notes, most newsrooms are not especially political places nor are they occupied with people passionate about politics
I suspect this means that those he works with agree with him. I find the concept of any workplace devoid of people with passionate opinions about politics unbelievable. While they do occur I guess, passionate debates where everyone is on the same page are not overly common, in general they are referred to as being in agreement.
Tommy. Yup, that was my impression, too. In fact, I probably would have agreed with him in the 1980s -- and I would have been wrong. As I started drifting one way, and the mass of newsroom politics drifted another, I began to see it very differently. "Normal" is a circle drawn about 30 feet around wherever it is the observer stands.
Very interesting. I'm intrigued by the notions of anonymity, boldness and lack of courtesy that are engendered in this crazy medium. It's certainly easy to lose one's sense of decency. Several months ago, I visited a left-centrist site, read a post and hopped on, taking issue with the Bush-bashing host. There was a give-and-take (nothing extraordinary), when I realized that the host was overly sensitive to my criticism. I had crossed his line- he made it clear he didn't appreciate dealing with 'my type'. I realized that IN REAL LIFE, I wouldn't stroll into someone's store or classroom and act that way. I was much bolder online than I was in my life- I had been rude. So I apologized and retreated.
I recognize that your encounter involves a host of other issues; I won't comment on all of them. But in a fundamental way, you were dissed by someone who should've known better. I just wonder if he would've treated you that way in person. Maybe so but he would've thought twice about it before calling you a liar.
What a hack.
Lovelady, the big, (self-)important journalist, has nothing better to do than to bash bloggers (under false pretenses, apparently), as he's done repeatedly, both here and elsewhere?
Hack hack hack hacky hack.
I remember readong about an unpleasant run-in between him and Jeff Jarvis, somewhere. I've never had a problem getting along with Jeff, but then we agree pretty nearly about most things that are discussed online.
Kreiz, I hope you're on to something. Years ago I took part in an online Civil War discussion board that largely consisted of North-bashing and South-bashing. I live in the North, but I was defending the South (mainly because the attacks on it were so over-the-top and unhistorical). But that meant some of my "enemies" were actually living nearby.
I got to know one of them and we've met offline for lunch and beers a few times and get along great.
But, though he could be passionate in his opinions, and heated in his words, he always had a human quality, even in opposition.
I wouldn't say that of some of the other people I sparred with there. Some of them I genuinely did not want to know where I lived. Some of them I am sure that, if they had the power and could get away with it, they would do me harm.
And that was just a debate about a historical abstraction. Imagine how much more fervor gets swept up in a debate about where the country should go, wars that kill thousands of people, terrorists who want to kill millions. The whole world is caught up in it.
People who advertise their politics online, as I and many others do, can't really escape the consequences of what they have supported. I voted for GWB this past election, having no illusions about a lot of the things he wants to do that I dislike, about a lot of the people who back him hoping he'll do things I despise, and about his questionable abilities in a lot of important areas.
Yet I find myself going to work every day among people who were certain that this past election was a pure black-and-white decision, and that a vote for GWB was a vote for the world going to hell, everyone going to war, the economy going in the tank, the homeless flooding the streets.
In that environment, if I have to talk to them about politics, I have to address their view of things. And I end up looking harder for good news than I ought to. Instead of seeing the world in balance, as I feel it, I tout the "hits" and overlook the "misses" by the side I voted for.
I also have to acknowledge that, when they go off on a Bush-bashing rampage in my face, they are -- or may be -- attacking me personally for my decision as much as they are attacking the politician I gave a vote to.
That edges me into a more partisan position than I feel. Basically, I avoid this by not talking about politics in the office, with fanatics I know disagree with me. There are many other reasons to not do that (including "life's too short"), but that is one of them.
I voted GWB as well- largely because of the influential Mr. Totten (yes, you guys do have an effect on some voters). Figured I'd go with the guy most despised by our enemies... I could tolerate the rest.
Chuckled at the thought of a Civil War chatroom- what a recipe for disaster. Your work continues to be superb at Donkelphant; I'm glad you're getting more feedback even if you have to tolerlate the unbecoming behavior of some.
Commenting by HaloScan
