent, and exactly what I would like to have happen.
GWPDA, By civil behavior I don't mean button-up white gloves. I mean not saying to someone you hope their kid has his head blown off.
If you don't understand the difference, you never will. I am shocked how completely this thread proves Okrent's point.
If they seriously felt that Steve from SF was threatening them why didnt they call the FBI. Why? because they didnt think it was a threat. they felt intimidated by the left. Dont threaten the cool kids dont you know what happens?
I meant to sign my name, not leave that anon.
feh, okrents argument, and righteous indignation was spurious. and probably vociferously facile! (sic)
Yo! For those of you who missed it (both of you), when Atrios says, "Fuck You, Adam Nagourney" he is throwing down the gantlet--he's calling Nagourney a coward.
Having the NYT publish something you hadn't intended for print puts you at a table where the deck is stacked againat you, not a fair fight.
The A-Man just challenged Nagourney to a 21st Century duel.
On a level playing field.
Bewck Buck buck buck, Nagourney.
Chickenshit.
Oh boy, oh boy, duels!.....I love em'.
sigh... these are words, words that Steve sent Adam, words that okrent published.
In Iraq there are many, many peoples children with there heads no longer attached to their bodies. and the nytimes is partly to blame for that.
civilty be damned.
"By civil behavior I don't mean button-up white gloves."
But Anonymous, that is precisely what is meant, and all that it is imagined that goes with it.
You imagine that somehow wild and provocative speech, uttered rudely, has some despicable and deplorable and somehow measureable effect on the otherwise glorious and neatly gloved unitary society. It doesn't. It is merely wild and provocative speech, uttered in anger, with no further effect.
Writing that "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war," is impolitic. It is not however some magical definition of the grand decay of society, such as it is. It is merely impolitic. That such impolitic remarks are passed is evidence only of societal tension - and just exactly what does that tell us? That Americans are rude, vulgar and impolitic? Old news indeed, 'Anonymous', old news.
On the more positive newspaper front, I opened my Sunday St. Louis Post Dispatch to the editorial page and read "John Kerry for President." I expected it, but it was good to see anyway.
Very strong editorial.
What's the cardinal rule of email, don't write anything you'd be ashamed for the whole world to see?
and But as a lawyer, and a scholar, I want to know: where's the evidence? If it's simply "on line," and what's been posted here, that's not enough.
(from different posters)
This is what Atrios was getting at about the imbalance between using the NYT as a platform to hold someone out to public ridicule and apparent intimidation for some intemperate remarks. From what platform is Steve supposed to rebut and clear his name?
Okrent demonized the words, by framing them in the "uncivil discourse" and saying they crossed a line.
Were those comments really the boundary of bad taste beyond which a big city newspaper can't restrain themselves from deriding a private citizen? Seriously?
Steve, as alleged, only has the blogs and as the lawyer argues, it's impossible to authenticate any deeper story. We only have the word of the "paper of record." Is the lawyer prepared to assume that the Times has its facts right? Let's not get me started on the validity of empiricism.
I'd be willing to posit that Steve didn't have a problem with his words being published. It was the frame that cooked him, and the frame was the four corners of the Times.
"It's intimidating the same way "I hope your wife gets raped" is intimidating. It's the happiness about the injury, and it's the dragging the kids into it. It's both together. I just think it goes too far.
craigie"
I don't think it's intimidating in the same way as your comparison remark; look there is a real war going on, people are dying & there is a potential for a draft. While I was not privy to the totality of the letter, there is context for the remark. Your comparison falls short, to me, in the area of context; your comparison remark indicates a hatred for the person alone.
What I read in the article, and heard in the referenced remark is that the letter writer feels a sense of desperation and powerlessness about the world, that the NYT is not showing how things really are, nor the potential for disaster.
The letter writer to me is (though not necessarily well written) is trying to get the newspaper writer to put himself into the moment of loss a parent experiences when they lose a child in this war. That the newspaper writer has an important responsibility to be unbiased.
A think Okrent wrote the wrong article, rather he should mention the letters in general, how they are divided, the feeling they express and how that reflects on the paper's work as well as our culture.
The NYT article was meanspirited, not helpful and makes me think Okrent needs to find another job.
Of course, the honorable thing would be to be civil as we all sink together but I just hate it because it's all so stupid. So let Steve rant.
, your "fuck you, Adam Nagourney," is completely out of line and is exactly the kind of uncivil behavior Okrent is railing against
Yeah, Atrios, it's shrill to say the f-word. Well, it's ok if you do in in the Senate and feel better afterwards, but it's shrill if you're a liberal. Liberals are supposed to be nice little liberals and smile sweetly while the fundie corporatists take our country, and thus the entire world, back to some sick dystopia that never did and never can exist. Well, it's ok to ask them nicely anD civilly to please stop or maybe slow down, but it's not ok to get all, you know, shrill. Because, Goddess knows, once they hustle us off to detention camps in Montana, if we haven't got our nice manners, then WHAT THE FUCK WILL WE HAVE LEFT?
Nag and Okie are public figures, and, so being, they need a thicker skin.
I'm all for raising the level of public (or private) dialogue, but, hey, I don't yet see Democrats kicking protesters as the protesters are being arrested.
How can this, which appears at the bottom of the article, possibly be accurate? Has he no understanding of the word "representative"?
"The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own."
Fuck you New York Times. You get a big F for professionalism and truth telling.
Yeah, but Okrent invented rotisserie baseball. You can look it up.
GWPDA, have it your way. Say anything to anyone. Forget that Adam Nagourney might be a real man with a real child, and that the letter writer's "wish" for that child is merely "impolitic" or political and NOT personal.
If YOU were Adam N., and it were your child being referred to, I'll bet you'd feel a bit differently.
But you can't teach the difference between passion and hatred to people who hate. Good luck to you.
D'ahr!
Kevvboy: you're missing the point. Even if I were Nag and had a kid, the worst I would suffer was hurt feelings and then I'd hit the delete key.
The only threat Nag felt was to his pride.
Hey, Hecate, Montana is -civilised- already. The detention camps always go into places like Arizona where it's well understood that there's no foundation all the way down the line....
(1) "I hope your kid dies" is vile. it's nasty. It's over the line and should not have been said. As a parent, I can understand Okrent's anger.
(2) Okrent is supposed to be a professional and not let anger influence his editorial decisions. I write a pretty liberal column for a paper in one of the most conservative counties in North Carolina (you may have heard of the paper in Cheney's debate lies). I get hate e-mails every week, saying some pretty nasty things. I've been tempted to identify the writers in print and call them out publicly to see if they'd like to say to my face some of the shit they say in e-mail. But I don't. I'm not even a full time journalist and I know better and so do my editors.
(3) I must have missed the bit where Okrent published Schwenks address and e-mail. Did I read an edited version?
I suggest newcomers to the thread read from the top.
The detention camps always go into places like Arizona
Oh, well, that's ok then. I'll die of sunburn before the tea party!
The power of the press.
Okrent should have thought about the impact of that statement before he lashed out.
But it should be a lesson to those of us who truly want more civil discourse. I hope it's not an impossible dream. And I'm not talking about blog comments. There's a lot of anger out there, and this is a good place to get rid of it, because it helps to read calmer, more reasonable people's impressions when you'd like to bite someone's head off. It helps give you a sense of perspective.
In an email, think before you hit SEND.
"Remember when the WaPo admitted that angry emails from the right influenced their war coverage? Well now we've learned that we need to work the refs as well and the refs don't like it one bit. It's a lot easier when you're only having to trim your sails to tack in one direction. Maybe in the end they'll figure out that since they'll get angry emails from both sides they should just go ahead and do their fucking jobs.
And, having been subject to eight years of Clinton hatred, where the right accused the Clintons of everthing from rape to murder to drug dealing, I'm a little underwhelmed by all the "left wing hatred" or "Bush hatred" we keep hearing about this year. Wake me up when people like Smathews make their friggin' careers bashing Bush 24/7, ok?
And, I agree with those who've said that what the NYT and others are really worried about is Blogistan. And I like the smell of that kind of fear in the morning. I think we all know what it smells like.
Hecate | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 10:01 am | #"
This was good enough to say it twice, dammit.
All kudos to our host here, but I think he's wrong in this case.
1) If you write a signed letter to the owners of the big printing press, I don't think you can complain if they use it to print your letter, and name.
2) Since I would guess 99% of letters to the editor are in the form of emails, I think there's little distinction between one addressed to "editor@nytimes.com" and "anagourney@nytimes.com" (assuming those are the correct addresses; I'm making them up.) And whatever responsibility the Editor of the letters column might have (and by extension, here, Okrent), saving writers from embarassing themselves is not one of them.
3) Mostly, I think Atrios would not have protested, and we would not be having this lively debate, if the letter Okrent quoted had been from a Bushie. If Steve had been named for writing to Nagourney, "I hope your daughter gets her head blown off by a terrorist the Democrats were too weak to stop," we'd be discussing it only as more proof that we are Right, and they Evil.
I could find two Steve Schwenks in SF (one Steve X. Schwenk). With phone numbers for both.
OK, what about the "other" Steve, the one who had nothing whatsoever to do with this situation? Did Okrent ever stop to consider that he might be dragging someone that is completely innocent into the middle of this? What if this guy starts getting threatening calls, or worse?
Okrent's an irresponsible ass.
The families of the dead Iraqis should be allowed to sue the NYT for facilitating crimes against humanity.
Right now, the NYT is pushing for us to go to war in Sudan, Iran, not North Korea, of course, but to war against Venezuela, war war war.
Not ONE Times "kid" is doing to die in any of these wars, of course.
Wish they were on the line of battle, but they ain't.
So the NYT whines about those of us who heartily wish NYT and ALL OTHER CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS RUN THE MEDIA and who report in the media, all those darlings should be sent to the fronts to fight.
Ditto the entire frigging GOP. Send them to the wars. Why are the Bush twins goofing off in America?
Kevvboy, you've just vilely insulted me, personally. I am appalled. Since I control, in my public role, a rather large electronic distribution-of-information site, I shall now declare my persecuted status and further, shall sic the Feebies on on....
See how easy that is? Affronted sensibilities are just so sweet.
I suggest newcomers to the thread read from the top.
Very good idea. Your subsequent remarks will reflect it if you do.
My last word on this, I think.
I write letters to papers all the time, primarily the ChiTrib, but occasionally the NYT. As angry as I am or have ever been, I've never felt the need to wish harm on an employee of those papers or their family members. When I write something, I read it several times for tone and content, and if I don't like it, I change it.
It seems perfectly obvious to me that Steve from SF could have easily registered his displeasure with the Times without using such inflamatory language.
It also seems obvious to me that the Times could have made their points without revealing as much of Steve's personal information as they did.
Shame on both.
First, Okie needs a new job. (Aside, and very far aside: I wonder what his salary is?)
Second: I'm the Steven B whose e-mail to Josh Marshall was reprinted in its entirety without my prior knowledge or permission. It was the one called Fan Mail. I thought it was a private comment, sent to his Comments address which doesn't say a thing about running the comment in full. After all Josh, who remains for several reasons my favorite blog writer, doesn't have a Letters to the Editor section. Another aside: And rightfully so, as it would be full time job I suspect. Anyway, no one rose to my defense . Which leads to:
Third: I didn't care. Indeed, it was somewhat flattering that he felt so strongly. As it happens, and as I made clear to him, he was wasn't IMO bought for money, but for the far more important access and power.
Fourth: I still think he was wrong on that issue and the content of the Killian memos was never disputed. The provenance was bad. However, when anyone was asked about the contents, up to Bush, they either said it was right or totally ducked the answer. NO ONE denounced it or even implied it was wrong. That's the issue.
I've known Dan Okrent casually for about 15 years. He ain't the locus of modern evil -- not by a longshot -- but were I in his shoes I wouldn't have run the names/addresses of the e-mailers.
I've written caustic, stupid letters to newspaper columnists in the past and have had them quote me in print, but they've had the common sense to not identify me. I've been a writer for years and once in a blue moon get a crank letter, but I don't print their names.
Not the last word after all...
Re Cornered Guys comment "3)...we would not be having this lively debate... we'd be discussing it only as more proof that we are Right, and they Evil."
Amen to that.
okrent was the guy to refuse MM reprint permission:
"The Times' ombudsman, Dan Okrent, got even more explicit in an interview with Editor & Publisher magazine. "The paper has the right not to be used for purposes other than what is intended, to write for their readers," Okrent said. He added that he "was insulted" that Moore didn't ask to reprint anything he'd written. "I would want to be able to say no to him," Okrent said. "I don't like to be used for people's political purposes.""
I'm with those who think it's rather odd the paper that is defending itself on the sacred principle of source confidentiatlity, to the point of dishonoring itself by hiring Ken Starr to pull strings for them, uses it's "ombudsman" to embarass a letter writer who may have been rather rude. The message is, if you dare to be rude to the Great Grey Lady she'll slap you silly and then some.
It's time for we, the great unwashed, the mere readers to reconsider this freedom of the press stuff. Of course I believe in it whole heartedly but I also belive in civil rights, the enviornment, the rule of law as applied to corporations and countries, welfare to the poor, education.....
If the press is going to be nothing but the mouth pieces of the corporate state I'm not sure I've got the time to concern myself when they run afoul of their corporate masters. I've got more productive uses for my life.
OT,
Edwards on "Face The Nation."
Reminds me of Dan Blather and the CBS scandal over the Bush documents.
"But before I turn over the podium, I do want you to know just how debased the level of discourse has become. When a reporter receives an e-mail message that says, "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war," a limit has been passed."
Like this one?
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building. . . I should have added: after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."
--Ann Coulter
And I'm sure that the people of the NYT have shown their contempt for this remark by avoiding all venues that give this creep a platform--haven't they? Yes the Left has much to answer for in coarsening the level of debate in this country.
The wish to see someone die in a war is reprehensible, but the idea that there is no other way for a person to grasp the mortal seriousness of this election comes from the infantile frivolity of that person's discourse.
I think the point that GWPDA and most of the folks on this thread are missing is that Adam Nagourney is a human being. All these people who work for the Times are human beings.
If you take on a "public role" at a newspaper, it does not mean you surrender your rights as a human being. If I wish ill to your child because of an opinion you hold, or because I don't like the job you do, or for any other reason at all, there is NOTHING that justifies my action.
Keep trying, keep spinning. But why would any of you want to celebrate, justify or defend vile and vicious discourse? Bushcroft's tactics have done more harm to us liberals than I thought.
In the interests of non-partisan troll identification, I would just like to point out that Incognito has now claimed to be a veteran of Gulf War 1, Somalia, and now Vietnam. He's a regular Universal Soldier, isn't he?
But on the subject of the er, subject, I am amazed none of you are focusing on the very thing which makes what Nagourney has done so disgusting; Nagourney's name may be known through his public work, but good luck getting near him to state your piece... Unless you are the President of the USA, drunkenly abusing reporters in NY Restuarants is beyond the little man.
Tracking down someone with a reasonably unique surname though won't be too hard though... and unlike Nagourney, I doubt Steve will be able to afford Justice if someone does track him down too
It's a despicable act of bullying on Nagourney's part. There was no need at all to actually name Steve; reprinting his emails exactly, but without a name, would have given Nagourney exactly the same story about the kind of mail he recieves... but he had to include it for the very same reasons that the trolls like to refer to "Duncan" (except for "hat", who is so slow that he's not yet realised that Atrios's real name is now known, and is still trying to needle Atrios about his anonymity so he too can address everything to "Duncan" in the same manner); It's just a really dirty way of saying "The world's full of evil, sick people, disgusting, disgusting! ... Oh, and here's where you can find one of these disgusting monsters."
It's truly Little Green Thickboyz'esque...except LGF goes as far as providing you with a map and directions to their homes too. In their case, they believe that liberals are too pacifist to fight back (as Atrios rightly notes about the trolls who appear here too). And Nagourney's doing it because he couldn't resist punching one of the little people when they can't effectively punch back. Or perhaps merely hoping that Steve will now live in fear of one of Sergeant Squeekers boys doing it for him, instead of exercising his democratic right to call for his voice (however stupid his voice may be) to be heard by someone in the 4th Estate.
Now what ever you might think about Steve or Nagourney, what we have here is a blatantly unequal fight; Nagourney has, in the national press, basically made a veiled threat to Steve, and anyone else who feels they have the right to send in their thoughts to the NYT, that you will pay a personal cost for doing so. It's basically an appeal to mob law... and this is where the NYT thinks it's acceptable to now go.
But we shouldn't; I would just direct your attention towards the Murdoch press. I am not familiar with the New York Post, but here in the UK, the Sun/News Of The World holds the dubious honor of this little escapade;
.... taking matters into its own hands by printing pictures of 100 (supposedly sex) offenders.
But
The media are a big factor in the animosity in this country. The media seem to have gotten the idea that they don't work for us, either, just like the Repugs. I don't quite know how we have gotten here with the media but if this keeps up - meaning, if the media continue to have this attitude that they exist somehow separately from us and everything else and are entitled to hand us opinions that we should just adopt and shut up, then the media is going to find itself truly isolated.
I barely read any newspapers anymore. I barely watch any news on television. At this rate, I'm going to quit altogether and get everything I need to know from the internet(s).
Way to marginalize yourselves, guys. You're pouring a hell of a lot of money into an increasingly moribund business.
"3)...we would not be having this lively debate... we'd be discussing it only as more proof that we are Right, and they Evil."
Anyone who supports a war that was waged on false premises and exaggeration, who bears no personal loss of any kind, calls dissenting opinions traitorous, and who is unconcerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people is evil.
Does Mr. Okrent really believe that "I hope your kid get his head blown off in a Republican war" is worse that someone threatening violence against female reporters? Is he really being serious?
....
.... taking matters into its own hands by printing pictures of 100 (supposedly sex) offenders.
But a plan to identity a further 110,000 was dropped after innocent people were attacked and police claimed the paper's campaign was wrecking investigations and thus - possibly - placing children at risk.
One of those innocent people was a Paediatrican, because the mob was unable to tell the difference between a doctor and a paedophile. Truly yellow journalism at it's most urine soaked. So do you think it's acceptable for the Grey Lady to start turning this shade of yellow? I don't. No matter how offensive Steve was in private...
Don't forget Adam Nagourney reported that Wes Clark said he would have "probably" voted for the resolution in an off the record conversation during the first week of the Generals campaign. I hope someone like me kicks him in the balls. I'd do it but I'm on the wrong coast.
I must have missed the bit where Okrent published Schwenks address and e-mail. Did I read an edited version
Maybe you haven't heard about this modern newfangled invention they got called the internets. (Used to be just one, but our pres invented another the other night so now we've got plural.) Anyway, point is, some of these young whippersnappers, why they can use these interweb thingies to find out durn near anything these days!! Why with just a feller's name and the city he lives in, they can find out his address, phone number, email address, an aerial photograph of his house, where he works, his credit report, and who knows what all else. And you may not aheard of this interweb thingy, but that there Mr. Orkent from New York City, I bet he done aheard of it.
Anybody remember when CBS and Dan Blather disgraced themself by revealinng their partisan bend with the forged National Guard doucuments?
Ditto the entire frigging GOP. Send them to the wars. Why are the Bush twins goofing off in America?
Elaine Supkis
Would you believe that the latest "rationalizations", after dozens before for the Iraqi war is, "Because we could"?
For those of you who insist on changing the subject:
The question is this: Was it a responisible use of editorial discretion to publish the name and hometown of the respondent?
An answer of "NO" in no way endorses the original comment. The question is about the NYT, not the original letter writer.
A couple of observations from the person who has now lived everyone's worst nightmare: dashing off a quick, angry e-mail only to see it selectively misquoted in the NYT.
They edited out an important part (99% of it, actually):
"It is because of lazy reporters like you (and pathetic journalism by the NYT, as it has admitted) that hundreds of young men have had their heads needlessly blown off already."
It was a rhetorical device, not a threat. Adam is gay. He has no kids.
And he took special interest in me because he thinks I am behind this blog:
AdamNagourney.com
They went to great lengths to track me down. Adam pushed it. Okrent could give a flying f.
Adam and i corresponded about it on Friday, and I objected to him publishing my private e-mails to him. He pulled a tough guy attitude, though, and said in substance that I crossed him and this is what i get.
As for Okrent, he's a mindless buffoon:
"Dickens invented characters like Okrent, as he strove to describe a world in which idle, privileged, insolent people felt unvarnished contempt for their social inferiors. Okrent strolls straight outta those novels. But make no mistake—powdered people like Daniel Okrent are now in control of American discourse. Lazy, pampered, self-indulgent and stupid, they’ve made a sick joke of your interests for years. At some point, the public will have to find ways to end their control of our discourse."
Bob Somerby (9/13/04)
If only the NYT would go after the people who mindlessly led us to war the way they went after me. If only the NYT would be so unforgiving of thier own errors in covering the build up to the war as they were toward my poor choice of words in an angry e-PRIVATE mail.
They wanted to harm me. Adam sure did. And they did harm me. Can you imagine someone doing this to you over a lousy e-mail. But that's OK. No one died because of my errors. They can't say the same thing about theirs.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact Okrent published parts of private emails identifying the readers (not one but many), his column today is awful.
Bad logic and terrible writing.
Not only Okrent is unfit to be a public editor, NYT still does not get the concept of a public editor right.
By way of comparison, Wapo has lots of faults, but it got its concept ombudsman right. They give the ombudsman a 3-yr contract and leave him/her alone. The current ombudsman Michael Gettler is excellent and he will never write those stupid self-indulgent columns that Okrent writes. Gettler sticks with 2 or 3 topics in his weekly column, always takes readers' positions, takes the editors to task privately and get them to defend their position and then says in print what he thinks of the issue.
Generally, Gettler's pattern is "readers said this, editors said this in response, and this is what I think the editors should have done". He never admonishes the readers in a personal way.
As an exmaple, he wrote today about readers' complaints on why wapo sports section doesn't give as much coverage to Univ of Virginia's football as it does to Maryland's (20 miles from DC) and to
Virginia Tech's (300 mi from DC).
UVA is 120 mi away and about half of the circulation of Wapo is in suburban Virginia. Even on a topic like this, Gettler does a thorough investigation, takes reader complains seriously, quotes sports editors and gives his own opinion on how regional college sports are covered and how they should be covered.
This is the proper role of an ombudsman or a public editor.
Getting into private squabbles with readers is an awful thing for any editor. Readers always make your paper serve its readership and communities better and they give their advice for free. I cannot believe NYT is so primitive in these aspects.
The wing nuts are now saying, "Because we could."
Nobody is listening, Gordon.
It seems in its attemps to be seen as less "liberal", the Times has lost its objective balance. Revealing the name of a reader should be worse than revealing the name of a source. It was such a cowardly thing to do. Shame of them all.
Pointing out that Adam Nagiurney is openly gay isn't "playground," Paula. It's fact. Simple fact.
Very pertinent fact in this context as(unless there's an adoption we haven't been informed of) Nagourney doesn't have any kids to get their heads blown off.
Like Jews for Hitler the phenomenon of Gays for Bush is a fascinating one. Doubtless it's bred by the atmosphere in and around the NYT. One that persists to this day apparently.
Internalized Homophobia Kills
Poor Jeff Schmalz spent his life in the closet, fearful that his rabidly homophobic NYT editors would find out. And one day they did when he collapsed on the floor of the copy room with a grand mal seizure.
He was their Golden Boy. Naturally his illness and death changed NYT policy -- at least on the surface.
Michaelangelo cover this in his book Queer in America. Edward Alwood's invaluable Straight News likewise deals with homophobia at the NYT in great detail.
Could it be that Okrent considers opposition to Nagourney to be "Gay Bashing"?
LOL!
The NYT is a strange place for many different reasons as my FaBlog currently notes.
The premise of the lead-in paragraph seemes to be that Okrent owed letter writers a debt of silence about their identity and their views. Thats's preposterous. When people want their opinions to have weight, they put their names to them. That means they're willing to take the heat that comes with expressing those opinions in a public forum.
I tried using a pseudonym and hated it. It's like skulking around in bushes to throw a rock. Much better to put your name to your feelings for all to see. This is Jeffrey Davis's opinion and you can quote Jeffrey Davis on that.
And that's my email address, as well. If a spam-crawler harvests it, well, that's too bad for me.
When do we start the ledgal offense fund so that the individual who was harmed (and that can be proven) by Mr. Okrent can bring suit against the Times' public editor for malice. When Mr. Okrent is eating cat food in his old age he can can reflect on his bad judgement. Only when he confronts that future for himself and Mr. Nagourney will such similar attacks on defenseless individuals cease. The Times itself won't even defend this mistake.
Kevvboy, Steve in SF has posted here that his remarks were taken out of context. Perhaps you should wait until we see the whole exchange before you express an opinion like that. What do you think?
Nagourney is a human being, and as such, I'm sure even he has said and written things that he regrets.
Okrent could have made his point, as others have said, without naming names. That's the issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, Kevvboy, you've just blown it.
"Adam Nagourney" exists as a paid reporter for the New York Times. That is the role he assumed when he accepted the paycheque. The rude letter was not discussing Adam Nagourney, Daddy. It was not sent to Human Being Adam.
Public roles, public responsibilities, public consequences - you bet you surrender your 'rights as a human being' while you are choosing your rights as a New York Times co-respondent. Just as you have cleverly discovered that you can come onto a public and available website, make various and potentially actionable remarks but so long as you do not add any identifying information no one can reply except in a public way. You are conducting yourself as a public entity. I can indeed, if I like, be just as incivil as I choose to you in that public arena - and you are not entitled then to run and whimper that I have mistreated you as a human being with rights of privacy.
Now, if our Steve had sent his impolitic remarks to Nagourney's personal e-mail, I would be tetchy too. But he didn't. And Okrent behaved in an unbalanced fashion, most likely in order to enact some kind of payback. That's about it. Let's not be any sillier than the situation deserves.
I'm deeply sorry to offend anyone's sensibilities but KIDS ARE GETTING THEIR FUCKING HEADS BLOWN OFF IN IRAQ!!!
Why shouldn't those who propelled this war be called on the fucking carpet!!!
Fucking Nagourney should have his own fucking head blown off in Iraq. He should feel guilt, but he won't. He should feel shamed, but he won't. If there were justice in this world he would be driving a HUMVEE through Sadr City right this minute because someone else IS. I sincerely believe that the rage which Steve from S.F. was expressing was a result of the aloofness of shits like Nagourney. They ACTIVELY behave like they won't and shouldn't experience pain from the bloodletting in Iraq. To them, it's just coloreds and stupid poor folks. And besides, even if the draft is reinstated, they won't take rich kids! And, of course, war deaths will reduce future unemployment. Now, back to my tea and crumpets.
"Why would sin cities biggest newspaper endorse GW for pres?
Las Vegas paper endorsed Bush."
That would be the Review-Journal...Las Vegas is slowly becoming a haven for republicans. Believe it or not, the town was had more civil decency when the mob was in control. Now that the republican's are in charge of everything except Clark county, Las Vegas will soon become the Alamo of the 21st century.
regards from the edge of the point of no return
.
Goddamn wing nuts are so stupid, they can't even understand that when you're in a goddamn hole, quit digging. No, they're digging harder and faster than ever. They're exist strategy is escalating it and it's on to Iran with a 125,000 fully equipped standing army by the Chinese military.
Adam Nagourney and Daniel Okrent are both big crybabies. Public discourse may have plummeted, but so has good news coverage by major media, including the NYT. I was shocked by the whole rant. I had written to Okrent a few days earlier that White House reporters should be rotated every 2 years or so, before they get established in the dinner party circuit, and stop being aggressive in their reporting.
But do read the story by Dexter Filkins from Baghdad:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/10/we...ml?
pagewanted=1
There is still good reporting being done. Filkins is brave to stand up for his collegue Farnaz Fassihi who reports the true situation from Baghdad as does Filkins.
Hudson nails it.
For those of you who insist on changing the subject:
The question is this: Was it a responisible use of editorial discretion to publish the name and hometown of the respondent?
An answer of "NO" in no way endorses the original comment. The question is about the NYT, not the original letter writer.
man, you people type alot.
The premise of the lead-in paragraph seemes to be that Okrent owed letter writers a debt of silence about their identity and their views. Thats's preposterous. When people want their opinions to have weight, they put their names to them. That means they're willing to take the heat that comes with expressing those opinions in a public forum.
I tried using a pseudonym and hated it. It's like skulking around in bushes to throw a rock. Much better to put your name to your feelings for all to see. This is Jeffrey Davis's opinion and you can quote Jeffrey Davis on that.
And that's my email address, as well. If a spam-crawler harvests it, well, that's too bad for me.
That line about "hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war" (quote approximate) is fairly incendiary, but hardly outside the boundaries of civil discourse given the context, the way that a threat to the person of the writer and/or his family, or an obscenity laced communication is. These media mavens are remarkably thin-skinned, self-important people.
Now what ever you might think about Steve or Nagourney, what we have here is a blatantly unequal fight; Nagourney has, in the national press, basically made a veiled threat to Steve, and anyone else who feels they have the right to send in their thoughts to the NYT, that you will pay a personal cost for doing so. It's basically an appeal to mob law... and this is where the NYT thinks it's acceptable to now go.
Perfect little nutshell. They will make us rue the day we received an almost equal voice if it kills them.
Their
Not the last word after all...
Re Cornered Guys comment "3)...we would not be having this lively debate... we'd be discussing it only as more proof that we are Right, and they Evil."
Amen to that.
Wing nuts aren't thrilled by reading a novel. No, they're thrilled by war-mongering as the 101st keyboard brigades and watching FOX.
Anonymous: was that a threat?! [peespants]
Well, Okrent did say early in the article that he is voting for Kerry. Most of the million readers will not make it to the end where he used the reader's name. I agree that Okrent was wrong to use his name, and I can't believe that this comment is the worst he has read and crossed some imaginary line.
Okrent says that the left is somehow more vile this year than the right. We'll see if he is still singing the same tune next week now that he has publicly endorsed John Kerry. I bet he will have to change the locks on his doors and alter his routines after the winger death threats pour in.
I don't know what the neo-fascists think they're doing by tampering with the polls, slanting post-debate spin and launching anti-Kerry films shortly before the election. Do they think we'll get discouraged, realize we're in the minority and give up hope? No. All it's doing is pissing us off. We see through all of this. They are not going to get away with it. All of this is going to backfire on them. Like faux's lawsuit against Franken it's going to achieve the opposite effect.
The problem for the NYT is this: the news itself is "anti-Bush" -- can anyone think of any piece of actual news lately that supports Bush's view of the world? No wonder the Bush supporters think the Times is anti-Bush -- actually, its the real world that is anti-Bush, something the Times cannot bring itself to acknowledge.
pie - I love your comment about who is evil here. Way to scorch the thread and trolls' asses - with impeccable reasoning and imagery.
Would you believe that the latest "rationalizations", after dozens before for the Iraqi war is, "Because we could"?
Incognito
Incog, it is actually one of the earliest explanations before the war. Thomas Friedman said that's why Bush admin went to war with Iraq. After Afghanistan, they needed to attack a state to keep the war on terror going and Iraq was the easiest to do.
At that time, Sudan, Libya, Syria and others were also considered. Some wanted to do Sudan then and Iraq in the second term, but neocons prevailed.
Public roles, public responsibilities, public consequences - you bet you surrender your 'rights as a human being' while you are choosing your rights as a New York Times co-respondent.,/i>
I thought that was how you felt. Just wanted to make sure.
Here's one person who thinks that A/ when you write a newspaper with your name on the missive, you are offering it into the public sphere, and B/ no one surrenders his human rights by his choice of career ... even a reporter you don't like.
But you guys are just looking for messengers to kill. Have fun.
And he took special interest in me because he thinks I am behind this blog:
Are you?
"Bad News; Keller could tell I had been crying when I found out I wasn’t covering this week’s poll."
Yeah, there's a lot of perversion like David points out. You tell someone from their earliest moments in life that there's something wrong and vile about them their entire lives afterwards, and you'll get some really freaky behaivor. Heteros have done this to us and you reap it from Drudge on down. It takes a strong person to be gay and survive it like David has and I'm hanging in there. But I wish David would quit giving the heteros an excuse to cough us up.
Thanks, Tena. I'd like to edit it:
Anyone who supports a war that was waged on false premises and exaggerated threats...
Despicable.
There's no such thing as a human right not to have your sensibilities offended, kevvboy. try again.
Hey, the gang's all here!
New debate boobies!
It seems to me that Okrent is certainly jumping to some conclusions about the blogs. I've seen a lot of left wing blogs tell readers to write to a particular reporter or newspaper or television news show. I have never ever seen a leftwing blog tell its readers to insult or even be impolite in such letters. Quite the contrary; I distinctly remember Hesiod, for instance, telling his readers that nastiness in letters to these people is counterproductive, and that we should be polite and well-mannered in telling them what they did wrong.
To imply, as Okrent does, that left wing blogs are out here pushing people to threaten writers and editors, is untrue and out of line.
I'd like for someone who is taking the position that saying "I hope your kid gets his head blown of in a Republican war," is totally out of bounds to explain to me why. It was not a direct threat and wars generally result in kids getting their heads blown off.
Steve in SF didn't say: "I hope you get your head blown off..." to Nagourney. We all know what Steve was saying. For Okrent to use the power of the country's major newspaper to publicize this criticism of Nagourney in this way is not just petty, it's flat wrong. Newpapers have no business getting into personal battles like this. It's obscene.
But Drudge isn't us. Annthrax Couter is much more representative of heteros because she's never been attacked from her earliest moments on.
Perfect, wÒÓ†!
Anyone seen the latest polls?
According to Steve S. (if we accept that the person writing above was in fact the same guy exchanging emails with Nagourney whose words were quoted and condemned by Okrent): his quote was part of a larger exchange between himself and Nagourney. This exchange involved more than one set of emails, apparently.
My thought is that in the course of a several emails long conversation, to pull a single quote out is to grossly misrepresent the conversation. Moreover, the conversation was between Steve S. and Nagourney, not between Steve S. and Okrent. I can only imagine the shock Steve S. feels upon seeing his words, pulled out of context, in the NYTimes. I'd be more than just mildly annoyed, I'd be rather pissed off.
I'd like to point out that if people wish to express their opinions where journalists will see it, may I suggest sending a letter to Romanesko at poynter.org. I can just about guarantee this is going to be a very hot topic over the next few days over there.
By the way, I think it's a fucking gas to hear you Moonbats on Atrios's Fishwrapper even discussing journalistic integrity.
That's like hearing OJ Simpson give a lecture on how to curb domestic violence.
"Here's one person who thinks that A/ when you write a newspaper with your name on the missive, you are offering it into the public sphere,...no one surrenders his human rights by his choice of career ..."
I'm afraid, "Kevvboy" you didn't pay attention in civics class. "Letters to the Editor" typically require certain things and return certain things - and look! Here's what the NYT says:
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the editor should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters.
Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.
We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters. Writers of those letters selected for publication will be notified within a week. Letters may be shortened for space requirements.
Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.
You may also send your letter to:
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
You'll notice that the author of a "letter to the editor" is to be notified - before publication, not in publication. Further, you'll notice that a "letter to the editor" is to be addressed to "Letters to the Editor". You just have to figure that old Steve's e-mail was not necessarily offered into the public sphere - but it was addressed to a public citizen, a reporter, and it was then inappropriately used by Okrent. Don't make up things to suit your curious sense of morality. Try to come to terms with the concept of public citizenship, with journalistic responsibilities and grasp that within those terms, those responsibilities are not trumped by value judgements made by ill-educated and easily confused self-proclaimed purveyors of dubious morality.
And learn how to close tags if you're going to use them.
Certainly it is questionable to take someone's comments so out of context. On the other hand, if you're writing to a journalist or newspaper in general don't you have fair warning that it may be used however they wish? Once you send an email to someone it becomes the property of the recipient, I think we all now that. Not sure Steve S. should be surprised at all. He should have known better.
I'm beginning to see real ethical problems in watching commerical TV and reading commercial newspapers.
w00t, that's your best booby yet!
Just four hours ago, A REAL LIVE SOLDIER WAS BLOWN UP. He is dead. He died and had no choice in the matter.
He is bloody hell dead. He can't email Okrent or the NYT and say, "I wish it was YOU that is going to be blown up today">
You can bet he wishes he could have traded places.
The NYT, because it 100% supports Israeli aggression, wanted this stupid war but they are all too cowardly to pick up a gun and actually fight this stupid war.
I want the entire staff of the NYT put on patrol in Iraq. Heck, report on the streets in Iraq, both ways, they would all be dead by now.
Why does the mainstream media suck so bad? And how does society fix it?
Speaking of polls, look at this:
Direction of the Country
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Oct. 4-6, 2004. N=1,541 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5. (Data from 11/03 and earlier co-sponsored by Cook Political Report.)
.
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right direction 40%
Wrong diresction 56%
Not sure 4%
Woot - thanks for the excellent debate boobie - the best yet.
Woot, I love you. I needed a good laugh this weekend. You came through.
Partial OT--I grabbed this from way upthread. If you need a break from *exploding head* syndrome, check out the latest Jesus' General post.
Blogwhoring for Jeebus
"Annthrax Couter is much more representative of heteros..."
Ouch. The only thing I have in common with that hater is that I breath oxygen. She represents something, but it ain't about sexuality.
anyways
Great booby, w00+! Go Big John!
Incidentally, for those of you who are in the Phoenix area AND subscribe to Cox cable, you can connect to the real time KPHO-TV debate poll. If you go to their website - the instructions on how to sign up are there.
Here's one person who thinks that A/ when you write a newspaper with your name on the missive, you are offering it into the public sphere, and B/ no one surrenders his human rights by his choice of career ... even a reporter you don't like.
Except for Policemen; Once you take the badge, you are expected to become the impersonal protector of the Law. Your right to judge people as you see fit is suspended in favour of your duty to judge people only upon that law, and nothing else.
The same goes for Judges, for that matter too; You respect the Juries findings, and you sentance with regards to nothing else except the Law as you understand it.
Or Medical Staff; you do not follow your own personal belief system about medical records or medical treatment, but the Hypocratic Oath, what you've been trained to do, and what the medical establishment has accepted as treatment.
Or Reporters, who are expected to report the news, not make it themselves simply to persue personal vendettas against... Oh wait, that's apparently an old fashioned view of journalism, my bad.
So how about the Military, who are expected to obey the legitimate orders of their legitimate civilian masters, and no more than that?
thankyou woot. right on time, like blowin a whistle for a time out.
would you do one of these like the pair with Kerry popping in?
Our reporters, the few left, in Bagdad can't go out of the Green Zone anymore. They use Iraqi plants to go fetch stories for them.
This cowardly business is why the war news is so very thin. Reports of happy Iraqis fed to reporters hiding under the bed is the utter height of stupid reporting.
The fact that yet another soldier was blown up today and this person, Mr. Anonymous, was definitely NO son of ANY reporter in ANY of our media is very telling.
The children of our chattering classes do not fight, they snipe from under their collective beds. This is why the Bush AWOL story was fudged up so badly: the media, cowards like Bush, didn't want to talk about it so they made fun of GORE who reported IN NAM and who did this IN THE FIELD and now they mock Kerry, an actual war hero.
Meanwhile, they yell at us to shut the hell up and not wish they and their own families do what Gore and Kerry did: put their lives on the damn line.
I am SO SICK OF ALL THIS COWARDICE.
Warning: rant.
As a mom I would have been upset to read a statement like that, but surely they get dozens of like missives from people who need to descend to this level to get their point across. I think the paper was wrong and vindictive to do this, but I think the larger problem is this reflexive short-sightedness that only exacerbates problems. 'Angry person wrote incendiary letter - attack!' I had a conversation with my father, who is really off the deep end on the right wing side, in which he refused to acknowledge that the insurgents or even the actual terrorists (and I DO think there is a difference) had any specific desire other than killing because it satisfies their religious edicts to kill, and that they hate us. The point is that there is no attempt to understand what could possibly be behind such actions (or language, as in the case of the letter writer) Somewhere upthread someone pointed out what might have been an excellent piece of journalism - to wit, to lay out the levels of passion on both sides and really distill their motivations. If we could do that it might lead to -gasp- resolution. But no, we are supposed to be blindly waving our team's banners and to hell with any other points of view.
end rant.
'By the way, I think it's a fucking gas to hear you Moonbats on Atrios's Fishwrapper even discussing journalistic integrity. '
Even more of a gas is hearing this fat fucking fisherman discussing integrity at all, when his own blog admits you just troll for attention as a frat boy prank.
Thanks for posting that. Someone has to call him on it. Also, I found the op-ed re: Judith Miller timely and strong enough, but why isn't this story resonating, and isn't this case an even bigger affront to us the reader, who rely on Miller and the hundreds of reporters like her?
What can we do to protect her liberties?
and let's not forget the utterly vapid modo (via reliable source, wapo):
Maureen Dowd, Giving the Prez Some Props
• Maybe New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd isn't as much of a Bush-basher as everyone assumes, or perhaps she's just repositioning her "Bushworld" book for red-staters. "If Bush is dumb, why is he running Kerry around in circles?" she asks in the new Rolling Stone. "He never took advantage of his opportunities in terms of Yale and Harvard or absorbed as much as he could have in his father's White House. But I think he's bright." And Dowd confesses to becoming jingoistic after 9/11: "I stopped buying French wine and French mayonnaise. I'm very patriotic."
Is she still avoiding French products? "It's not a formal boycott but an impulse I get sometimes when the French are being particularly annoying," she told us last week. "Kendall-Jackson tastes just as good as Pouilly-Fuissé." Quellesurprise!
craigie?
Opposed to abortion?
I hope your daughter gets raped...
that's a joke, right?
Miller doesn't deserve protection.
Woot,
Well done! Boobies for Kerry! Kerry has the boobie vote wrapped up and tied with a bow.
Send us your story to appear on the site:
www.securitymomsforkerry.com
see also new Draft flyers at
www.bigpath.net
"Would you take a bullet for Halliburton?"
OT:
http://tinyurl.com/5qc2l
Basically, if there weren't WMD then, there may be soon.
ryan,
Put down the koolaid and step away from the keyboard. No one here relies on Judith Miller for anything.
Just sayin'
about miller, that is.
Nagourney is a pussy (and I'll gladly say that to his face). AdNag must be driving him bonkers. Good, he deserves it, he's a crappy reporter anyway.
"Kendall-Jackson tastes just as good as Pouilly-Fuissé
Well, I've always said Miss Maureen had no taste, and now we have proof from her own mouth.
It's intimidating the same way "I hope your wife gets raped" is intimidating.
It's the happiness about the injury, and it's the dragging the kids into it. It's both together. I just think it goes too far.
craigie
No, craigie, it really isn't.
Someone's loved one getting sexually assaulted is a terrifying thought precisely because it's not outside the realm of all possibilities.
However, the child of a smug New York Times reporter is never going to go to fight Bush's war, because kids of the elite don't join the military.
I daresay if a draft became a reality and it was the New York Times' reporters whose kids and loved ones were on the front lines, their reporting would probably be much different.
While Steve's comment was not phrased in the most respectful manner, I refuse to believe that the sentiment behind it - which is basically that he hopes NY Times staff should share in the sacrifice entailed in wartime - is not intimidating.
Several months ago, I asked the Times Ombudsman to note that when the Times makes errors, the errors tend (markedly so) to favor the Republicans, meaning that if the lie gets out, it's usually a pro-Republican lie. I also reminded him that Kit Seeyle's reporting on Gore was mostly an anti-Gore rant while Frank Bruni wooed Bush like a lover during the 2000 campaign.
I asked him to watch this year's coverage as Nagourney was shaping up as this year's Seeley in covering Kerry's campaign.
He promised to get around to the issue and I guess this is his idea of getting to the issue. Too bad. He just doesn't get it. Hiding in a "I get letters..." mindset is giving up independent and critical thinking. He doesn't need letters to make the determination of bias among his reporters who write like they wish they were novelists and don't know anything about public policy issues.
Ouch. The only thing I have in common with that hater is that I breath oxygen. She represents something, but it ain't about sexuality.
Tim B.
There's alot of psychology with that one. Maybe she was raped as a little girl. But she ain't right. Many may think, I ain't right, but nothing's wrong with me other than a few days ago, I had an older guy whom I used to really like stomp into my office cursing that the citizens of Louisiana had voted 'against the fags' and some 'liberal judge' overturned it. A number at work know I'm gay but they don't discuss it, to their credit. I don't discuss my orientation and political affiliations at work. It's not professional.
But this is day in, day out; from can to cain't.
Okrent went into the stands and threw a chair at someone because he was heckling his teammate.
He needs to be suspended.
Bud nailed it.
JDRhoades & Concerned Guy
You obviously have not read this thread, and you misunderstand the argument.
(1)The email was addressed to Nagourney, not Okrent. He went whining to Okrent about a private email correspondence he was having with Steve S.
(2)Even when someone writes a Letter to the Editor, they always check back with the person who sent the letter before printing it. So how can you justify revealing Steve's identity against his wishes?
This is OT - tangential at best - but what bothers me more than anything about the ascent of the wingnuts is that we now have two systems of justice in this country. Jayson Blair is driven from his post in disgrace; Judith Miller, with actual blood on her hands, continues as some kind of Grande Dame of greyladytude. Martha Stewart goes to jail for lying about an action that was not illegal; Shrub engages in likely illegal activity in his Harken sale and we can't even talk about it in the media, and meanwhile Kenny Boy Lay walks free. Underage kids go to the federal pen for selling pot and coke; Rush gets caught with tons of illegal painkillers and gets to do a protracted legal dance that will last until no one remembers that he's a druggie. Bill Clinton is impeached for groupie sex; Shrub isn't even accused of lying about the reasons for Iraq 'cause it might hurt his feelings. Citizens are prevented by the Secret Service from attending public events featuring their alleged President on the slightest suspicion of "disloyalty"; peace groups are infiltrated on suspicion of harboring terrorists; etc. etc.
Of course, some minorities - blacks especially - as well as the poor in general have long been victimized by this two-tiered justice system. But now it's worse than ever, more blatant, with no accountability, and it's nationwide, not just in the South. In fact it emanates from DC like toxic radiation.
The media in their cravenness bear a lot of responsibility for this two-tiered justice system.
Seems to me that if you approve the war, you ought to be willing to supply the cannon fodder from your own loins, if you're too old, too slow, too chickenshit to go yourself...
Seems to me that is you oppose abortion, you ought to face the issue from a purely personal way, too: like, your daughter gets raped, gets pregnant. Then let's see how you feel, okay?
Mr. Schwenk,
You have to realize now...
you have to watch what you say[/fleischer]
You can justify it by saying that he had every right to do it. It may have been tasteless, but if Steve S didn't want anyone to know he said something like that then why is he sending emails to people. I'm all for free speech but there are certain things that are just completely out of line. Steve S had every right to send a nasty horrible email, and the paper has the right to publish any email that is sent to one of its reporters. Steve S new damn well he was sending a nasty email to someone who had access to publishing articles in a paper with huge circulation. If he didn't want it published he should have kept is mouth shut. My Golden Rule: never say anything privatley (except to a spouse) that you wouldn't want to defend publicly.
It's over.
And with that, I'm retiring to my lame bed.
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:46:23 -0700
To: Adam Nagourney
From: Steve Schwenk
Subject: Re: http://www.adamnagourney.com/
It was so private. I sent it to your personal address. Not to the public editor.
You "respnded?" No, you ran to the teacher like a little baby to see if you could get back at me for writing you an angry PRIVATE e-mail. Taking private e-mails and then publishing them in the NYT is an act of aggression and revenge that seeks to punish me for expressing my self, privately. It is despicable and cowardly.
At 07:36 PM 10/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
That was not a private conversation.
That was a note that you sent to me, unsolicited. One of many I got, from both sides, but I think it's fair to say that you are the only who wished death upon my son. I responded.
And this is the last one I am sending to you.
At 07:21 PM 10/8/2004, you wrote:
You mean the son you don't have? That's what this is all about?
I think you will end up regretting taking private discussion public in this despicable attempt at revenge. It's only going to focus the light back on you. No one cares about me. Lots of people are upset with your reporting and the NYT. Now we have you and the NYT abusing your positions to attempt to smear a critic. It does not look good, Adam. It makes you look small and petty.
Have you by chance heard what some of the mothers of those who have died have said? It would shock your poor ears. And make no mistake, the media failed the American people 'big time,' starting with the NYT. And reporters like you.
At 07:08 PM 10/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Criticism is fine and welcome.
Saying that you hope my son dies in Iraq is not.
At 06:46 PM 10/8/2004, you wrote:
Gutsy? From the mommy's boy who can't take criticism? (And most people have more than one e-mail, including you.)
"Mommy, that man sent an angry e-mail to me. Please hurt him for me now, mommy"
Yes, the NYT has lots of blood on its hands. You're soaked in it. (The mea culpa did not begin to change that.) 1000 dead and all you can do is attack the critics and use the paper to try to smear them. It is downright pathetic.
What do you have to say in your defense, Adam? That no one better dare criticize Adam Nagourney or he will go after them? Just like a certain administration we know.
Or is it the blog that has driven you nuts? It is quite funny!
The sad irony is that none of the elite cheerleaders for this war are dying for it, nor are their kids. It's for other people and other people's kids to die for.
At 06:33 PM 10/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Two e-mail accounts, huh counselor? Very gutsy.
At 06:16 PM 10/8/2004, you wrote:
Poor Adam. Now you resort to use of the NYT to get me? You always did strike me as a mommy's boy. Run to mommy because someone dares criticize your sloppy reporting, so full of blatant errors time and again.
At least we
Okerent writes:
Republicans who object to the play given a recent story about scientists campaigning against the president are unaware of the Democrats' cries of bias after The Times failed in June to report on an anti-Bush statement signed by 27 retired diplomats.
But those diplomats _did_ sign that letter!
How can he fail to see that the decision to sit on that story doesn't "balance" their decision to publish a different, equally factual story that also makes Bush look like a dangerous fool?
It seems to me that Okrent is certainly jumping to some conclusions about the blogs. I've seen a lot of left wing blogs tell readers to write to a particular reporter or newspaper or television news show. I have never ever seen a leftwing blog tell its readers to insult or even be impolite in such letters.
I think that is exactly right. There is no excuse for telling a reporter you wish to see his kid's head blown off. And Okrent had no business printing that slob's name.
"while Frank Bruni wooed Bush like a lover during the 2000 campaign."
Yes, and he's gay too.
Yet another Jew for Hitler.
I'm no damn good at eloquence, but here's what I wrote:
Dear Mr. Okrent,
In regards to your shoddy column: By now, you've received a number of letters that are far more eloquent than I'll be able to write. I wonder, however, what the NYT's reaction was when Ann Coulter said she wished Timothy McVeigh had blown up your building. It wouldn't even have been necessary to quote her out of context. But she's rich and famous, and the GOP loves her, so I don't suppose it's surprising that y'all gave her a pass, while going after some shoulda-been-anonymous guy who doesn't have millions of readers, right?
I, for one, would certainly never express a desire for Mr. Nagourney or you to lose your children in a war that your own newspaper cheerleaded for. I don't seen any reason why children should have to suffer for the sins of their fathers. I will, however, express the very fond desire that I have to see the two of you -- as well as a number of your Bush-humping colleagues, both at the NYT and other news outlets -- in prison one of these days. I have faith that it will happen, sooner or later. Please be comforted by the fact that I'll be leaning back somewhere, enjoying a cold beer, and laughing.
Fuck Adam Nagourney, and fuck you, too, Mr. Okrent. And no, you don't have permission to publish this letter. Will that stop you this time? We'll see, won't we...?
Careful there, Atrios. Steve may have given - probably did give - permission to use this information. In the heat of anger, did he write, "...and you can quote me on THAT!"? Something like that, I imagine. So fuck Adam, to be sure, but be sure you have the whole story first...
Karin - I agree with what you are saying about the way this happened, and it was wrong. But personally I feel the real wrong runs deeper. Newspapers do not have any business getting into personal fights with anyone and publishing about it. In the first place, it is a completely unbalanced fight, since the paper has a lot more power than the individual. In the second place, this is not in any way the proper function of a news medium. Not in any way.
This is petty, it is a violation of Steve's privacy and it is deeply and disturbingly wrong and unethical.
Karin:
You obviously havent' read my post and you totally missed what I was saying.
I did NOT say it was okay to post the guy's name. I said it was UNPROFESSIONAL. I said that I might want to call some of the nasties out but that I DIDN'T DO IT.
Please read my post again.
Reason number 412 for how you can tell things suck in Iraq
412. American diplomats always wear combat boots with their tailored suits when they visit the country.
the paper has the right to publish any email that is sent to one of its reporters.
No, they don't. You're ignoring the point, made repeatedly upthread, that this is an unequal fight. And, the writer of the email didn't publicly invite wingnuts to find the reporter and harass him. The NYT did exactly that to the writer of the email.
Please go read GWPDA's post about the difference between sending a letter to the editor and sending an email to a reporter.
Okerent writes:
Republicans who object to the play given a recent story about scientists campaigning against the president are unaware of the Democrats' cries of bias after The Times failed in June to report on an anti-Bush statement signed by 27 retired diplomats.
But those diplomats _did_ sign that letter!
How can he fail to see that the decision to sit on that story doesn't "balance" their decision to publish a different, equally factual story that also makes Bush look like a dangerous fool?
rumsfailed doesnt want to get any blood on his loafers.
Anyone who reads this please respond to my questions at jasongooljar@optonline.net
I am almost done reading what's the matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank
There are a few questions I need answered and some statements that I need confirmed to make sure I get this book.
The point of the book is to show that people in the poor to middle class in Kansas often vote against their interests by voting Republican and voting for the GOP candidates that don't help them correct? They'll vote for a GOP candidate that aligns themselves with their religious beliefs but not their economic concerns. They vote for W. because of his stance on gay marriage and moral issues but don't care that his tax cuts hurt them and make the rich richer and their class well, poorer.
There is obviously a class warfare going on, the poor to middle class against the elite. This has always been an issue and probably will continue to be an issue, however the people on the right in the book are quoted saying that the Democratic party used to be the party of the working class people. They are saying that is not so anymore as they register all of those people in those income brackets into the Republican party now. However it seems that there is also a war within the GOP of the evangelical conservatives against the moderates.
To the evangelical conservatives who now consider the GOP the party of the middle class and the farming class why do they vote against their interests economically? Also what is the actual war with the mods in Kansas really about?
The book also talks about the class warfare and how conservatives of the latter are victims of backlash politics. They are angry that these "snobs" and "the elite" people make all the money off of their hard work, but they buy into it's the "liberal east coast elite" that are the enemy that has done this. In truth it seems that when they then vote for candidates that align themselves with their religious values but ignore their economic policies they end up making the real elites"in the Republican party conservatives and moderates that reside in Mission Hills, Kansas even more elite.
So what's the deal in Kansas? the religious right bombard the Kansas State Government back in the early nineties and take over the government. This in turn kicks out all the moderates in the GOP the mods become extremely angry so angry that they end up backing a Democratic Candidate for Governor. What I see is differing opinions there is the class difference and social difference.
I guess like I said before it comes down to pro corporation, pro tax cut, anti regulation, pro globilzation/privatization, pro NAFTA, pro WTO , pro lassie z fa ire trickle down economics people who end up hurting the middle class. But the social aspects end up clouding the economics and make people vote against their economic interests. The right wing distorts the truth and says it's all the liberals fault that socially we are a nation f
I have sent many such e-mails to people who support or appear to support the war. Hell, I've said that to people's faces. It shakes them up. They need to be shaken up. If they get shaken up enough, maybe their brains will start working and someone's kids will NOT get their brains blown out in some Republican war.
Steve Schwenk, you're my kind of guy!
plasmastate,
Would you do all of the simple courtesy of reading the entire post and the entire thread before you say stupid things?
Atrios,
While I agree the letter from the guy in SF to Nagourney was beyond the pale, at least I hope it was. The real problem Okrent has is with the influence of bloggers and the severely diminished credibility of the Gray Lady.
And one can only wonder if he has taken any time to wade in the cesspools of freeperville.
In any case, I would encourge you and other bloggers to henceforth forward your hate mail to Okrent (with the name of the author removed, of course, to preserve their privacy).
Judith Miller timely and strong enough, but why isn't this story resonating, and isn't this case an even bigger affront to us the reader, who rely on Miller and the hundreds of reporters like her?
What can we do to protect her liberties?
ryan
Ryan, the laws that protect journalists from having to reveal their sources were intended to protect journalists from reprisal and intimidation when they uncover abuses of power and evidence of criminal activity in government.
Miller is actually protecting a very vengeful source who contacted the media in an attempt to out a covert agent, which is a felony and a breech of national security - in a time of war.
Miller's refusal to reveal a source who contacted her with the name of a covert agent is actually *covering up* abuse of power and criminal activity.
Miller does not deserve protection - she owes it to the American public to disclose the name of the source so he or she can be removed from office and face criminal charges.
Big difference.
How is it private when you send an email to a reporter? I'm not saying I think this was great behavior on teh part of the NYT. But give me a fucking break, the whole world is about unfair balance of power. Steve had all the information he needed to make an informed decision about whether to risk sending an email, he chose to send it anyway. It isn't a violation of privacy because once you hit that "send" button the email is no longer private property, it belongs solely to the recipient.
Turnabout is fair play. Time for an OPEN CALL to anyone who has ever RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM ADAM NAGOURNEY, DANIEL ORKENT (BOVINO et al.)
After they're "published" extensively on the blogs, some competitor of NYT will publish a story about the story, etc.
Time to get AdNag's "private" e-mails into the public sphere.
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:54:23 -0700
To: Adam Nagourney
From: Steve Schwenk
Subject: Fwd: Fire Judith Miller
Here's a non-private e-mail I sent. See, it says "Public" in the address. I assume the public address is for letters to be published. That means non-public letters are not. Right?
But why argue. Adam feels powerful and wants to hurt me. What chance do i have against such awesome power?
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:41:16 -0700
To: public@nytimes.com
From: Steve Schwenk <
Subject: Fire Judith Miller
Bush may have the option not to fire Rumsfeld, but he risks losing his job if he chooses it, and he diminishes the credibility of the USA as well.
The NYT has no option or excuse when it comes to Judith Miller. If she can keep her job despite having written all but two of the many offending articles hyping the war and the Bush-Rumsfeld-neo-con agenda, then there is no such thing as accountability in America. She had an agenda. Just look at her past and her associations. The NYT advanced that agenda and the USA went to war. Thousands are dead. We have gained nothing and are weaker and more at risk as a result. The NYT enabled these atrocities and failures.
What is the NYT going to do about it? It is not enough to mouth an apology. Someone has to be fired over this, and Judith Miller is at the top of the list.
Sincerely,
Steve Schwenk
Ya know what else? When Judith Miller goes to jail, I'm sending several pizzas to the NYT. I'd love to let them know that we're all celebrating when one of them goes to prison.
What's a good pizza joint that delivers to the NYT?
the whole world is about unfair balance of power
And this whole blog is about addressing that balance. You sure do seem determined to defend some pretty shitty behavior on the part of the NYT. It's ok for the NYT to do what it did but not ok for Atrios to call them on it?
Smarter trolls, please.
You're ignoring the point, made repeatedly upthread, that this is an unequal fight. And, the writer of the email didn't publicly invite wingnuts to find the reporter and harass him. The NYT did exactly that to the writer of the email.
Well actually, Sam Seder of Air America Radio Majority Report has been conducting a campaign against AdNags for weeks, one that I personally feel crossed a line. Apparently some folks at AAR thought so, too, as Seder has reported that he's been told to step back on some of what he's doing.
It's getting ugly out there, or is that uglier? It's been ugly for a long time. Must we become like them to defeat them?
Runs with scissors,
Sure there's no law saying someone can't publicise correspondence they receive (except in specific situations), and it's stupid to pick a fight with someone who (as they say) buys ink by the gallon.
But that doesn't make what Okrent and Nagourney did right. They are in the wrong.
Okrent is a bullying intimidating chickenshit.
The contrast between Judith Miller not revealing the Plame leaker's name and Okrent's cowardly act is striking, even if the situations aren't similar. Like, what sort of correspondence and criticism are big-time reporters going to receive if everyone who disagrees with them knows that a single line (perhaps misthought in the head of the moment, perhaps not) will be lifted from what they say and held up to ridicule, or implicitly threaten, that person?
Celebrity reporters live enough in a fantasy world as it is (see the post way above about an NYTimes reporter visiting a small-town paper complete with entourage of servants gophering for him). This insulation will just get worse if private members of the public can't correspond with and criticise them, in confidence if they wish.
And that's NOT a defense of Okrent or the Nag.
Runswithscissors - there is a huge qualitative difference between emailing an individual and emailing the newspaper. Steve emailed Nagourney, not the NYT.
Fuck you. Not trolling. No problem with atrios calling him on it. when the fuck did I attack atrios for calling him on it. You got private emails from Okrent and Adam N, post them. I think it is fair game. I jsut don't feel sorry for Steve S and I'm IP lawyer.
Can the smarter version of Hecate show up for the debate today please?
It's not enough to fire Judy Miller.
Send the bitch to the slammer and throw away the key.
And, as always, you can quote me !
It's getting ugly out there, or is that uglier? It's been ugly for a long time. Must we become like them to defeat them?
Aw, shucks! Just cuz some people have blood on their hands, that doesn't mean we can't all be friends, does it? Can't we all just get along?
Look, we've been nice little liberals for the last 12 years or so. And, how's that working for us? They own the WH, the Congress, the judiciary, and the fourth estate. But, hey, just cuz our tactics haven't worked yet, that doesen't mean that they might not work one of these days, right? Wrong.
So excuse me if I plan to be as shrill as I goddamn want to be.
What this all says is very simple. According to the media, they can say any damned thing in print they want to. The rest of us just better sit down and shut up, unless we agree with whatever is printed or broadcast.
Fuck that.
Well, here's how I look at it:
The Bushies want to responsabilize you, like you are responsible for your own retirement.
Following this same logic, if you support the war in any way, then you are responsible for it, and therefore it's your children that should go fight it. And, there are casualties in any war, so why not the war's cheerleader children?
I think we would stop having wars if that was the logic we followed.
and I'm IP lawyer
Oooooh, and IP lawyer! Now, I'm scared.
No, I'm not.
Not intending to "make you scared". Simply trying to point out that perhaps my attention to the legal aspects of what happened with the NYT isn't becuase I'm not smart but interested in a different aspect of it. I think what they did is shitty, I just don't feel sorry for Steve S. Am I concerned for the ethics of journalism when things like this happen? Of course. But I really don't give a shit about Steve S. He was stupid to have sent the email.
So excuse me if I plan to be as shrill as I goddamn want to be.
Hecate | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 11:54 am | #
FUCKIN' A, Heck-a-taY!!!
I'll be as shrill as I fuckin' want to be...
s.z.
Going to the videotape:
"That's what a coward named Steve Schwenk, from San Francisco, wrote to national political correspondent Adam Nagourney several days ago..."
If Okrent had not already established sloppiness as the primary characteristic of his writing, I might agree with you. As it stands, I still think a clarification is necessary. If "wrote to" means "wrote a personal email addressed to," then Okrent is clearly in the wrong in revealing his name. If, on the other hand, "wrote to" means "wrote a letter to the editor directed to," then providing attribution is justified.
Steve S.--
Your 11:40 post was truncated at the 6:16 email. Can you repost from there?
Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public. I don't think they'd dare.
My guess is that most of us actually would say it in public, at least until a large enough crowd of MBFs assembled to kick our asses.
On our way home from Michael Moore's appearance in Nashville (about which more below), I told my wife how much I wanted this election to be over, how much of an emotional burden it has become.
I should first explain that I am not by habit a political ideologue. It took me a long time to come around to my present opinions. I have worked on both Republican and Democratic campaigns; I voted for J. Danforth Quayle, for various offices, four times; I even voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bush 41 in 1988. Over the years I have had friends who are stalwarts of both parties, and I like to think I've always been fairly tolerant of the political opinions of others.
This year is different. I find it very difficult to have a civilized conversation with someone, knowing that that person is likely to vote for Bush. I am having to avoid neighbors I have known for years, simply because I cannot respect them enough to be civil to them.
This afternoon my neighbors will be gathering down the street for a picnic. This is a neighborhood tradition, one that has been going on here for years. I will not be going; not because I'm antisocial or don't want to mix with my neighbors, but because this year the host is running as the Republican candidate for our seat in the state legislature, and I cannot trust myself not to be irresponsibly rude.
I hate George W. Bush. I hate what he has done to my country; I hate what he has done to my life. I cannot help but wish misery and calamity to him, and anyone stupid enough to vote for him.
I don't like being this way. But I can't help it.
So let's get this straight, according to reporters at the New York Times.
Witness to treason: don't reveal source.
Get an email that makes your tummy feel sad: identify source.
It appears that Mr. Okrent has a messageboard on the New York Times site where people may respond.
It's at http://tinyurl.com/47vow (tiny URLe'd down)
What surprised me was that there were so few posts on it. I wonder if those messageboard posts are selectively edited.
The editor at the daily I used to work at, he used to say that all the time: "If you get criticized by both sides, that must mean you're doing your job right."
The PowerLine bloggers on their radio program yesterday were accusing Nagourney of being a liberal stooge at the NYT.
Inoculation. Go figure.
Am I concerned for the ethics of journalism when things like this happen? Of course
And, yet, I intend to rail on and on about a totally different topic. And to imply that stupid people deserve to be threatened by the NYT.
Here's a suggestion, oh all-impressed with-yourself IP lawyer, try a Lexis search on the phrases "Free Speech" and "Chill" and read a few of the Supreme Court cases that come up, OK?
1071
Somebody elses son was killed today.
Hecate - Get shrill, Mama, and I'll be right there with my voice to add to yours.
Funny how all this only got "shrill" when liberals finally stood up and said we aren't going to take it anymore. Funny how now the media is whining and puling and carrying on like some drama queen. "How dare the liberals say mean things! How dare they question us."
RunsW/Sciz:
Bullshit...
Steve was speaking truth to power.
That, in the age of the free press, is the journalist's duty.
Nagorney is an asslicking hack, and Okrent is a bully...with a lot of power.
Up-thread i said, if you approve the war, it should cost YOU something when all that blood is shed. Nagourney whines to Okrent when reminded of that truth.
Hello, Runs???
Truth to power???
Get it???
Isn't the very same Op-Ed page running an article explaining why the integrity of the newspaper depends on their ability to hide the names of the people with whom they correspond?
Isn't that at least slightly ironic?
At Daniel Okrent's messageboard, at
http://tinyurl.com/47vow,
only one person has responded to the column in question:
His post is worth quoting...
Is a Public Editor a critic or an apologist?
It's sad to see Mr. Okrent generally dismiss the complaints of readers as merely reflections of their own bias. Evidently he sees his role as "people's editor" to be confined to occasional attribution errors, abstract denials of institutional bias, and copious pontificating about the dreary bias of complaints from readers.
...
The NYT has and had an obligation to its readers to actively challenge lies by politicians in power, especially in such serious times. With reporters like Mr. Nagourney, the NYT has failed over and over again in this responsibility. And that, Mr. Okrent, is the real problem--not overheated readers.
Oh I see. the more intelligent Hecate has finally made an appearance today. This isn't about free speech, first of all, so perhaps you should do the search on Lexis. And I'm not rambling on about anything. I just don't think it was a huge violation of Steve's personal rights, which is the way everyone here seems to be describing it. You want to have an interesting conversation maybe we should be talking about the responsabilties of journalists to their readers. But simply was no violation of rights, period. So get over it. You don't have a right to be protected when you send emails to people. Newspaper or private citizens, it makes no difference. So quit whining about it.
Give me a break. THere you go with the "Speaking truth to power" bullshit. By telling him he hoped his son got his head blown off? That's speaking truth to power? Please, you're making a mockery of the Wildavsky doctrine
Oh, I see the absolutely idiotic runswithscissors has decided to show up today.
If you don't see a chilling effect on free speech when a major paper decides to start threatening those who dare to question its pro-administration and pro-war policies, you're even stupider than the average wingnut.
Hecate — my sense of the situation is informed by personal experience, of sassing a cop who was having my car towed and being jailed for my effrontery. I had to admit to myself that I made an error in judgement and needed to see to my anger management issues. I say that the only real control is self-control.
I'm as angry and shrill as I can be. There are things worth going to jail for — literally and figuratively — and IMO AdNags crap reporting isn't one of them. Okrent fouled. Add it to the list.
No-one's said that publicising an email you receive is illegal, runs with scissors, but that it was a cowardly act of intimidation and the single line most probably lacks a whole lot of context.
See my post at 11:52 am.
Um..stupider isn't a word. And this is about the right to privacy. The point to free speech is that people have the right to speak their minds publicly without fear of GOVERNMENT without fear. NOT about the right to privately attack another private citizen and have it kept private. Please. Try again.
Could we have a new thread now? PLEASE?
Okay, points to Hecate becuase I'm too stupider to realize I typed "without fear" twice..
Tena, we are in complete agreement. The Public Editor needs a public editor.
And whoever said it earlier, that the WaPo ombudsman does a much better job, is correct. I've gotten mail back from Okrent, and he's usually snide and self righteous. I'm glad Okrent is leaving.
Oh for god's sake, Runs, Nagourney doesn't have a son. Shit. This was not a real threat. This was a perfectly valid way of saying: It is easy to support a war you have no personal stake in. It is easy to send other peoples' kids to get their heads blown off - and if that is what you want, I hope the same happens to you.
Jesus christ on a crutch, I should think that of all the things someone could justifiably say to a war supporter, this is about as mild as it gets. So say that this was over the line is specious and ridiculous.
Umm. Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a Republican war, no? One that the NYTimes did not seem fit to editorialize against. In fact they issued a mea culpa on their own coverage.
So who is really the 'coward'? I would say the NYTimes is because their articles actually sent troops to die.
Yes, because we all know that Bush would not have launched the war in Iraq without the New York Times' support.
Um..stupider isn't a word>
1 entry found for stupider.
stu·pid ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
n.
A stupid or foolish person.
Link
Nuff said.
he might have made the very same point WITHOUT identifying the person who wrote the email
Absolutely. He could have said "a correspondent in San Francisco" or "a Mr. Schwenk" (no first name, no location) and the guy would have known it was him being written about.
This NYT thing is indiciative of one difference between Democrats and Republicans. As a rule Democrats fight fair while Republicans fight dirty. For example Rush Limbaugh has denigrated and slandered the ACLU for years, yet they are defending him in his drug abuse case about releasing his medical records.
There's nothing valid in ad hominem.
For about a century now, folks have known that speech is an "act."
We've ALWAYS know acts have consequences. It's one of the ways you know they have happened.
Writing is a "speech act", and journalism is one of the most active of speech acts.
Nagorney's uncritical stenography of the Bushista party line on the Iraq war, indeed all its doings, was and is a conscious act. in view of well-known facts, it can or could scarcely be otherwise.
His acts of journalism contributed to the Bushista's success in propelling the US into an illegal, immoral, imperial war of aggression and acquisition in which, so far, nearly 1100 of his fellow country-folk have been needlessly slaughtered, several dozen thousand MORE have been wounded, injured, scarred for life, either physically or morally; but for which he can apparently bear no loss or anguish.
It is not, therefore, immoral, stupid, or illegitemate for Steven, or me, or anybody else, to remind Nagorney of his compolicity and of the legitimate price he owes to the dead for their absence, and to their families for their losses.
I think what they did is shitty, I just don't feel sorry for Steve S...But I really don't give a shit about Steve S. He was stupid to have sent the email.
Uh-huh. Well, I do give a shit about Steve and doubt his (far from stupid) words--in context--were that out of line. And I do feel sorry for him since he now gets to deal with wingnuts as a result of privately telling a shitty reporter that his shitty journalism has consequences in the real world.
Okrent blew it here, fighting for his "buddy" instead of admitting that the NYT has blown it "big time" and that reader rage is justifiable. Wonder if he realizes that Nagourney has played him like a violin.
he could not have, because journalism would have revealed the bases for the war as dubious.
Another reason I'm glad I cancelled my NYT subscription years ago.
When Judith Miller goes to jail, I'm sending several pizzas to the NYT. I'd love to let them know that we're all celebrating when one of them goes to prison.
I'll chip in, dude!
Extra anchovies on the one that goes to Okrent...
Dictionry.com is often wrong. Moreover, that wasn't how you used the word.
Dave - that's a straw man, and you know it.
Bush couldn't have launched a war in the face of overwhelming public opposition. It didn't exist because of "journalists" at the NYTimes and other outlets who not only failed to do their job of informing the public of the facts, but actively worked to disinform the public on the facts.
They were, and are, enablers of criminal activity. And the victims of those crimes have every right to call them to account on it, in whatever terms they choose.
Superdude-
You wrote this:
"Making an anonymous threat is one thing, but that's not what this guy did. First of all, it clearly wasn't a threat. Second, he identified himself to Adam Nagourney. If Nagourney wanted to e-mail him a reply, he was able to do so. Person to person. On equal terms. Wanting the correspondence to remain on those terms isn't cowardly. It's fair, because the e-mail writer doesn't have the ability to quote Adam Nagourney's e-mail in a New York Times article."
And I would argue you are wrong on several counts except the last one which is irrelevant for reasons I'll mention.
Here's why you are wrong:
1) How would you know that isn't a threat? How would you know that someone who writes that isn't unbalanced and is coming off his hinge?
2) Equal terms? Nagourney is a public figure and journalist; Steve is not, so if a Nagourney wanted to write back "Thanks for the sentiment, I hope your wife gets beheaded by terrorists in San Francisco", he would be really hanging it out there and looking like an unhinged wingnut (i.e. like Steve). Which leads to....
3) Maybe you forgot about the internet? Blogs? You know, those places where you can post personal emails from people like Adam Nagourney and end their career? Isn't a main undercurrent in this thread that NYT is envious of blogger's and their power?
This whole "poor us, being victimized by the press again" meme is such a whining loser of an issue, why doesn't everyone just take a relax the F out pill and, as meditation, practice repetitively mouthing the words: President Kerry, President Kerry, President Kerry, President Kerry, President Kerry.....
It feels good.
Goddamn it - Nagourney is not a private citizen. Jeeeeeesus!
Nagourney has the entire weight of the the most recognizable newspaper in the country behind him and he used it to come down with full force on a private citizen.
Tell me again that this was just one citizen to another - if that's all it was, there would be no discussion.
Can there be any starker reminder that blogs with professionalism and a real understanding of news (i.e., not warbloggers pretending that all writing was cursive by hand prior to 1989) are annoyting rats in the shadows of big, powerful dinosaurs craning their enormous necks to see the pretty falling stars?
(Little Howie Kurtzmann reaction: see, they called us big, powerful dinosaurs with a clear view of things, and called themselves annoying little wombats, so they're clearly aware of the inherent superiority of print).
Although, we hasten to point out that since the only thing about the NYT that is not bullshit-smeared Nazism is Paul Krugman, respectable people should've just dropped the NYT and should be getting Krugman by way of rumorous internets.
Go tell Dances with Wolfie what you think.(Click on URL for Home Page)
Which candidate won the presidential debate Friday night?
Pres. George W. Bush
Sen. John Kerry
Neither
I'd like to point out again that this line
Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public
seems to acknowledge Okrent knew Schwenk's email was private and not intended for publication.
They were, and are, enablers of criminal activity. And the victims of those crimes have every right to call them to account on it, in whatever terms they choose.
In this instance, if the email was sent to someone at their private email address (even if said person is at work) they are in fact considered to be a private person. If Steve was sending that email with the intention of it being received by "a journalist" then he should have had fair warning it would be public. So which is it, did he send a private email or a public email? You can't have it both ways just becuase it helps your argument.
Okrent pertpetually whines about how hard his job is. Maybe someone needs to point out that ombudsman may not be the "best use of his skills" and offer him a nice severance package.
2) Equal terms? Nagourney is a public figure and journalist; Steve is not, so if a Nagourney wanted to write back "Thanks for the sentiment, I hope your wife gets beheaded by terrorists in San Francisco", he would be really hanging it out there and looking like an unhinged wingnut (i.e. like Steve).
This actually happened to me. I wrote this "journalist" who was helping erase the history of American involvement in Iraq so as to justify slightly more direct murderous American crimes in Iraq, and he wrote back that I should put myself through a chipper in a rape room or something incoherent like that. So I guess my other question is what French papers are you reading that gives you the impiression that the "Navy Seals Rock" crowd are not wingnuts? War means ratings and it means cool splosions and that's all they care about. It's not like those fucks in the Faux war room will ever go out and talk to real people like Robert Fisk or sign up like Tillman.
Go tell Dances with Wolfie what you think.(Click on URL for Home Page)
Which candidate won the presidential debate Friday night?
Pres. George W. Bush
Sen. John Kerry
Neither
Dictionry.com is often wrong. Moreover, that wasn't how you used the word
Bwhahahhahah!
Shorter scissors: Like dear leader, I never admit when I'm wrong. It makes me feel manly. And, god knows, I need something to make me feel manly with this tiny dick I've got.
Well, if "Steve from SF" is the Steve quoted in the Times (and there's no way immediately to verify that it is):
1) The email was sent to Nagourney, not to Letter to the Editors or Okrent
2) Nagourney doesn't have children, so this couldn't really be seen as a real threat.
3) The email was not signed with the name published, because they went to lengths to find out his identity.
4) There may be a personal conflict between Nagourney and Steve over a critical blog, meaning Steve wasn't just a reader who wrote in, and Nagourney had a personal motive in seeing Steve attacked.
Now, as I said, not being able to know if Steve is really Steve, and not knowing the particulars of the backstory, this is difficult to evaluate. But if what Steve from SF said is true, then I do think that Okrent acted in an unprofessional manner.
Right, well actually, I am lacking in the penis department. Not however because it is too small, rather it just isn't there. And no, I'm not looking to feel manly, as that might be physically impossible. I'm a woman, not a man. Thanks for making assumptions though.
OT - has anyone else noticed that the transcript on WaPo seems to have been edited? I could be misremembering, but I remember him using 'you can run, but you can't hide', rather than 'you can run, but you can't hide from the reality". Anyone remember it differently, or have a recording to listen for it?
Link to WaPo transcript
again, ad hominem won't score you points. Do you have an argument or do you just want to name call?
What about the non-Steve's? What about all the other names revealed by Okrent just so he could make his final crowning outing of Steve. These people weren't hoping for heads blown off, and yet Okrent casually uses them to make a vengeful revelation.
I am lacking in the penis department
Not to mention the brains department.
Scissors, go defend the hacktackular on the rightie blogs where you belong. No one here is buying what you're selling. You're only making yourself look stupider with every post.
Don't tell me that Nagourney and Okrent think that any mail sent to their private email accounts is in some way public. I do not believe that they believe that for a second. They did this deliberately as a way of saying: "Sit down and shut up."
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy when we email someone. That's a fact, and that's the standard.
I'm a stupid poopiehead and I like eating my own poop.
I'm not Republican. Just becuase I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm some right wing hack who shouldn't be listened to. You don't like what I'm saying so now I'm stupid and should just go away? Now who sounds like our Stupider in Chief?
Have a look at the adamnagourney.com site and you'll see the real reason Okrent and Nagourney thought they had to get back at Schwenk. They seem to think Schwenk is behind it, though he says he isn't.
I'm a stupid poopiehead and I like eating my own poop.
Runs with scissors | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 12:37 pm | #
Nice.
By the way, when did this become a right-wing vs. left-wing question?
Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public. I don't think they'd dare.
This is the most idiotic thing in Okrent's column. It makes no sense.
Isn't Gail Collins editing this guy?
Y'all have to tune into c-span2 right now. Robert Byrd is laying into the right wingers for meeting on a Sunday for a procedural vote on cloture. Complete with Scripture! He really knows how to poke these guys with a sharp stick.
For those who missed it, I just wanted to comment that Rob Neyer, a baseball journalist did write into this comments area, earlier. Okrent started out in sports and wrote some baseball books, so Neyer would know him. I'm not saying that I totally agree with Neyer's posted opinion, but I do know he has huge credibility on this issue. He provokes as much or more hostility toward himself with his columns than maybe any other sports journalist. And through it all, he has kept his email address public.
ya know,
i dont feel sorry for the creeps at Free Republic
and i dont feel sorry for any creep who threatens physical harm to anyone else
and i dont feel sorry for any ratpack journalist
and i hate you
no one know whats it like to be the sad man
The NYT reporters particularly Judith Miller shoud be tried for abetting war criminals.
Here's a REAL journalist -- Jimmy Breslin. And he's writing about people who probably WILL get their heads blown off!
oh, yeah, Moore.
I would guess the crowd at about 3000. Lots of great signs, a much friendlier atmosphere than your typical concert venue. Lots of hot women.
If you know anything about Nashville, you know it's hard to draw a crowd, especially on Saturday night. This was a very respectable showing for a $7.50 ticket.
Another universal in Nashville is that the show always starts late. Sometimes hours late. This show was scheduled for 8:00; by 8:15 the crowd was stomping and clapping.
I'm not sure who's behind the Honky Tonkers for Truth, and whoever they are didn't come on stage, but if you haven't heard Takin' my Country Back, go check it out.
Monkey Bowl was the opening act, singing Al Gore and a couple of his other tunes. He's not a great arena act, but it's always heartwarming to see someone so into his music lay his heart right out there.
Next was Steve Earle, who I finally came to realize (after years of seeing him batted around in the local press) ought to be one of your heroes, even if you don't like his music. He's kicking off a new tour this week, get out there and show him some love.
Then came Moore. I have never been a big Michael Moore fan (in fact I went to the show mostly because I wanted to spend the evening with my wife, and she was going come hell or high water), but this man has been unfairly maligned in the press. He is patriotic, far more respectful of the other side than I can bring myself to be at the moment, and said a lot of things that I wish I could hear coming out of the mouth of John Kerry, including something along the lines of:
"Mr. President, I have not changed positions on Iraq. I have had only one position all along: I have supported the President of the United States. I supported YOU. I, along with 70% of the American people, many of whom didn't vote for you, trusted YOU. We expected better from the President of the United States than the lies we've been told."
Now, as I said, not being able to know if Steve is really Steve, and not knowing the particulars of the backstory, this is difficult to evaluate. But if what Steve from SF said is true, then I do think that Okrent acted in an unprofessional manner.
Royko
Reputable pubs do not publish submittals from readers without contacting the writer to verify his or her identity. That's why they require you to give your full name, address, and a daytime phone. If Okrent published a quote from "Steve Schwenk" without even bothering to find out if he was indeed the author, than Okrent stepped way beyond professional bounds and should really face termination.
All can be easily explained. Daniel Okrent is actually an anagram for "Ed No Like Rant".
When Judith Miller goes to jail, I'm sending several pizzas to the NYT. I'd love to let them know that we're all celebrating when one of them goes to prison.
Pizza? How 'bout a nice Loaf? WTF is that? it's compressed bean byproducts, and other wholesome crap, served to "problem prisoners".
Canfinement Loaf, Management Loaf, or just "Loaf". Now, where'd I put that recipe?
Damn I love Breslin. He one of the only journalists left in this country. He is one of a handful who actually see and write about reality, not some kind of fractured, multi-colored political spin.
I love the man. I hope he lives forever.
G Goober - For Miller, might I suggest a "Pinched Loaf"?
Runs with scissors - you are not getting what I'm saying. Steve did have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he emailed Nagourney at Nagourney's private email address. However, Nagourney works for the largest paper in the country and he used it to make a personal statement through Okrent against Stever.
There is no conflict between saying that Nagourney is not solely a private citizen and saying that nevertheless he had no right to publicize Steve's comment. What I am saying should be clear. If this had not been published in the paper, there would be no discussion. But it was and should not have been. Because Nagourney went to Okrent, who used a very public forum to attack a private citizen.
My two comments about this were not as clear, perhaps, as they should have been. Let me spell it out again.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in private emails. Nagourney, in addition to being a private citizen, is a writer for the NYT. He used this public Nagourney to violate the privacy of a private citizen who disagreed with him in private.
OK?
Has anyone checked to see if the freepi or the little green fucktards have posted Okrent's column on their hatesites yet?
BTW, I found this amusing (from the form acknowledgement letter you get when you send Okrent an email):
If you do not wish your message to be relayed to other editors and
reporters, be sure to let us know.
I don't think any further comment is necessary...
"Hecate - Get shrill, Mama, and I'll be right there with my voice to add to yours.
Funny how all this only got "shrill" when liberals finally stood up and said we aren't going to take it anymore. Funny how now the media is whining and puling and carrying on like some drama queen. "How dare the liberals say mean things! How dare they question us."
Tena "
Ladies, ladies - make sure your gloves are nice and white, your seams are straight and your hat's on. Sit up nicely now, and cross your ankles. Perhaps, if you're very good and we have some time left from the duty of being important, we'll let you express your meaningless opinion....
Establishment politics - and the establishment at the moment includes the NYT and all who ride with it.
And more from the land of Daniel Okrent hypocrisy.
When you go to his information section of NYT, you get this:
Daniel Okrent, the public editor for The New York Times, gets a lot of e-mail. He and his assistant, Arthur Bovino, read all of it. Sometimes readers bring up an issue that deserves to be addressed in public but isn't appropriate for, or won't fit into, his biweekly column in the Week in Review. And so, from time to time, Mr. Okrent will take on these issues and questions in this Web journal.
Readers are invited to weigh in on Mr. Okrent's postings, but he says he would prefer not to comment on their comments because, he says, "too often it's the publication that gets the last word. I’d like to reserve that for the readers."
Or not. Whatever. Oh, fuck the readers anyway. Love, Daniel
Okrent's idea that the Left has been more vicious than the Right in this campaign is incredible. Particularly when he's talking about sexual slurs and threats...that's the Right's stock-in-trade. We see it here continually, and it's all over FR and LGF. That type of attack rarely comes from the Left.
Also, last time I checked, it was Ann Coulter who publicly said she wanted a plane flown into the NYT building. I'd wager Okrent hears stuff along those lines from the Right every single day. Maybe it's just Okrent's personal bias...maybe the constant drone of death threats, sexual abuse, and gay-baiting from the Right has a comforting, lulling effect...sort of like the mighty wheels of the presses. And then an angry leftist, blithering about personal responsibility, or personal consequences, or death, or whatever it is...well, it just strikes an exceptionally ugly note, don't you know.
You know why it seems "vicious," Okrent? Because it's true, and you feel it. You know you're not a footsoldier for ZOG or a Stalinist or objectively pro-Saddam...but you're not so sure you're not a BushCo shill with blood on his hands. Hence, you're angrier at the Left for being right, than at the Right for being wrong.
There's so much confusion on what's going on here.
Look, the issue is NOT whether Steve in SF had a "right" to privacy -- the issue is much more one of expectations. Perhaps Steve would NOT have been so troubled if the entirety of his email had been published, putting the sentence in a more forgiving context. Yet he surely didn't expect that a single sentence would be pulled out, displayed before all the world, and attributed to him against his protests. He might reasonably expect that that would not happen BECAUSE WHAT OKRENT DID IS SOMETHING NEWSPAPERS WHO WANT TO MAINTAIN THEIR REPUTATION DO NOT DO. Ask yourselves the obvious question: when's the last time you saw such a thing happen in a major newspaper? Perhaps never?
The issue is NOT whether what Steve wrote was ugly, and way past the line of acceptable discourse. I think is was pretty vile, no matter the context, but it did not even remotely resemble an actual threat, and it's absurd to act as if it did.
What's remarkable is that Okrent himself admits that ACTUAL sexual insults and threats have been sent to some Times reporters, yet he chooses to publicly ridicule Steve, and not those who sent off the real threats. Are we to believe that what Steve did is far worse, so that he deserves to be subjected to public ridicule, while these others get off without a mention?
What does it say that the NY Times has NOT published the names of those who've actually threatened reporters? Perhaps that it is POLICY not to do so, because of a recognition of the assymetry between the power of the letter writer, and that of the Times?
When Judith Miller goes to jail, I'm sending several pizzas to the NYT. I'd love to let them know that we're all celebrating when one of them goes to prison.
Actually, we should send over lots of flowers and sweets with a nice card to let the editorial staff know this is how Judith will be welcomed to the correctional facility by her fellow inmates - Ahmed Chalabi assures it.
Wanted to clarify this from my post above:
"Particularly when he's talking about sexual slurs and threats"
I should've said "VIOLENTLY sexual slurs and threats against women"...simply calling Judith Miller a "whore" doesn't really count.
Wow- one of the downsides to being both a late-sleeper and a couple time zones removed from the east coast is missing out on the Sunday morning fun. You all have been busy. Reading through the 500+ posts here already, I was struck by a few things, which I will now share .
The 'groupthink' accusations are laughable. Aside from the fact that a virtual group such as this would have a difficult time achieving consensus on what to have for lunch, the comments simply aren't consistent with groupthink. Most seem to think that the original email comment was rude, ill-considered, or insensitive, and a rhetorical device. And I agree; if your rhetorical device obscures your point, it's not been effective. But that's not groupthink.
Further, there is nothing near equity in power in the positions of Steve vs. Adam, as all but the willfully obstinate have noted. I was trying to think of an appropriate analogy. It isn't even kids throwing rocks at soldiers who then shoot them. It's somebody yelling "You suck!" and hawking a loogie at a reporter who then decides to tell millions of people where the guy lives. Not suggesting that they do anything mind you, but here's where you can find him.
I tend to agree with the folks who suggest that sending an email to a public figure at a media outlet carries the possibility of publication in some way, despite any requests for anonymity. Them's the risks. It's certainly not difficult to send anonymous comments, so I've little sympathy for Steve on that point. I also think he's quite properly seeking whatever venue he has access to in order to complain about his treatment and the crappy journalistic and editorial standards being practiced at the the Times.
For me, the bottom line (as it seems to be for many here) is that Steve's words were directed to one person, intended to provoke an empathetic reaction in Adam, and failed, but no animals were harmed in the making of the comment. Adam's comments (via Okrent) were directed to millions of people and created a real risk for Steve. Not even remotely similar.
I wish some of these journalists could grasp that being accused by the left of being an apologist for the right, and being accused by some on the right of being too far left does not mean you're in the middle. First, the right has by far the majority of the political power these days. And B, if you're 2 standard deviations to the right of center, it's entirely consistent for those farther to the left of you to see you as being to the right, and for those who are 3-4 standard deviations to the right to see you as being to the left. But you're still nowhere near the center.
Tena--Maybe I haven't made myself clear either. My point, simple: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when sending ANY email. Once sent, it becomes the property of the recipient to do with it what they choose. Maybe Nagourney is a fucking baby, but I don't think it's an ethical issue. Steve could have avoided the ridicule if he wanted to, and should have know he was at risk for having the statements published if he was sending it to a newspaper. Not so sure what I think about Okrent for doing the dirty work on behalf of Nagourney.
My point, simple: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when sending ANY email.
Expectations are based on what one has seen in the past.
When is the last time you have seen a letter writer exposed, against his wishes, as was Steve, in a major newspaper? I can only say I have NEVER seen this done.
And did not the Times have at the very minimum an obligation to publish the email either in full, or with at least some kind of context for the remark?
And why was Steve's email WORSE than ACTUAL threats sent to reporters, whose sources were NOT thus subjected to public ridicule?
What Jeffco said, and said way better than I have been able to say it.
Atrios-----
1) With 3 weeks left, this thread takes up a tremendous amount of energy that is needed elsewhere.
2) Is someone out there seriously suggesting that the NYT should be taken seriously after they served as primary cheerleader for the disaster in Iraq?
3) As long as newspapers are the subject, can you publish a listing and update it regularly of presidential endorsements by major national and regional newspapers. Mine endorsed JK/JE this morning (SLPD). This information will help in informing us understand:
* Who should be boycotted and blasted
* Who should be supported and praised
I'm not under the illusion that newspaper endorsements influence undecided voters (although the newspapers are) but endorsements do provide some helpful talking points.
Anonymous - not true. There most certainly is a reasonable expectation
of privacy when one sends a personal
email or a personal letter.
You're wrong about that.
I've never argued that it was okay to publish one line of the email, or that Steve's email was worse than the ACTUAL threats received. I've only argued that I don't think there is a REASONABLE expectation of privacy here. And for the record, email writers are exposed all the time against their wishes. Maybe I know this simply beucase I work in the public sector, but major newspapers in major cities do it all the time. The San Jose Mercury, for example, posts emails sent by readers all the time. They don't ask permission first and they don't need to.
It's a buyer beware market folks, that's all I'm saying.
O'krent is correct. Don't you know that WORDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN ACTIONS!
WORDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN ACTIONS!
The first responders and the ambulances will be along any second now to pick up the casualties. I can hear the sirens. WO-wo-Wo-wo-Wo!
Emailed to Okrent:
You chose to print the name of an email correspondent to Mr. Nagourney:
"That's what a coward named Steve Schwenk, from San Francisco, wrote to national political correspondent Adam Nagourney several days ago because Nagourney wrote something Schwenk considered (if such a person is capable of consideration) pro-Bush. Some women reporters regularly receive sexual insults and threats. As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year. Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public. I don't think they'd dare."
While Mr. Schwenk's comment was way over the top and outrageous, that the Times would deem it fit to print the email writer's name and home town together with a slur ("coward") is despicable and bullying behavior. Perhaps you know the man personally, well enough to justify that adjective, but I am willing to doubt it. I'm only surprised you didn't post his email address, telephone number and place of employment, but perhaps that will come out in a follow up.
According to the boilerplate at the end of your column, the "Public Editor" "serves as the readers' representative? Hardly. The Public Editor, it would appear, serves as the hatchet man for thin-skinned Times journalists.
Feel free to publish MY name and hometown.
Art Cunningham, Riverside, CA
Face it, people. Judy Miller, Okrent, Jeffie Gerth, AdNags are professional journalists. Atrios, Digby, JCGeneral, Oliver Willis, etc.--they're hack amateurs.
Wait a minute, y'all. There is a reasonable expectation for any private communication, whether by phone, or by mail or by electronic means. That's why
the government can't intercept mail
and read it except under certain
carefully defined and often court-ordered circumstances.
Email is not public, else there would be no need for passwords. Email becomes public when one rights specifically to a public entity, like the newspaper, via the editor.
"rights" ? How the hell did I do that?
"writes.'
Apart from Okrent trying to sound reasonable while lashing out at people who think he should have a working conscience...and apart from him pretending that it's "vicious" to suggest that Times reporters have blood on their hands from this war...what really bugs me is his apparent belief that the Times is a good or credible newspaper.
I'm reminded of the bit in "Manufacturing Consent," where the editor talks about how their coverage of East Timor was perfectly balanced...the next scene, in a football stadium, showed the column inches devoted to far-right atrocities (a foot or two) alongside those devoted to "communist bloodbaths, which ran the length of the stadium.
The sad thing is, most Times folk probably ARE liberal. They don't marginalize or attack the Left out of political conviction, but out of unwillingness to look at the lives they themselvs lead, and the effect they have on the world. They do it out of personal and professional cowardice, because acknowledging the truth would carry responsibilities that they can't or won't live up to.
Right Tena--again, you've got some of the facts correct, but a little mixed up. Email is in fact personal property that cannot be intercepted by the government. However, the email is considered the PERSONAL PROPERTY of the recipient. Which is where you have yourself all fucked up in this argument. The email was actually the property of Nagourney NOT Steve S. Once he hit that "send" button the right of privacy was extended to someone else. Nagourney had the right to refuse access to the email and a resonable expectation for privacy concerning the email, Steve does not.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps someone should publish Adam's home-phone and address.
Just for the record nobody published Steve's address or phone number.
Just because the email is the property of the recipient, that does not mean it is public property. I'd love to see someone try to make that argument in court. Specifically, I'd love to see a government entity try to make that argument.
Think about it, Runs - if that is the standard, then there is no privacy in any communication.
Wrong wrong wrong.
The San Jose Mercury, for example, posts emails sent by readers all the time. They don't ask permission first and they don't need to.
Runs with scissors
You're full of shit. They don't "ask for permission," because permission is implicit under the "Terms of Use": "In addition, we may collect personally identifiable information from you when you provide content to us for display or use on one or more KRD sites, including but not limited to, when you participate in user surveys, post messages to bulletin boards or chat areas, submit personals or other classified listings, build a home page, report a problem with one of our sites or services, or submit a letter to the editor....By using KRD sites and services, you signify your acceptance of this Privacy Statement. If you do not agree or are not comfortable with any policy described in this Privacy statement, your only remedy is to discontinue use of KRD sites."
So why don't you explain to us what "Terms of Use" are, and why they're posted, you IP lawyer you? Hint: A legal contract is implied, via offer and acceptance.
No, it isn't public property just becuase it belongs to the recipient. It's public property becuase the PROPERTY OWNER made it public. What part of that don't you get. When you send an email to someone it becomes theirs, to do with it what they choose, including making it public.
And for the record, that is EXACTLY the argument that gets made in court ALL THE TIME. And not just with emails, with personal letters, christmas cards, you name it. And I don't know what fucking planet you've been on but there is no privacy in communication. That's why we have specific rules about it (eg. wives, physicians, psychiatrists, lawyers). Certain people get a pass when it comes to privacy in communication. THose rules exist precisely becuase there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in communication. At least amongst the comminicators. If you and I have an email exchange and the government wants to know about it, they don't have the right. But if I wanted to make personal email communication public, I have every right to do so.
Really, I'd have to agree that the letter was inappropriate. Not only was it in poor taste, that kind of language never pursuades because it is essentially an off-topic personal attack. What's the point of writing such a letter. Blowing off steam? Get a punching bag, Steve.
Threats and intimidation, even very indirect ones, have no place in democratic society. No one deserves to be treated like this, except for Ann Coulter, and her only because she wrote that John Walker Lindh should be exucted to "physically intimidate liberals." What goes around comes around, you stupid bimbo.
But it bothers me when progressives start souning like she does.
By the way, I don't know why I am occasionally "anonymous" and other times Runs with. I'm really not doing anything different. In any case, it's still me.
Just for the record nobody published Steve's address or phone number
How fucking stupid are you? You're obviously stupider than I thought.
It would take a determined wingnut less than an afternoon to find not only his address and phone number but an aerial map of his home and his credit report, as well. Ever hear of the internet?
I thought it was "Internets" now.
None of the standards of legal contracts apply here. what the fuck are you talking about? None of the emails that I was talking about where at all covered under and "terms of use" clause. They were simply emails sent to the paper or sent to employees of the paper. They're still published when the paper feels like, and even on occasion to stick it to someone they are annoyed with.
Anonymous - You don't get it - what we are talking about is not Property - it is a privacy interest.
That makes the difference. Don't be purposely obtuse. Of course there is a privacy interest in a private communication and you cannot argue that away.
Yes, Hecate, I understand that. Why don't you calm down, it's just a discussion.
Nagourney certainly has the legal right to make the name and address of the man who wrote to him. However, it is the height of hypocrisy to have someone else do it, under the guise of exposing the cowardice of another. Moreover, just because it is legal to do something, doesn't make it proper.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Okrent has defamed Schenk's character. I'd like to see him answer for his actions at trial.
Of course, it is very difficult to make solid judgments on this without knowing what was in the full email. If Schenk were to have said "I hope your kid dies in Iraq -- in fact I hope your kid dies tomorrow, and I'll be working to ensure it", that's quite a bit worse than "Your support for the war is easy when you have nothing on the line. I hope *your* kid dies, then we'll see how you feel, asshole".
Personally, if I received a letter in the spirit of my first example, I would personally take care of the threat, not call in some pissant like Okrent to fight my battles for me. If I received a letter of the second type, I'd either shrug it off, or fire off a *private* reply.
You'd think someone who writes for a living would respect the power of the written word enough to pick up a pen and take on an adversary, rather than resorting to humiliation by proxy.
Privacy interests don't stand up in court. That's my point. Private converstions (even one's intended solely to be heard by the communicators) are exposed all the time for legal purposes.
I agree. There is a legal argument to made that without publishing the comments as a whole, the NYT may be guilty of slander.
Private converstions (even one's intended solely to be heard by the communicators) are exposed all the time for legal purposes.
It's true. You're even stupider than dirt.
This private conversation wasn't exposed for a legal purpose. It was "exposed" in order to intimidate liberals who've begun to work the refs the same way that you wingnuts have been doing for years.
And if you know how easy it is to get his address and phone number from the web, why make a stupid assertion that his address and phone number weren't published? They may as well have been.
So there you go. I told you it was an "atrios" reader who was incited to send such foulness to the NYT journalist.
You read it here first!
Again, you should calm down, it's just a discussion. And maybe you should go back and read a little further up. That answer you quoted was a direct answer to another post. A post that claimed there was some kind of legal right to privacy in this matter.
I made the comment becuase the original post said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" which implied that the phone number and address had been published.
And for the record, i'm not sure it's possible for dirt to be stupid. A stupider (note the correct usage of the word, as a noun) I may be, but not stupider than dirt ( note incorrect usage of the word)
OK. Here's the e-mail. There are two replies that follow it. (There are 1/2 dozen or so other e-mails between me and Nagourney.) Judge for yourselves what happened here. I have already conceded that it was an error of judgment on my part to use such harsh language. But I never intended Mr. Nagourney any harm, it was a private e-mail. They, on the other hand, smeared my name to a million or more people, called me a coward and protrayed me in the worst light possible.
___________________________________
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:01:37 -0700
To: Adam Nagourney
From: Steve Schwenk
Subject: Re: Mission Impossible
You poor thing. You missed the hey day at Pravda, so you struggle to recreate it in NY.
"Mr. Bush never actually said "mission accomplished," but stood in front of a banner that contained those words."
Really?
"America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he [bush] said. (June 5th, 2003.)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me.../05/qatar.bush/
Yes, there is a sliver of truth to your statement. That's what makes it so objectionable. It is deceiving and misleads, which is of course the point. Just like so much of the garbage that comes out of this Whitehouse and it's army of whores, you included.
You're either a propagandist or a whore, but you're not a journalist. A journalist would never mislead his readers this way or fail to do the research needed to justify your misleading statement of "fact."
Dick head. I hope your kid gets his head blown off in some republican
At 12:58 PM 9/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Mr. Shwenk:
Senator Kerry, in his remarks in Madison on Sunday, was referring specifically to what President Bush did and said when he appeared on May 13, 2003, on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in front of the banner that said Mission Accomplished. I went back and checked the White House transcript of the presidents remarks from the day; he never said Mission accomplished, and thats what I was pointing out in that dispatch. (The line in the story read, "Mr. Bush never actually said "mission accomplished," but stood in front of a banner that contained those words." )
However, several readers have pointed out that Mr. Bush said something similar America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished" during a visit to a base in Qatar in June of 2003, according to a story in USA Today. I am going to raise this with editors this morning to see if we need to write any kind of clarification
I don't have a son.
Please don't respond to this. Your message was truly shameful.
At 12:58 PM 9/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Your message was truly shameful.
No where near as shameful as your coverage of the election. It is because of people like you (and pathetic j
I've gotta go do some volunteerifying for the Kerry campaign today, so I don't have time to get into this much...
As I understand the matter, and I've written a bit on this subject professionally (though I'm NOT an expert), information in an e-mail can be divulged to the public in cases where there's consent of the mailer OR the addressee, so there's nothing illegal about the NYT doing this. That seems to be the strawman that Runs is attacking (however, if someone here said it WAS illegal, I missed it).
Schwenk had no legal expectation of privacy, under any law that I'm aware of. But he did have a moral right to it, IMO, based on what OUGHT to be the standards for ethical conduct at the NYT.
What Atrios and most people here are saying, is that the NYT is bullying and intimidating Schwenk. The NYT knows--who better?--how the right operates, and they know they're exposing Schwenk (or anyone in SF unfortunate enough to have the same name) to harassment and possible violence from FReepers and their ilk. On top of which, it's unseemly to have an ombudsman call a letter-writer a "coward"...beyond unseemly, in fact, and into grounds for dismissal.
The rest of this conversation seems like an unnecessary distraction to me. It's never wise to say that you "hope" someone's child will be killed, and Schwenk could've phrased it better. But his point is perfectly valid: anyone who demands from others a sacrifice he wouldn't gladly make himself is a coward and a thug. And as I said above, Okrent and Nagourney are trying to punish him for holding up a mirror to their own moral hollowness. They both ought to be fired for this, even if there weren't a hundred other good reasons to fire them.
Hecate: There are many words in the dictionary that I would avoid. "Stupider" is one of them. Just pronouncing it is awkward.
The preferred way of expressing this idea is "more stupid."
"The Heath Handbook" has a list of the preferred comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs. The handbook's rule of thumb is that, if a word is one syllable, use "er" and "est," as in "tall, taller, and tallest."
But . . . "Many adjectives of two syllables and all longer adjectives form the comparative and superlative by adding "more" and "most."
Examples: alert more alert most alert
ambitious more ambitious most ambitious
I suppose you would choose "alerter" and "alertest," but you would be in a "peculiar" minority.
Just try to pronounce "ambitiouser" and "ambitiousest." and get back to me.
Well, when Arthur Salzburger takes over the government in a putsch, and starts imposing martial law, we can resume this line of worry
In the '20s, Right-Wing nutjobs in Germany attempted a putsch and failed. A few years later, they aligned themselves with business interests and had themselves legally appointed to power through backroom schemes.
In '98, Right-Wing nutjobs in America attempted to depose the president and failed. A few years later, closely aligned with business interests, they had themselves legally appointed to power through backroom schemes.
...(and pathetic journalism by the NYT, as it has admitted) that hundreds of young men have had their heads needlessly blown off already."
Wish I could hang out, but i have kids to take care of, including an outstanding son.
Actually, what I'm attacking is people's assumption that Nagourney adn Okrent= assholes some how provides some logical argument to the morality of publishing Steve's name. Moreover, what I'm really annoyed with is this ridiculous discussion that Steve was some innocent bystander that had no idea he could get nailed like that. He should have know the risks. Beyond that, I think it was shitty and I think Nagourney and Okrent did what they did just to be assholes. So they're assholes, stop reading the paper if you think they're assholes. Are call for their resignations, but stop arguing that Steve was some how completley violated in this whole thing. He picked a fight with bigger kid and not only did the big kid kick his ass he plays unfairly too. Since when has the media "played fair" and why are we all surprised by this?
It's interesting that Okrent chose a reader from San Francisco.
The NYT gets letters like this all the time and from all over the country.
Okrent was attempting to smear the Left by playing up the "they're not true Americans, they're all queers on the left coast" stereotype.
He wouldn't have outed someone from Wisconsin. It wouldn't have fit the meme.
Scissors,
Each post reveals you to be stupider than the last.
Clearly, it bothers you that the left has learned how to work the refs the way that you wingers have been working them for years. I suggest you get used to it. We're not going anywhere. Now stop allowing your hatred of atrios to make you look stupider and stupider.
Wow. Sounds like AN is bringing back that wonderful pastime of having the vapors. I missed those old couches.
It would probably be a terrible thing if someone published Okrent's personal address and phone number. Yes, it would be terrible thing indeed.
"He should have know [sic] the risks."
You don't find this remark a little, just a little bit, frightening? Apart from the self-evident fact that you have internalised a new form of quasi-State sponsored terrorism as somehow normal?
I hope you do find it frightening. If not, well, there are comparatives that might be employed. But that would be conduct stupider than I am generally given to....
Runs, your dismissal of my "Terms of Use" argument is complete bullshit. You said:
"None of the standards of legal contracts apply here. what the fuck are you talking about? None of the emails that I was talking about where at all covered under and "terms of use" clause."
Pomp and circumstance...all well and good. The problem was, I wasn't talking about NYT vs. Schwenk. I was talking about YOUR claim that the SJ Mercury News doesn't ask for or get permission to print e-mail addresses.
It does, under an impliied offer and agreement. As thus: "We will not disclose your personally identifiable information to third parties except (1) to the extent necessary to provide you with a requested product or service."
If, as you say, "none of the emails that I was talking about where at all covered under and 'terms of use' clause"...then why in God's name did you yourself bring up the SJMN as somehow relevant to this case?
Seems pretty fucking weird to me.
Philalethes -- Your 2:23 comment expresses my opinion perfectly.
On the distraction issue, there is a finer point to be made as well, and it is that case law (not to mention statute!) lags technology. This leads, unfortunately, to argument by analogy, and such arguments generally are less precise than they need to be.
Nice to slang the language.
It's proper! I seen it online!
I already told you, I'm not a wingnut. You certainy are paranoid about it though. And not at all an Atrios hater, don't know where you would get that from. Why is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a "right winger" or "atrios hater". I wouldn't waste my time here if I didn't agree with most of what was said.
I hate Bush, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that Steve S was a victim. HOw the fuck are those two things even connected.
Becuase I was talking about the SJMN who in fact published emails from people all the time. What the fuck are you talking about? Don't get all snarfy just becuase YOU misunderstood what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about NYT when I posted that, I was talking about the SJMN. wtf?
Steve S.
I'm still with Atrios on this but your credility has suffered somewhat since you claimed in one of your first posts above that what you really said was:
"It is because of lazy reporters like you (and pathetic journalism by the NYT, as it has admitted) that hundreds of young men have had their heads needlessly blown off already."
Instead of what Okrent wrote that you wrote which was:
"I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war,"
But the full e-mail that you just posted at 2:23 does indeed have Okrent's version in it. And Okrent doesn't really appear to have taken it out of context. Why did you do that? It was misleading and not at all necessary to do as Okrent was wrong for giving your full name and city of residence in either case.
Note: That in my post above where I juxtapose the two quotes at 8:08am I inadvertently reversed the attributions.
People who are trying to support what Nagourney and Okrent did are really arguing that Steve wasn't very bright. You can make that argument if you like - that's an opinion. It doesn't mean damn thing when the situation is viewed objectively. It doesn't change a thing.
The paper had no business publicizing Steve's identity. Nagourney is a complete asshole and Okrent has absolutely no journalistic ethics for doing this. It is really ugly.
'Particularly when he's talking about sexual slurs and threats...that's the Right's stock-in-trade. We see it here continually, and it's all over FR and LGF. That type of attack rarely comes from the Left.'
TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!
YOU misunderstood what I was talking about
I think at this point that Scissorhands has made so many unsupported statements, set up and failed to knock down so many strawmen, and slipped contexts so many times in an effort not to have to answer legitimate criticisms that even the great IP lawyer itself doesn't understand what it is talking about. And that's even stupider than the usual wingnut behavior we see around here.
Runs with Scissors, go away, you tiny dicked troll!!! Hecate wills it!
Again, perhaps we should go over this again...no penis here!
You people really are fucking assholes. Someone new shows up, someone who is in fact liberal and going to vote for Kerry, and someone who up until today agreed with everything that's been said here...and you're going to call me fucking names and treat me like shit becuase I disagree with you a little. Wtf? Are you for real?
Runs with scissors, I am joking.
Right. You're joking. How stupider of me not to notice.
and to answer your question, they are for real. very very lame.
To recap, so everyone can see what a dishonest dunce Runs is:
RUNS: The San Jose Mercury, for example, posts emails sent by readers all the time. They don't ask permission first and they don't need to.
ME: You're full of shit. They don't "ask for permission," because permission is implicit under the "Terms of Use."
RUNS: None of the standards of legal contracts apply here. what the fuck are you talking about? None of the emails that I was talking about where at all covered under and "terms of use" clause. They were simply emails sent to the paper...
ME: I was talking about YOUR claim that the SJ Mercury News doesn't ask for or get permission to print e-mail addresses. It does, under an implied offer and agreement. If, as you say, "none of the emails that I was talking about where at all covered under and 'terms of use' clause"...then why in God's name did you yourself bring up the SJMN as somehow relevant to this case?
RUNS: Becuase I was talking about the SJMN who in fact published emails from people all the time. What the fuck are you talking about? Don't get all snarfy just becuase YOU misunderstood what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about NYT when I posted that, I was talking about the SJMN. wtf?
ME (AGAIN): The problem was, I wasn't talking about NYT vs. Schwenk. I was talking about YOUR claim that the SJ Mercury News doesn't ask for or get permission to print e-mail addresses.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Didn't J.D. Salinger prevent publication of his private letters a few years ago through the copyright law? The contents of a letter are the property of the writer, not the recipient, by virtue of the author's copyright. As distinguished from the physical letter, which is the property of the recipient. That's why it's important that Steve S. sent it to Nagourney at his own e-mail address rather than to the Times, which very likely has a provision on its web site stating that received correspondence is the property of the Times, thereby superceding the copyright.
I'm still with Atrios on this but your credility has suffered somewhat since you claimed in one of your first posts above that what you really said was:
You're wrong. I made no such claim. I said they left that part out and all of the rest. Why not check quotes before claiming people have lost credibility. It's not fair. And it diminishes your own credibility.
And i've really got to go. There's a pile of hate mail to respond to now, and the phone keeps ringing, off the hook. At least 200 people have searched my name on google and then visited a website i can track since Okrent put this up.
The problem is, I wasn't talking about the NYT either. The SJMN published emails that are sent to the private addresses of reporters and newspaper staff. That was point. The NYT isn't the only paper that does this.
TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!
Carping Assman
Hi, ET. Please see my clarification of the quote you're complaining about.
Email doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of copyright law.
And to ss. If you really are getting hate mail you should consult an attorney. I agree, it wasn't fair to take one line of an email and publish. You probably have a decent slander case, especially if you can prove damages
Isn't there an old saw to not get in a war of words with someone who buys ink by the gallon? And since we've all heard that one, does anyone who is supporting Steve's right to be an offensive idiot know how to spell naive?
Ok, all together now "Bad, bad Okrent and Nagourney, Kumbaya."
Eyes roll, close, big sigh and shake head.
President Kerry, President Kerry, President Kerry. It's got a real catchy ring to it, don't it?
You knuckleheads are now claiming that publishing an excerpt of an email is a violation of copyright? That's just too goddamn funny.
going to call me fucking names and treat me like shit
Shorter Scissorhands: Mommy! Mommy! Those people are so mean!
Listen, Scissors, you're not the first wingnut to think it's a brilliant act of psyops to show up here and claim that you're on our side. In fact, you're considerably stupider than many of your brethern.
The SJMN published emails that are sent to the private addresses of reporters and newspaper staff.
And you know this how?
And do you mean "private" as in "completely non-work-related and not published anywhere in the newspaper"? Or do you "personal" as in "it goes directly to this staff member"?
Because unless it's a truly private address--e.g., runs@yahoo.com, rather than runs@mercurynews.com--then I'd say you're talking out your ass. If it's sent to a professional work address of a sttaff reporter, it's a letter TO the newspaper for all legal intents and purposes.
If I were a wingnut I'd claim it. Voted for Gore last time, I'm voting for Kerry this time. It's really that simple. I know you think it crazy that a dem could actually disagree with you, but you're going to have to get over it. I'm no wingnut.
Philalethes-- I know this specifically becuase I wrote an email to SJMN reporter in regards to an issue related to local government and it was in fact published by the paper, along with several other emails. It was sent to the reporter at work, which is exactly what ss did.
"If it's sent to a professional work address of a sttaff reporter, it's a letter TO the newspaper for all legal intents and purposes."
Ahhh, yes, this has been my point exactly all morning. wtf?
'Mommy! Mommy! Those people are so mean!'
What do you think this whole thread is all about? Crybaby bullshit. Sending an email wishing the recipient's child should die a horrible death, then whining about being properly humiliated. Too bad, asshole.
By all means file that lawsuit. That should be a laugh and a half.
Carping Assman,
I hope you get your fucking head blown off in a Republican war.
Just sayin'
You people have no shame.
Hecate-- is that what you really mean? That you wish someone would get their fucking head blown off? Why can't you just have a reasonable discussion with someone?
Hecate, I somehow doubt that even you are stupid enough to write the NYT under your own name expressing the same crass sentiment.
No, I think she is that stupid.
Scissorhands,
I think people who advocate wars ought to go fight in them. I think chickenshit 101st Fighting Keyboarders deserve to get their heads blown off in a Republican war. Why don't you and Assman go take the place of two innocent kids over in Iraq? Come on! There's Islamofascists and other rugheads to kill. Sitting here commenting on a blog isn't nearly as exciting as joining up!
I found the email to Mr. Schwenk in about three minutes. Wasn't tough. His life just got really, really tough.
They've already had to change the webpage at the Cub Scout Troup where he's a leader.
As bad as the harassment of the Times reporters may be, the harassment of Mr. Schwenk will be worse.
Um a little tip. If you ever e-mail anything to a reporter, expect it to be published on the front page the next day.
Also, if you ever say anything to a reporter, expect it to be published on the front page the next day.
I don't advocate wars. Stop trying to spin this in some "scissorhands is a republican" direction. wtf?
Thank you Secaucus. My point exactly.
It was sent to the reporter at work, which is exactly what ss did.
It was sent to the reporter at work, which is exactly what ss did.
In that case, it was a letter to the newspaper--NOT a private e-mail--and the terms of use apply...implied consent and so forth.
Since my argument essentially bolsters yours, I wonder why you're fighting it so hard? Force of habit, perhaps?
Two points:
As a professional writer, I am better at it than most of the people who write or e-mail me. It would take very little to rip people apart and humiliate them for sport.
I refuse to do that because I have an advantage they don't.
The real issue here is not the nasty comment on Nagourney, but the belief he has this guy is running a site parodying him. As parody goes, it avoids his personal life. But journalists are very, very thin skinned and don't like the new scrutiny they have to live with.
Second, Okrent lost his head and his judgement with that article. He is a professional writer. Unless the article made a specific, criminal threat on a reporter, it should have remained private. Exposing the man to harassment over a private conversation is not only stupid morally, but stupid legally.
He has a very powerful forum, one read world wide. He should be far more careful in how he uses that power. Just because someone pisses you off, doesn't give you the right to attack them publicly.
If the top bloggers, even Instahack, don't attack people who send them private e-mails, why should the New York Times.
And when I attack people, I use my name.
Also, I too stress that people need to be polite and direct when dealing with the media. Rudeness is counter productive. Sure, I could feel better in calling Dan Okrent an asshole and a bully, but what's the point? I'd feel better, but I wouldn't make an more of a point that I would with a carefully crafted, polite e-mail saying the same thing.
Arguing a point is of course always force of habit with me. My original point was that the reported had the right to publish. I believe you asked me when I had ever seen a newspaper do that, as though you thought it never happened. I gave you my example, and as far as I could tell it was analagous to that of NYT and ss. So if we're in agreement that the reported had the right to do it and in fact other papers do it, then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
I meant "reporter" not "reported"
Steve S. wrote referring to my 2:44pm post above
You're wrong. I made no such claim. I said they left that part out and all of the rest. Why not check quotes before claiming people have lost credibility. It's not fair. And it diminishes your own credibility.
I checked them, as I could very well be wrong I checked them again and...
Well then see your post at 7:20am
But when I look at the full e-mails that you posted (on the other thread I believe) I don't find that quote that's in the 2:44pm post in them.
So help me out here. Could you inadvertently neglected to copy and paste the e-mail that contains that quote when you pasted several of your e-mails to AN? Check your Inbox, you might have missed it. I wouldn't be surprised if you had given all the stress you must be feeling.
Look, I'm really on your side on this as far as Okrent's doing you dirty by publishing your name and city of residence. That goes whether whether Okrent's version is more accurate or yours is (and I'm not making an accusation here). But this part, while tangential to the main issue, doesn't add up and the scholar in me doesnt't rest easy with that.
I hope everything works out OK for you and your family and this all dies down very quickly.
Regarding copyright: Okrent's use of Steve's email would be protected under the Fair Use clause as he only used an excerpt and did provide attribution.
However, "Please do not forward this email without permission" is considered a statement of implied copyright protection.
---
I'm not a lawyer. I just have to deal with c issues during my course of work.
I missed it but does the article claim that the letters of the people in question had disclaimers or statements to the effect of 'please don't give out my name'?
If otherwise then they are all fair game.
I would think they gave out the names so that the letter writers in question could recognize themselves being quoted and realize the article was meant to address their concerns to a degree.
There was once a time when people took stuff like this as an excuse to brag.
"Look! Look guys! I got my name in the newspaper!!"
As Atrios said, it's his policy not to give out their names. But the way I see it, if the letter writers don't have the courage of their convictions then they shouldn't sign their names to the letters and/or emails, or perhaps not even bother to write them.
Plus, if someone scumbag gets it to threaten or otherwise use over the top language then maybe the person's neighbors would appreciate knowing their neighbor was possibly a racist bigot, a homophobe, or someone of such mental capacity that they would go overboard because of a few words in a newspaper.
Get over it. Sometimes you people just act like sheep.
Or more to the point. You're starting to act like Bush supporters.
MYOB'
.
'Civility' is the last refuge of these scoundrels. We can no longer call a liar a liar (Judith Miller) for fear of being considered rude and intemperate.
Walk a mile in their Guccis: How could they continue to do their jobs if the invites to the best cocktail parties stopped coming? How would Biff and Muffy, fresh out of Sarah Lawrence or Yale, get those swank jobs in Manhattan or DC if pere or mere went off the reservation and called a spade a spade?
When journalism became a career track it ceased to be a calling. Witness Nagourney, Miller and Okrent.
Hey, BartCop.com doesn't call it The New York Whore for nothing.
I'm so old I can remember when it and the Washington Post were good for something more than lining birdcages.
I've been a daily reader of this site for some time (maybe close to a year now) and reading this I simply had to post (for the first time). I read this site for its left viewpoint, and try to read some of the right blogs to get theirs (although its really hard to swallow these days).
A while back, Atrios took a brief vacation, and had a few guest bloggers fill in. I found the blog fairly unreadable during that time. The level of vitriol jumped way up, and the linked articles became much more fringe. I began to feel as skeptical of this blog, as I do of the right blogs.
The reason I'm posting, is that this blog feels headed in that direction again. I know tensions are heightened as we near the election, and believe me, I know a Bush reelection would be tragic. However, I find the closing line of this article unnecessary and distasteful, esp. since my sympathies lie against the man that sent the abusive message. The same goes for use of epithets such as "chimpy" for Bush. They don't accomplish anything but to render this site useless as a place to refer people to for making a point.
I think Steve S was right on.
These people supported DUMBya's war. Let's see how much they like if one of THEIR kids was in danger.
That jackass at NYT had NO right to put Steve's surname and where he lived.
Okrent was just looking for an excuse to bitch at anti-Bush people, that's all. He knows his boy is toast come Nov. 2.
The same goes for use of epithets such as "chimpy" for Bush.
You don't like "chimpy"? How about DUMBya? Smirky McWarHardOn? The Giggling Mass Murder? President Moron?
I could go on and on!
'I could go on and on!'
I bet you could!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? Because it's an unfair fight.
How so? Unless you're killing your comments, they can just as easily post a link here to their own blogs giving their side of the story.
I can't help but wonder where people's sympathies would lie if the 'sides' were the other way around--if a liberal, anti-Bush reporter got this same e-mail from a pro-Bush righty saying "I hope one of your kids gets killed by a Muslim terrorist." Would y'all be screaming about the violation of readers' rights and how the reporter publishing that letter was terrible? I wonder.
There most certainly is a reasonable expectation
of privacy when one sends a personal
email or a personal letter.
To whom? If you look at newspaper editorial pages, they TELL you that they consider material sent them to be their property. You send a letter to the editor, don't complain when they print it. (The San Jose Mercury-News does call people, to confirm they are the actual letter-writer, but not to get a copyright OK.) It's not like sending a letter to your girlfriend. And it's probably a good idea to state that your letter is not intended for publication.
Hecate- regarding "stupider", I prefer "too stupid to live."
I consider it better usage. 
on this whole Okrent thing- it was petty and vindictive for Okrent to publish the guy's name and city. He could have made his point without doing so- and I told him that last night in a letter. A letter that he will no doubt ignore.
It's pathetic what the times have come to.
Can we please get one thing perfectly clear here. What SS sent to Nagourney was NOT A THREAT. Had it been so, it seems to me Nagourney would have been entitled to refer the matter to the authorities (privately).
But it wasn't.
Part of the problem with being extreme and repulsive is that it's not just a tradition on the right.
Hecate, guaranteed, after next month, whatever you want, I'm against it.
Ya ever hear about pot calling kettle stupid?
The problem with using someone's name is that unless you've verified it six ways to Sunday, you don't have anyway of knowing that the name is correct, or know that it's not falsified by someone on the other side. Good grief; letters to the editor are supposed be verified with a phone call from the paper to the person who allegedly wrote it. I don't see any sign in Okrent's column that he did anything to verify any of the emails. If he did, he should say so. If not, he could have a major lawsuit on his hands.
And, oh, yeah, Jesus General. I guess I've misread your site as satire all this time. Shame on me.
Ahem - he didn't send the letter to the editor, mythago - read the fucking comment thread before you post. You don't sound quite as stupid that way.
He sent the emails directly to Nagourney, at Nagourney's private email addy. If he had sent them to the editor, there would be no controversy.
No one here is that dumb.
Just a few items:
1.)Upthread, someone asked if JD Salinger had not faced this very issue in court. In point of fact, it was not this issue but one fairly similar. He had written letters that were easily construed as personal correspondence, as the recipient was his daughter and the recipient wished to publish them. They went to court, and Mr. Salinger lost.
As far I can follow so far, there are several parts to this dispute as follows:
a.) Property-the letters are unquestionably the property of the NYT as someone rightly pointed out that they were sent to Mr. Nagourney in the course of his work. Therefore the NYT has the right to use them as they see fit. This would be true if they were love letters Mr. Nagourney were receiving from Mr. Schwenk or the above tasteless and vile remark. As has been established in court, Mr. Nagourney has almost no right whatsoever concerning the ownership of these letters.
b.)Exceptions- as we have established that these missives are theproperty of the NYT, what relationship does the NYT have with Mr. Schwenk regarding the use or privacy of this correspondence. There are I think four main considerations: first, when Mr. Schwenk signed up to use the NYT website, what right of use did he agree to?, second, I listed above what implied protection Mr. Schwenk should have had as per what is written in the information portion of Mr. Okrent's own website regarding this matter, and third, what does Mr. Schwenk himself beg of the NYT in his correspondence with regard to this matter, and fourth, what does customary practice provide with regard to this issue, if anything, and is that a consideration with regard to a reasonable expectation.
So what, if any, exceptions apply to this case?
As far as I can tell, thing shake out like this:
First-Right of use-there is a privacy agreement right there when you sign up to view their website and you must give personal information. I didn't bother to read it, because my father taught me when I was a teenager to never do anything that I didn't want to read about on the front page of the NYT. Mr. Schwenk was no so lucky I guess with his folks. But it is there if anyone wants to read it and report back. I don't. It's boring. But it's there.
Second-Implied privacy.)Mr, Okrent actually does imply privacy in the blub with his website, but does so as a matter of policy, not law, interestinly. But since he states it is his policy and does not state exceptions to that policy, here is where Mr. Schwenk may stand a chance of prevailing, if at all, on a resonable expectation.
Third-Request for Privacy)Since there seems to exist some doubt as to whether Mr. Schwenk has provided us with the full content of the e-mails in question, OR whether Mr. Schwenk, who claims has had a number of previous written e-mails with Mr. Nagourney, has ever requested his name be witheld and therefore had a prior agreement in force and effect, we do not know either of these t
of these thing and cannot answer this question.
There also exist other arguments of deep concern on non-legal grounds, namely, the moral responsibilities of Mr. Nagourney, Mr. Okrent and the NYT with regard to the intended and unintended consequences of their actions of "outing", if you will, Mr, Schwenk. If any of the legal argument holds and Mr. Schwenk can prove harm, those consequences may yet be explored on something other than a moral basis.
Moreover and what precisely is Atrios' point, and the point I fully concur with is this:
What is the effect of the NYT actions on free speech? The very thing that they use to freely shield themselves from the long arms of those who would seek to silence dissent, have they not now abused it seeking the same thing?
If their intent was to protect themselves from harm by publishing Mr. Schwenk's name, clearly that end would have been not only better, but best served by reporting this to the authorities.
But what seems doubtful to both Atrios (forgive the familiarity) and me is that that was their intent at all.
Far more likely, was that there intent was to somehow teach Mr. Schwenk a lesson and anyone else out there that might seek to make such a chilling objective comparison between the responsibility of the NYT in the deaths of soldiers for the unintended consequence of their part in the Iraq War, and Mr. Schwenk's desire to have Mr. Nagourney to subjectively feel that for himself.
There are Mr. Schwenk's actions, which he himself must answer for, and there are the actions of Mr. Nagourney, MR, Okrent, and the NYT, which they must individually and collectively answer for.
Mr. Schwenk should only have to answer to MR, Nagourney, the intended recipient of the letter, and possibly the NYT, his employer for his treatment of their employee.
Mr. Nagourney, Mr. Okent and the NYT must answer to a much larger audience for their actions, namely, quashing free speech. For that action, they have claimed as their right, no compelling interest either personal or public for doing so.
And we are left to our own depressing conclusions.
Allright, I will apologize right up front for that long, long, long, post.
But this shit is really annoying me.
We have a big fucking problem on our hands. The balance of power, which is always to some extent out of balance, is fucking dangerously out of balance.
And asshole who have a whole system like editors and ombudmen and shit like that to protect them for this sort of behavior when they get pissed off, has clearly broken down.
Why didn't they just get a gun and shoot the bastard?
Because it would be fucking wrong and they goddman well know it.
Giving the name and city out to the public and crying ignorance when the poor bastard get physically injured isn't even an excuse, let alone a believable one.
They better pray really fucking hard that Steve stays the picture of goddamn health.
Allright, I will apologize right up front for that long, long, long, post.
But this shit is really annoying me.
We have a big fucking problem on our hands. The balance of power, which is always to some extent out of balance, is fucking dangerously out of balance.
And asshole who have a whole system like editors and ombudmen and shit like that to protect them for this sort of behavior when they get pissed off, has clearly broken down.
Why didn't they just get a gun and shoot the bastard?
Because it would be fucking wrong and they goddman well know it.
Giving the name and city out to the public and crying ignorance when the poor bastard get physically injured isn't even an excuse, let alone a believable one.
They better pray really fucking hard that Steve stays the picture of goddamn health.
Allright, I will apologize right up front for that long, long, long, post.
But this shit is really annoying me.
We have a big fucking problem on our hands. The balance of power, which is always to some extent out of balance, is fucking dangerously out of balance.
And asshole who have a whole system like editors and ombudmen and shit like that to protect them for this sort of behavior when they get pissed off, has clearly broken down.
Why didn't they just get a gun and shoot the bastard?
Because it would be fucking wrong and they goddman well know it.
Giving the name and city out to the public and crying ignorance when the poor bastard get physically injured isn't even an excuse, let alone a believable one.
They better pray really fucking hard that Steve stays the picture of goddamn health.
The question of whetber Okrent had the legal right to publicize the writer's identity is irrelevant. Did he have the MORAL right -- given the likely outcome for the writer, and the fact that the message was NOT A THREAT?
No.
Atrio:
How do you know the reader didn't allow his email message to be shared? And if you write a note to the media, you're pretty much waiving your privacy.
And this guy who wrote to Nagourney was a dickhead. It reflects poorly on the Kerry camp. If you can't see that, if people don't see how this hurts Kerry to send out these kinds of emails, then we deserve to lose the election. It's the kind of crap that Freepers do. Are we better than the Freepers or not? This guy was as stupid as a Freeper and deserved what he got.
Others commenting here did not read the Okrent column. Basically, Okrent gives me gas a lot of the time, but in this case he specifically said it's not the case that equal complaints from both sides means there's balance. He actually compared that to somebody with a foot in ice and a foot in the fire -- ah, just right, NOT.
But speaking as somebody who hates Bush, is rather blase about Kerry but plans to vote for him, I'd say he got it about right. The Times fucks up with some regularity, helping and harming both major candidates, but I do not detect any systematic bias, of the sort that I see quite regularly on Fox, for example. I understand arguing the ref, and it's good to call them on their shit, but frankly -- saying you'd like to see Nagourney's kid's head blown off in a war, or making crude sexual remarks about female reporters, or setting up slanderous parody web sites -- a lot of it is beyond the pale, and our side is a lot nastier than the wingnuts (granted, I don't read a lot of their sites).
So think about the crap that you post and email, it does reflect on your side. Let the Bushies be the evil brownshirts and let's try to be civil, decent Americans.
also, Okrent noted that this was a two parter. next time he intends to document the many ways he acknowledges that The Times has effed things up. I thought it was a pretty thoughtful column, actually. And this thread is full of whiny petulance. Don't be Bushlike.
genosail, Steve claims these e-mails were sent to Nagourney's personal address, not via the times web site. Thus, the privacy agreement discussion is null.
General,
Do you know what he wrote? All I saw was an out of context sentence.
Much like quoting George Bush from the debate, "When they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely."
I think that is a fair assessment of what he said (he actually did say all those words exactly as quoted, check the transcript) since it agrees with my belief. So there's no problem.
c.
Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90, cert. den., 484 U.S. 890
>>To a large extent the appropriate legal principles are not in dispute on this appeal, though their application is seriously contested. The author of letters is entitled to a copyright in the letters, as with any other work of literary authorship. See Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1069 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013, 98 S. Ct. 727, 54 L. Ed. 2d 756, 196 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 592 (1977); Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 346 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) (No. 4,901); 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 5.04 (1986); W. Patry, Latman's The Copyright Law 130 (6th ed. 1986). Prior to 1978, unpublished letters, like other unpublished works, were protected by common law copyright, but the 1976 Copyright Act preempted the common law of copyright, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a), and brought unpublished works under the protection of federal copyright law, which includes the right of first publication among the rights accorded to the copyright owner, id. § 106(3). The copyright owner owns the literary property rights, including the right to complain of infringing copying, while the recipient of the letter retains [95] ownership of "the tangible physical property of the letter itself."
There's a fair use argument here, but let's stop saying that the ownership of the letter does not rest in the author. It does.
(The Salinger case was decided in 1987)
Allright, I will apologize right up front for that long, long, long, post.
But this shit is really annoying me.
We have a big fucking problem on our hands. The balance of power, which is always to some extent out of balance, is fucking dangerously out of balance.
And asshole who have a whole system like editors and ombudmen and shit like that to protect them for this sort of behavior when they get pissed off, has clearly broken down.
Why didn't they just get a gun and shoot the bastard?
Because it would be fucking wrong and they goddman well know it.
Giving the name and city out to the public and crying ignorance when the poor bastard get physically injured isn't even an excuse, let alone a believable one.
They better pray really fucking hard that Steve stays the picture of goddamn health.
Holy crap- this thread seems to have touched a nerve, or people around here are feeling feisty. I'm away five hours and it's still running- impressive!
I don't know if R with S is still around, but I'm sure he/she will be checking back. (I know this is probably an ageist and sexist comment since she claims to be sans penis, but she sure writes like a 22-year-old guy.) I don't her true politics- maybe she is a Kerry voter- but I sure know trollery when I read it (and read it and read it and read it...). I think Philalethes nailed it a while back upthread (as he does so often) in the comments about the trolling techniques of bait and switch, bob and weave, duck and cover, and so on. Trolls is as trolls does. (Or is that stupider is as stupider does?)
<therapist mode> But, assuming R with S is on the up and up (despite reminding me quite a bit of one of the annoying trolls - whose name escapes me- yammering on here about a month ago), I have two words for him/her: therapy, now. A good therapist can help you to figure out why you have fewer friends than you'd like, or why people you try to engage in conversation stop wanting to talk to you fairly quickly. I know it's frustrating that no one seems to appreciate how clever and thoughtful you are, but expecting the rest of the world to change to suit you is simply irrational.
If you really do feel some kind of political kinship with the Atrios community and would like to connect in a more satisfying way, you might benefit from the consideration that your own behavior and attitude in part could be eliciting the negative response you get. I'm guessing that how you are here is not all that different from elsewhere in your life, and that the response to you is likely similar as well. The bad news is that you might have to do some work and change. The good news is that once you do, you are likely to be far more effective and satisfied in your life. </therapist mode>
Ok, that's my bleeding heart leftie intervention of the day. Because even the stupider trolls have feelings.
sj | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 7:37 pm | #
Did that case change on appeal?
Oh crap, I am just screwed with haloscan today.
And probably my argument as well.
But the point is still the same.
What Okrent and company did was wrong and it was an abuse of power. And it doesn't matter if it was legal or not.
It was still wrong.
nagourney's politics notwithstanding, you're backing the wrong horse here. first, the guy had no right to privacy sending an email to the times, which should be obvious. second, he wasn't being critical, as you say--okrent's point was that criticism had been abandoned in favor of moronic ad hominem attack. why are you defending this guy's right to hide in the bushes and wish some reporter's kid dead? bloggers and their ilk get accused of this kind of rash stupidity enough without you standing up for it.
Can I have Adam Nagourney's home address and phone number, too?
And the man has got KIDS?? What horror ..
The Salinger case has been cited with approval as recently as last year.
I want to emphasize that I don't think this provides any realistic legal recourse to Steve S. Now if Nagourney wants to reprint the letter in a book, e.g., "Noted Assholes I have encountered", I think SS can block its publication.
General Tso, I must protest! I detect systematic pro-repub bias in the Times every time I read their pieces - just think Gerth, Stevenson, Wilgoren, Bumiller, etc. and that's for starters!
i said it before, i shall say it again.
the nyt is a bunch of lying, arrogant, fascist bastids. it is a troll rag. assembled in trollhattan.
it is the amerikan left that sustains the rag. were the amerikan left to withhold its support [cessation of subsriptions, refusal to purchase at newstands] the bean counters at the nyt would wake up real fast.
you have to understand that the decline in circulation has enormous consequences for a newspaper[just ask the a. h. belo corp]. could you imagine what a coordinated democratic party, progressive left, anti-fascist campaign to cancel subscriptions to and purchase of the nyt would accomplish? it would be tantamount to turning off niagara falls.
so, you don't like gerth, miller, nagourney, okrent, safire. you think that they are acolytes of rethug fascism. excellent...vote with your feet. walk away. you can hurt the nyt so fast and so hard that they won't believe what hit them.
but so far, all i hear is people complaining. and they deal with the nyt as they deal with a sore tooth. somehow the pain is more pleasurable than the extraction and the elimination of the pain.
STOP BEING NEWS JUNKIE MASOCHISTS.
you can so seriously injure that beast that it will change its ways.
just remember, the right wing fascists do not sustain the nyt. the nyt is sustained by the left.
use the power of the pocketbook. you will be astounded at the power that has on the nyt corp.
venceremos,
The American left sustains the NYT? Ha. The readership is solidly liberal yuppie starbucks-drinking corporate stooges making more than 100k a year and people who want to be like them. A boycott will have no effect. And there are richer targets. You're just asking another media voice to ignore you completely rather than throw you a considerable number of bones, as it does now.
By the way, I happen to know that Okrent contacts people before using their names and I'm sure he did in this case. The asshole who wrote the email is probably proud of what he wrote, as many of the posters here seem to have no problem with it either. So live with it. He's a dickhead. We shouldn't be proud of having dickheads in our camp.
i must ssy,
i guess the reason to read the NYT is that the writers are smarter than the ones we get on the message board for free
a hypothetical for the legally inclined>
what if "steve" was, instead of an individual, an in-house pr for a major American corp. Would the communication be attributable? If so, is the only (and , I believe, substantial) wrong that "Steve" was identified and as an individual with address? Isn't Nagourney an individual threatened at least tangentially with harm (although chauffered to coop door)? Let's say that Nagourney 's got to take it as part of his position, is it still to the benefit of those against the war, to direct hatred against a reporter with a powerful forum? Don't people tend to resent those who hate them? Assuming Okrent was wrong and overreacted, would it have been legal, or morally acceptable, for him to have mentioned the e-mail and "steve's" first name without last name and city?
Finally, does anyone out there realize that "Steve" and Nagourney and Okrent all feel mighty vulnerable today? What do you think the Wall Street Journal's response would have been? Do you think they'd be ruminating on this a month before the national election? Or to parphrase Terry Gross on O'Reilly's theater last week, --do they even have an ombudsman?
You know, it not just the Right that gave the word "Liberal" a derogatory connotation.
Eyes on the Prize.
By the way, I should note that I've written a number of e-mails to reporters/columnists, including a bunch to Rob Neyer (who posted on this thread), and I've never once entertained the notion that they were private communications.
I wouldna said what the guy in SF said. But you know what? I really hate Thomas Friedman. He's wished war and death on one too many third world and/or Arab and/or Islamic group or nation for me to worry if he were killed in the MidEast. That's a fact, and while it really is poor politics and poor manners to point it out, the truth is, if Friedman were killed on some MidEast jaunt the words "Give War a Chance" would go through my mind. I wouldn't waste a second on TF, but I WOULD ask, somewhere, the other "let's have fun killing people" pundits (all 5,000 of them) whether they think they'd enjoy it if their intended victims gave war a chance at them.
When Mike Kelly died, I acknowledged that he's always been gutsier than his fellow fascists, but that he was, essentially, dying by the sword he's lived by.
By the way, while it's insane having the public editor do this, it's still not as bad as Steno Sue going after an irate reader and trying to get him fired at work. In the heated atmosphere of this election, let us not forget Steno Sue, who I think should have a statuette in every newsroom in every county in America (I leave the design up to your crude liberal imaginations).
And Adam Nagourney is just in the tank for the GOP, and lying about it. He's not a fanatic war-monger like many others are. Okrent has a lopsided example to use, unfortunately.
If I had been "harassing" Nagourney as you suggest, I would agree with your post. But I was not harassing him. I was complaining about his sloppy reporting. And I was pointing out that it was because of such sloppy reporting (as the NYT has admitted in its mea culpa in May) that 1000 US tropps died in a war that likely never should have happened.
Now I know it is impossible to tell that from Okrent's piece. He has portrayed me falsely. He did not print the e-mail, or any of the related e-mails either, from Nagourney or me. Instead, he clipped the most inflammatory statement in the exchange, and falsely portrayed me in the worst light possible.
And not only that, Mr. Okrent called me a coward. He printed that, not in an e-mail he sent just to me, but in the New York Times. And he refused to allow me even one word in my own defense. My e-mail went to one person. The Nagourney-Okrent smear of my name went out to millions of people.
I admit that my choice of words was wrong; it was a mistake, I was angry, but my point was not malicious. I was angry at 1000+ dead in a war that never should have happened, and likely never would have happened, had the Times and other media done their job. (If only the NYT would be as unforgiving of it's own serious errors in covering the build up to the Iraq war as they are of my poor choice of words in my private e-mail to Adam.)
I caused Mr. Nagourney no harm in sending him that e-mail, or the several others we exchanged, and I never intended to cause him harm. It was a private e-mail. But by falsely portraying me the way they did, and by calling me a coward, in the New York Times no less, Nagourney and Okrent have most definitely caused me harm. (Just read your blog entry again.) And the real crime is that that was clearly their intention.
Posted by: Steve Schwenk at October 10, 2004 10:11 AM
http://www.kathryncramer.com/m2/
..._on_people.html
"No one here is that dumb."
You are an eternal optimist.
Yes, I got that it was not a letter to the editor, but thanks for wasting your time typing. Legal and moral issues aside, from a PRACTICAL point of view, would one not think "Hey, if I send this to a newspaper columnist, it might get printed"? Especially when the *subject* of the missive is, in fact, the newspaper column rather than (say) the columnist's prize begonias or their joint membership in the Rotarians?
Again, I really find it hard to believe that if this were the other way around--Katha Pollitt posting the name and hometown of a Freeper--that there would be quite the level of outrage.
I haven't read the article at issue, but the NYT and Adam boy have laid down big time for the Boy King for an eternity. I am so sick that the supposed paper of record for both the US and our brave allies in the middle east(our best spy friends) that I think I'll stop buying it. Speaking of the excrable, MoDo has been getting in some great licks on the Dems; yes, I know she has a book of past work on W, but this is the season to bitch slap the Man, MO, not dwell on your envy of JFK.
Let's see who the NYT endorses, how early, how strong. Likud doesn't vote here, guys
Thanks Atrios!
Fuck you, Rush Limbaugh
Fuck you, Bill O'Reilly
Fuck you, Sean Hannity
Fuck you, Bob Novak
Ahh, time for a cigarette.
'The bad news is that you might have to do some work and change. '
Ha ha yeah and the bad news is you're a smug idiot, just like the many other troll vigilantes we know and love. yet more long winded rationalizing of poor behavior. You're defending someone malicious (and shit stupid) enough to wish death on a Times reporter's kid in a signed email, and you're giving psychiatric advice? heal thyself, doc.
There is no doubt that the NYT will endorse Kerry, and that it will be a strong one.
Simply read each of the editorials after the debates. It is clear where NYT is heading.
There might be some wishy washy wish-Kerry-should-do-and-say-this advice, but hell that's what liberals do. We don't speak in lockstep. We don't believe in one simpleminded idea, and stick with it even if the facts get in the way.
The Okrent piece is a warning shot -- hey lefties, your guy is on the upswing, don't get painted as a bunch of crazy freepers at the moment that victory is within reach. Tone down the rhetoric. Democrats can go back to eating each other alive once they win the election. That is our history. But let us try some unity now and tone it down.
Reserve your ire for Tweety and his ilk.
When Josh Marshall gets thin-skinned, at least he has the decency to abbreviate surnames.
Dear Mr. Okrent:
Today’s column was an irresponsible breach of the public trust. The public editor’s putative function was to assert the public’s interest within the Times. Instead, you used it today to defend the Times as an institution against the public. It’s time for you to resign.
Incidentally, I too found Mr. Schwenk’s words vile. I am also sure that many public defenders believe their clients are scum.
What reason could you possibly have had for wrenching Mr. Schwenk’s vile words from their context and presenting them, pars pro toto, as representative of all the vile words that have been written to Times correspondents?
Do as you wish with these words. As if I could stop you.
Sincerely yours,
William H. Brock
Ha ha yeah and the bad news is you're a smug idiot.... You're defending someone malicious (and shit stupid) enough to wish death on a Times reporter's kid in a signed email, and you're giving psychiatric advice? heal thyself, doc. - Carping Assman
Well, CA, smug and idiotic though I may be, I was not addressing the guy who wrote to the Times (nor defending him, as I noted way upthread). I was addressing the Runs with Scissors troll who was blathering on for quite a while earlier. Neither was I rationalizing his/her behavior- he/she claimed to be one of us but was acting trollish. So, as I noted in my comment, on the off chance that he/she was honestly lacking the social awareness to understand why he/she was being called a troll (a slim chance I know), I was pointing out that there are ways to change that. I think I labelled my comment pretty clearly. Nothing psychiatric about it (nor am I a doc), just a modicum of compassion, however misplaced or undeserved you may think it to be.
I realize my suggestion that he/she seek help does not have the snappy curtness of you're a smug idiot, but perhaps six whole sentences on a comment board does qualify as long-winded. Sometimes I try to make comments that can be taken sarcastically regarding trolls and straight otherwise, but then they end up longer. So, thanks for your helpful feedback CA; you have appropriately lived up to your moniker!
I love all the comments about what Schwenk "probably" felt about his e-mail, right up there with Kathyrn Cramer's smug assertion that the NYT "probably" gets more hate mail from the left than the right.
These people "probably" feel that checking facts is hard, it's hard work, as Okrent does, which would explain why all of them have avoided doing it.
Meanwhile, the entire purpose of Okrent's column is to threaten readers with personal exposure, to keep them from writing to him. Being a public editor is hard work. It's hard. Hard.
The bottom line is that Okrent is trying to intimidate people who write to the Times and its individual reporters into being what he defines as "civil" -- and he doesn't have the right to do that.
pardon me...
though the deaths of some amerikan soldiers, the wounding/maiming of some amerikan soldiers was predictable - it must be recognized that these individuals decided to become government issue[GI's].
having made that decision, they put themselves in the hands of the bushits of the world. lamentable, perhaps. but they made the decision to be a gunsell for the state. and if those that they threatened shot back, applaud the erstwhile victims of amerika who refused to kowtow.
the real criminality is what has been done to the iraqi populance by this imperial, fascist state. for over a decade.
amerikan's who put on uniforms and have been invested and are wounded, killed, have only themselves to blame. they elected to dance that dance.
but think of the iraqi women, children, old men, and other noncombatants who over the last 13 years have been butchered by this country and its gunsells.
why do i hear no one on this site outraged by what we have done to these individuals?
why is it that i do not hear that the entirety of the amerikan government[demfascists and repfascists] are war criminals?
why is it that i do not hear this board demand that kerry/edwards renounce the murdering of women and children in iraq?
personally, because i was a marine in the vietnam era, i don't give a rat's ass about the lives of the agents of empire - you put on the evil empire's uniform, you get ordered to invade another country, and the inhabitants of that country try to kill you, what could you expect?
but i do care about the lives of the citizens of iraq that we are shooting up. just as we shot them up in vietnam. free fire zones, for instance. totally illegal. yet, since 1991 this gangster country[united states of amerika+ united kingdom] targeted virtually the entirety of iraq as a free fire zone.
kerry, despite his opposition to amerikan actions in indochina, has been silent in condemning this evil empire's similarly homicidal activities in iraq.
i can only conclude that he is a moral opportunist. as is his opponent.
don't weep over the loss of amerikan soldiers' lives. think about it this way...you are an iraqi,
you are sitting in your residence. minding your own business. suddenly, you hear a loud banging on your front door. you get up. you see that someone is violently destroying your door, attempting to invade your little castle.
oddly enough, during that era of that dictator[sic], saddam hussein, even though you were not a member of the baathist party, you were allowed to have an automatic weapon. so, as the door to your residence is being breached, you pick-up your AK47, slip in a clip, and fire away.
if allah is with you, all the amerikan gunsells attempting to invade your residence will be exterminated.
you will have to repair your door. you will have to remove the bodies of the amerikan gangsters, but you will still be alive. until they try to come for you again.
with that understand
with that understanding, you should be able to understand, now, why it would be that any proud iraqi would do anything in his/her power to exterminate the invading cockroaches.
whatever you think you know about saddam hussein, consider that it was all an invention of the amerikan propaganda machine.
venceremos
ps: amerikan dead - 1,000+, amerikan maimed/wounded, medevaced out of iraq - 20,000+.
irai non-combatants dead, wounded, maimed, made homeless, lives shattered[who cannot be, will not be medevaced out of iraq] - 100,000+
proud of this country? will you be seeing it accurately anytime soon?
or are you just another angle of the prism of fascism?
The Salinger case has been cited with approval as recently as last year.
I want to emphasize that I don't think this provides any realistic legal recourse to Steve S. Now if Nagourney wants to reprint the letter in a book, e.g., "Noted Assholes I have encountered", I think SS can block its publication.
sj | Email | Homepage | 10.10.04 - 8:33 pm | #
That being the case, I agree with you and stand corrected. The only legal recourse Mr. Schwenk may, and I emphasize may, have, would be contained in the fine print, and even that would be subject to much interpretation. And of course he would have to demostrate harm, mere inconvenience not being enough to provide for damages.
Having said that, and though I agree that Okrent was out of line and reckless with the information with which he had been entrusted, why MR, Schwenk endowed Mr, Nagourney and the NYT with an honorable traits is beyond me.
Should he have assumed they are all lying, thin-skinned opportunistic self-serving scum? Well, that brings us full circle and we are back to the reasonable expectations issue.
I wouldna said what the guy in SF said. But you know what? I really hate Thomas Friedman. He's wished war and death on one too many third world and/or Arab and/or Islamic group or nation for me to worry if he were killed in the MidEast. That's a fact, and while it really is poor politics and poor manners to point it out, the truth is, if Friedman were killed on some MidEast jaunt the words "Give War a Chance" would go through my mind. I wouldn't waste a second on TF, but I WOULD ask, somewhere, the other "let's have fun killing people" pundits (all 5,000 of them) whether they think they'd enjoy it if their intended victims gave war a chance at them.
When Mike Kelly died, I acknowledged that he's always been gutsier than his fellow fascists, but that he was, essentially, dying by the sword he's lived by.
By the way, while it's insane having the public editor do this, it's still not as bad as Steno Sue going after an irate reader and trying to get him fired at work. In the heated atmosphere of this election, let us not forget Steno Sue, who I think should have a statuette in every newsroom in every county in America (I leave the design up to your crude liberal imaginations).
And Adam Nagourney is just in the tank for the GOP, and lying about it. He's not a fanatic war-monger like many others are. Okrent has a lopsided example to use, unfortunately.
It's intimidating the same way "I hope your wife gets raped" is intimidating.
It's the happiness about the injury, and it's the dragging the kids into it. It's both together. I just think it goes too far.
Yup.
As I've mentioned here, I write erotica. One of the 'perks' of being an erotica writer is hate mail. From the right-wing uber-Christian types, telling me the thirty-seven ways I'm going to hell. Why these people are going to erotica websites and reading my smut in the first place beats the hell out of me, but they do it. In talking to my fellow writers, I get more than my fair share of it. Although my stuff is mild as erotica goes--I write *stories*, I just don't skip over the good stuff--I do have quite a bit with underage characters. That's where my hate mail comes from.
Now, most of this stuff rolls off my back like water off a duck. A lot of it is funny--all the bible quotes and all. I just laugh at those. I even usually laugh at the ones that threaten me.
The one I did NOT laugh at contained this line: "I hope your daughters get raped, you pervert."
Attack me, fine. Go for it. But leave my damn kids out of it.
Steve: Please consult an attorney, preferably one with a good background in civil suits for defamation (in this case, libel), violation of privacy, inciting to harassment, emotional distress, etc.
For an editor of the NYT to print the public accusation of "coward" against a private citizen, naming him in retaliation for the contents of a private email, sure looks actionable, especially since it appears harassment has actually ensued.
Your attorney could at least write to the NYT on your behalf, pointing this out, and requesting an apology, retraction, and disciplinary action against Nagourney — and perhaps even some compensation for the troubles that resulted.
May I suggest, however, that you suspend further online comment until you have discussed the matter with your attorney?
After reading the comments here, I find little sympathy Steve or anyone else for the most part.
There are many other newspapers out there.
Go find one you agree with and spare the world your maniacal whining. And if it is your wish that these people "get their heads blown off", as I assume that you do, since I have only your printed words and no other context to gauge by, I suggest you seek some anger management therapy.
From the ravings posted here, I would presume that more than half of you are violent, bloody crackpots.
The interesting thing here? The media is uncomfortable being put in the same spotlit microscope they've been putting others under for centuries. Now Adam Nagourney is being publicly dissected as he is doing his public dissections.
Fascinating as well is the analogy with the outing of Valerie Plame.
The hierarchy of who gets protection in this world couldn't be more clear: The Vanagon-loving schlub gets named, defamed, and located at will just for piping up; Cheney's thugs' identities are protected even if it means sending one of the staff to the slammer to do so.
To the New York Times:
Your October 10 issue sends mixed messages.
On the one hand, your Chairman and Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, and Chief Executive Russell T. Lewis, defend jailed NYT reporter Judith Miller for keeping a source confidential even despite a court order, in order to protect her source from reprisals and avoid the chilling effect this would have on other potential sources.
On the other hand, your Public Editor, Daniel Okrent -- without any legal compulsion to do so -- publishes the name and location of someone who sent a private email, and publicly brands the sender a "coward", because one sentence in that email is deemed offensive. This exposes the sender to reprisals and harassment, and violates his privacy (since he did not write for publication). It also defames him, since cowardice is not demonstrated even by writing offensively.
How can your paper defend a principle, and simultaneously defend violating it?
Okrent has just undercut what Sulzberger, Lewis, and Miller are fighting for. His action seems likely, and intended, to have a chilling effect on others who might send private letters or emails to NYT staff -- if the recipient or any other NYT staffer could take offense at anything therein.
Surely someone at the New York Times must have been offended by the felonious exposure of a CIA operative's identity. If being offensive is sufficient reason to lose all protection of privacy or confidentiality, despite the chilling effect, then Miller's source should be named just as freely as Okrent's target.
Put another way, journalistic ethics should be no more binding upon Judith Miller than upon Daniel Okrent. If Okrent faces no ethical problem or penalty for exposing the email sender's identity, then Miller should face none for exposing her source, thus there is no reason for her to disobey the court.
Conversely, if it would be wrong for Miller, then it was wrong for Okrent -- especially since "the public editor serves as the readers' representative", and it was one of those readers that he named and defamed. Yet Okrent has suffered neither removal nor disciplinary action.
Every day you keep Okrent in that job, you weaken the position of Sulzberger, Lewis, and Miller.
Jeff in CO, I am sick to death of hearing people like yourself, Philalethes, Carpbasman, etc rabbit on and on about who is or isn't a troll instead of presenting a cogent counterargument [or simply ignoring those you consider off-topic or wildly unreasonable.] Every sentence addressing the trollishness of so-and-so is a waste of space. You think that peevish and defensive spitball-lobbing regulars like Hecate and Philalethes muddy the waters far more than any individual troll.
Assman,
Keep on trolling. It's better than sitting in mom's basement and watching cartoons. Really.
Assman,
Keep on trolling. It's better than sitting in mom's basement and watching cartoons. Really.
Assman,
Keep on trolling. It's better than sitting in mom's basement and watching cartoons. Really.
Hecate, still lobbing wee ineffectual girlie punches. People with thin skins and thick skulls shouldn't come near the internet. Back to the world of Gor with thee.
Hecate, still lobbing wee ineffectual girlie punches. People with thin skins and thick skulls shouldn't come near the internet. Back to the world of Gor with thee.
Hecate, still lobbing wee ineffectual girlie punches. People with thin skins and thick skulls shouldn't come near the internet. Back to the world of Gor with thee.
Okrent has commented on the topic.
My response:
Okrent distorts the case
In his comment at the end of "Other Voices: Political Bias and the Eye of the Beholder" (Oct. 24), Okrent states:
"Many people were distressed by my mention of various readers' names in my Oct. 10 column, and particularly by my singling out one who had sent an especially vituperative message to Times reporter Adam Nagourney. My policy: I consider all messages sent to me, or forwarded to me by Times staff members, to be public unless the writer has stipulated otherwise."
That reader had already refuted this argument on Oct. 10, in a note posted on this very forum (#360-#362 above).
He had made plain that his was "a private email", not "public".
The writer had "stipulated otherwise", Mr. Okrent, but you made it public anyway. You violated the very policy you now put forth as your defense.
"Every message sent to my office gets an instant response asking if the writer wishes his or her name to be withheld. No signed comments are published without confirmation of authorship, either by telephone or e-mail."
Since the writer made plain that he wished his name to be withheld -- but you published it anyway -- you violated your own declared policy.
"I published the name of the man who wrote to Nagourney for the same reason that newspapers publish the names of people who commit other grievous acts. The man who vandalizes a church, say, doesn't want his name in the paper either. But I don't think his wishes should protect him from public responsibility for what he has done."
Heated words in a private email are not equivalent to the "grievous act" of vandalizing a church.
How morally (and legally, and ethically) obtuse must someone be, to need this explained to him?
"I was wrong to call the reader a coward; that was engaging in the same debased discourse that I condemn. I apologize."
Since you have now likened him to someone who vandalizes a church, you can well afford to relinquish the lesser accusation of cowardice -- but when will you retract and apologize for this even worse slur upon his character?
http://www.pregnancy.net.in
The period during which a developing fetus is carried within the uterus. In humans, pregnancy
averages 266 days (38 weeks) from conception to childbirth. Traditionally, pregnancy duration
is counted from the woman's last menstrual period, which adds roughly 2 weeks to gestational
age. This is how physicians arrive at a pregnancy length of 40 weeks (280 days).
new jersey debt consolidation loan new jersey debt consolidation loan new jersey debt consolidation loan. ncaa basketball sports betting ncaa basketball sports betting ncaa basketball sports betting.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
