HaloScan.com - Comments

firedoglake comments

Glitzy Fitzy
abarefootboy | 01.21.06 - 4:59 pm | #

Bichon Fritzé.
moeman | 01.21.06 - 5:02 pm | #

Jane - last sentence looks like I typed it.
scarecrow | 01.21.06 - 5:04 pm | #

I'm going to blogwhore this, even though it's not my own work: Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space by Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

If you look at the site's comments, you can see how it works. It works well.

There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.21.06 - 5:05 pm | #

moeman:

JMRPTR
(je me roule par terre, rigolant.)

hmmm. this doesn't work very well in french.
punaise | 01.21.06 - 5:06 pm | #

as I noted at the end of the previous thread, the issue of "comment policy" is secondary to the issue of control over content that can/will create controversies.

If WP.com cannot issue its own retractions/corrections to content provided by The Washington Post, then it really is better off without "live" comments at all. WP.com might just be better off with its own "letters" section linked to each article provided by the Post, in which an appropriate sampling of "substantive" and "responsible" reaction is provided.
paul lukasiak | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:07 pm | #

Jane, this is OT, but you might be interested in Steve Clemon's latest post, which highlights a mention of TWN by Vanderhei.
Steve goes on to say what a great reporter poolboy is, blah blah..
and then complains about his detractors mentioning his wife's connection to Delay.

For the record, I don't read your poolboy pieces closely, and I don't have a strong opinion of his reporting. I objected to Steve's dismissal of criticism of Poolboy's work by citing the (possibly) unserious side of it.
Getting to the point, I mentioned you as someone who had made many detailed criticisms of Poolboy's reporting. You might want to pop over to Steve's comments and say something. I just wanted to warn you that I involved you:)

Here is my comment to Steve:
"
Steve,
I think your commentary is grossly unfair to Vanderhei critics. You misapprehend the reason that people have gossiped about his wife, which is that these critics have been very disappointed in his work on several stories, leading to suspicions that he possesses right wing politics which are influencing his reporting.
Actually I do not follow these criticisms closely, but your description of them amounts to a slur. I expect better from you.
People like Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake.blogspot.com have made pointed, specific complaints about Vanderhei's reporting, particularly his reporting on the Abramoff scandal and the Plame investigation.

You can't dismiss the criticism of Vanderhei's journalism by complaining about gossipers.

There is another reason why people are talking about Vanderhei's wife which you may not be aware of. The female reporter at the WaPo who recently testified in the Plame case---I can't recall her name off the top of my head--has a husband who was among the recent crop of Bush appointees.
There was the definite appearance of quid pro quo, since her testimony was widely represented as being favorable to Rove.

"

If Steve's fluff piece hadn't come on the heels of the Maryland Moment, I probably wouldn't have gotten so hot under the collar.
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:09 pm | #

Well, it seemed to me that the Post was less interested in "learning how to leverage connected consumption" as they were in "keeping the circle jerk going."

You know how the kkkool kids of the old media are.

It would be cool if you end up going.
Occasional Lurker | 01.21.06 - 5:10 pm | #

Re: Jane Does D.C.--
dinner with Pach sounds really, really good
do you feel like being bridled and civilized?
my image is of your defending the honor of FDLers who tried to respond to Howell in a civilized and bridled manner but whose posts were deleted anyway....you're just there to speak up for the fdlers who are fighting for truth, justice....
maybe don't say fuck if you do go....
sweep for booby traps....
whatever you decide, thank you for FDL
mmouse | 01.21.06 - 5:15 pm | #

marky --

Good of you to take Steve to task, and you articulated the point very well.

One boo-boo -- I think the reporter you mean is Viveca Novak, no? In which case, she was a reporter at Time, not WaPo.

Other than that, spot on!
Mrs. K8 | 01.21.06 - 5:17 pm | #

1. Allow comments only from registered readers.
2. Use a simple filter to catch most of the bad words that give Deborah Howell the vapors.
3. Hire enough staff to identify and boot the abusive idiots.

This ain't rocket science.

nobody | 01.21.06 - 5:17 pm | #

´as a reader´?´ Subatantive. I would want to know their sour & verification for claiming that abramhoff was ´directing´ donations to the democrats. i.e., the substance of their fallback position. Lets get to the bottom of it.
jh | 01.21.06 - 5:19 pm | #

Well, a productive commenting policy would disallow dirty words and would require commenters to be on-topic. Also, no "unknown but probably dirty" words. And no personal comments.
-
Oh, this is silly -- the Post needs to learn how to be a newspaper before they can learn how to moderate blog comments! And newspapers, as we've been pointed out here (and there!) for days, correct errors.
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 5:19 pm | #

If you go -

Make them give you a detailed agenda before you go Jane. Make sure it has things on it that you feel will be worthwhile.

Make them give you the rules of the table for how questions, responses and feedback will be handled.

Leveraging - good stuff.
Mary | 01.21.06 - 5:21 pm | #

Jane, we got you covered:
FDLers on the roof
punaise | 01.21.06 - 5:21 pm | #

Siun - Glad you thought about the Google group hug. I liked that!
Mary | 01.21.06 - 5:22 pm | #

3. Hire enough staff to identify and boot the abusive idiots.

4. You want commenters to behave a certain way? They want you to behave a certain way. Play nice as a poster.

And no, this isn't -- as Brady implied -- saying 'no answer would have satisfied them' or 'only one form of words would do'. (Which is it?)

There are plenty of ways to say that the FEC database shows no personal campaign contributions (i.e. ones over $200) from Jack Abramoff to Democrats in Congress or congressional candidates.

You can debate the nuances of 'directing' money from clients. You can't debate the fact that Abramoff's own money went exclusively to Repugs, and that Howell got it wrong.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.21.06 - 5:23 pm | #

marky,

"The female reporter at the WaPo who recently testified in the Plame case---I can't recall her name off the top of my head--has a husband who was among the recent crop of Bush appointees."

That was Vivica Novak, Time Magazine ; )
Cozumel | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:23 pm | #

Mrs K8, thanks for the correction.
I'm sure someone at TWN will fix that.

My opinion is that Steve does not get the distinction between left criticism of the media and right criticism, which atrios has articulated so well that I can parrot his point like a dittohead.
The right complains about "liberal bias"; the left complains about various shoddy reporting practices, aiming at getting the media to concentrate more on getting the facts right.

I don't think Steve deserves to be clobbered for his post more than I have done, but I expect a discussion will start over there on VDH, and I invite those of you more familiar with his reporting to make specific criticism in order to correct Steve's impression that there are no serious critics of VDH.

I won't have anything more to add because I don't know any specifics.
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:23 pm | #

the Post needs to learn how to be a newspaper before they can learn how to moderate blog comments!

Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner.

At very least, Howell needs to learn how to be an ombudsman.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.21.06 - 5:24 pm | #

What to tell them? hmmm . . .

First -- Internet comments tend to be more passionate that face to face verbal communication, because the keyboard interface strips out much of the emotional nuance of speech.

Second -- Reporting false and inaccurate information invites flaming criticism; failure to promptly offer corrections guarantees it. Personal invective may or may not cross the line of civil discourse. Ad hominem attacks are bad form, but when a major media outlet like the WaPo engages in de facto ad hominem attacks by publishing GOP talking points instead of actual journalism, it makes folks on our side very, very angry.

Third -- Reporting from the mid-point between both sides on any given issue is NOT serious journalism. When Liberals and Democrats say 2 + 2 = 4, while Bush and the GOP say 2 + 2 = 6 and Liberals are traitors -- an honest journalist does NOT say there are extremists on both sides, so 2 + 2 must equal 5, and John Kerry looks French.

I'm sure there are other key points, but those are big ones . . .
ck | 01.21.06 - 5:25 pm | #

A more apt metaphor, perhaps, is that Democrats are playing checkers while Republicans are playing chess.
Newport2Newport | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 9:13 am | #

Let me stretch this metaphor as far as it can go before it snaps:

Republicans are playing chess, Democrats are trying to play chess with checkers set.
Mary | 01.21.06 - 5:26 pm | #

Well, let's cut them some slack, guys: The WaPo is still getting a handle on this First Amendment thingie. After all, it's been 40 years since they've been acquainted with it.
jurassicpork | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:27 pm | #

punaise

JRJP

J'ai ri jusqu'a pleurer

JRAMFC
J'ai ri a me faire chier.

(Evidemment j'ecris comme je parle. . . sans accent)
Hugh | 01.21.06 - 5:28 pm | #

I got EPU'd! From the previous thread:

Yes! Jane give 'em hell, as in tell the truth and they'll think it's hell.

That said, ask if Redd is acceptable because she is closer. If not, go yourself and call them on every lie, ask for evidence, ask for credible back-up for every untrue assertion. Remind them the blogosphere is perfectly democratic in its respect for feedback from "the People"as a truly free media should be.(not to mention a free country.)

Remind them that bad reporting has real life consequences for real people, as in 1000's of dead GI's and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's because of their stenography of Bush lies.

Go, Jane, Go!
sunny | 01.21.06 - 5:20 pm | #
sunny | 01.21.06 - 5:28 pm | #

turn it into a game of backgammon
punaise | 01.21.06 - 5:29 pm | #

Actually I think it's possible that once they understand the nature of the left's criticism of their reporting, the WaPo will be more receptive. I am sure that they think we are complaining that the reporting is not biased towards the left sufficiently---don't you think?
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:29 pm | #

Stop and see Viveca Novak and her darling husband while you're there. Maybe play some pickup basketball with the hubby. David Corn likes to do that.
karen allen | 01.21.06 - 5:30 pm | #

BWAHAHA... Karen, if you weren't so pretty, you might make some enemies with comments like that!
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:31 pm | #

a profanity filter. period.
Pachacutec | 01.21.06 - 5:33 pm | #

Jane -
i agree with everything you said except:

on item 4),
"it's" should be "its". No apostrophe for the possessive case of "it".
:-)
ecoast | 01.21.06 - 5:34 pm | #

a profanity filter that covers the trollop Howell fellating the GOP coprophiliacs for filthy lucre?
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:35 pm | #

Wilson, PLEASE.
Literate scatologists do not mix latinate and greek-rooted words.
Merde!
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:37 pm | #

What marky said --

I am sure that they think we are complaining that the reporting is not biased towards the left sufficiently---don't you think?

We on the left DO NOT want journalism that is biased to either the left or the right -- we want HONEST journalism.

But we also want the media to understand that when they unquestioningly publish Right Wing Talking Points that are demonstrably false, the media is guilty of both dishonest reporting and right wing bias.
ck | 01.21.06 - 5:37 pm | #

marky --

I agree with you, and it seems to be a blind spot Steve has, another part of his determination to take up the position of the "reasonable middle." He needs to see that there ARE differences, and the criticism of reporting is a PRIME example.

Thanks, marky, for underscoring the simple lay of the land. The Right screams "liberal bias." The Left begs: "Give us facts." Sad for the right that the facts ARE biased. The Right can never win a debate if the debate is based on all the facts.

Sorry to say that I do not have the VandeHei mis-steps at my fingertips, at least not well enough to make a detailed post at Steve's place right now. It would require time that I don't have this weekend. I'm barely able to post this now.

But surely there are others here who can review the past discussion here at FDL concerning VandeHei, and then make a substantive argument at Steve's blog.

That would be an excellent thing to do, as www.thewashingtonnote.com draws some very well-placed "prestige" eyeballs.

Again: I'm sorry I'm not able to take on the task now, and am hoping another FDL member will be able to step up to the plate on this. It's another site where "left" bloggers are being unfairly characterized -- and Steve is the kind of guy who can take well-meaning, well-reasoned criticism -- unlike some other types we could name.
Mrs. K8 | 01.21.06 - 5:37 pm | #

Jane,

Like punaise says, we gotcher back, ya ken make it whatever ya wanna. I would hope ya would get as much nailed down about agenda, format etc as they're willin' ta divulge but I don't worry about you...they'd hafta bring a truckload a lunches ta take you down.
NorskeFlamethrower | 01.21.06 - 5:38 pm | #

Why bother doing it on their terms? The blogger, the critic, the citizen journalist, in this case, you is supposed to be rich enough to fly to Washington, D.C. to "engage" in sophisticated journo discourse for the edification of exactly whom? Id est, some other poor blogger (see all the timid, chagrined tip jar requests which you folks forward) who can barely afford server fees or meds "pace, Arthur Silber" won't be included in the conversation. I note on Bubblegeneration's site a note, not a link, to her/his Skype ID. Let WaPo call you and make it a conference call recorded for one and all to hear. A conversation, no fancy talking head background, no makeup on a bobblehead doll. And if you get that far just ask them what the hell they think they are doing with our country?
John | 01.21.06 - 5:40 pm | #

Look, a comment policy is only as good as the content to be commented upon. You are letting them frame the question. There was NO problem with comments - zero, zilch, nada. The problem was with a lie written by Deborah Howell. This was one more in a string of partisan, hackish columns. She utterly failed to respond to legitimate criticism. The Washington Post has many hacks - Harrris, Woodward, Kurtz - all who fail to respond. This makes people mad. Ask them to fix the problem and the comments will take care of themself to a large degree. Fail to fix the problem and nothing except shutting off comments will keep them from being dissatisfied with the result since those comments will be harsh and insulting even if they use every means possible of filtering the vulgar and the offensive.
elliottg | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:41 pm | #

Yes, Mrs K8, I think that some good cross-fertilization could occur if more TWN and FDL readers mixed.
TWN has a very elite commenting board, IMO---a lot of people there who are public figures, or in the thick of the action in DC, with fascinating takes on the issues.
Over here at FDL, I think we represent the informed, left wing public, but most of us could learn a lot from the TWNers.
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:41 pm | #

About moderation:

Set some standards about what won't do. Hold the comments and only post the ones that are within those guidelines. After three inappropriate comments, block the email address...

If you run into a flame situation, put up a counter of posts that make the same point over and over, and run the counter but not the posts.

e.g.

FLAME WATCH:
Deborah Howell reported the Abramoff money went to both parties
AGREE..............672
DON'T AGREE......15
Mickey | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:45 pm | #

turn it into a game of backgammon
punaise | 01.21.06 - 5:29 pm | #

A game of Back Gannon with Republicans? --- I think not j'pun.

Besides, they are already playing Uno.
Mary | 01.21.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Rules for commenting on a newspaper blog (or directly on stories, should a newspaper finally "get it" and provide a comments link for *every* online article):

1. No profanity or ad hominem attacks (respect the writing rules that the reporters have to use).

2. Do not lie about the author of the piece (eg. say the reporter is wanted in three states for chipmunk molesting).

3. Repeated trolling gets you banned.

4. Author should participate in comments occasionally, especially to clarify or correct something in the original piece.

5. Allow anonymous comments, but make it clear reachable users are preferred, and are more likely to gain an author response.

6. Impersonating anyone gets you banned.

7. Comments will be closed after a set period (eg. 3-7 days after piece is published).

8. Disagreement is expected, but attack arguments, not people.

9. Repeated assertion of unverifiable "facts" ("Cheney eats kittens for breakfast, puppies for lunch!") without providing sources (links preferred) is considered trolling.

10. Advertising (whether thinly disguised or not) will be deleted.
Waiting for Fitz-O | 01.21.06 - 5:46 pm | #

argh.. i hate it when the desire to stay on the message board here weakens my resolve to work out.
Anyway, I'm going---really.
I hope someone informed poolboy critic makes it over to TWN.
marky | 01.21.06 - 5:46 pm | #

I so agree ck, Mrs. K8, and Norske.

And...if they are ignorant fucks about it, wasn't it Brady who said they have 20 other blogs at WaPo, for us to -ahem- comment at? At this point they have to be walking on eggshells knowing if they are outright insulting to Jane that left blogistan will go even more ballistic. Here and there and everywhere.

Go Jane, be the voice of reason and sanity. Lob a few Depth Charges, lead them to the light.
Shez | 01.21.06 - 5:48 pm | #

If you want to go to DC, go but if it's difficult to arrange on such short notice and the Post is interested in your input, how about a good quality land line.

As for suggestions, the current brouhaha at the Post is a self inflicted wound. If an issue is raised especially by a lot of commenters, they should address it.

1) They can declare first that they intend to answer in a reasonable and specifed time frame.

2) Any answer should be backed up by facts, citations, specific evidence.

3) If they are wrong, they should admit it in a clearly marked correction. If their initial statement is incomplete, they should do the same in a clarification.

4) Ducking, weaving, playing games with and ignoring comments is an invitation to the very situations they wish to avoid.
Hugh | 01.21.06 - 5:49 pm | #

I used to work for the EPA in Washington, DC. EPA would hold public meetings to get input on a proposed rule or whatever and would provide a list of questions where we wanted stakeholder (env. groups, industry, states, etc.) input. At the public meeting, the stakeholders would invariably ignore the questions we posed and proceed to tell us anything they felt like. The actual input we received would frequently be far outside the bounds of the rule or technical analysis that was the subject of the meeting but it was what was important to the stakeholders and they used the public meeting as a way to bring it to our attention.

I suggest that if you attend the meeting, you use the opportunity to put on the table the issues that are really important to the FDL and progressive blogger community.

As far as a comment policy goes, I agree with nobody who said:

" 1. Allow comments only from registered readers.
2. Use a simple filter to catch most of the bad words that give Deborah Howell the vapors.
3. Hire enough staff to identify and boot the abusive idiots.

This ain't rocket science."
Alvord | 01.21.06 - 5:50 pm | #

and then complains about his detractors mentioning his wife's connection to Delay.

-------------

"The female reporter at the WaPo who recently testified in the Plame case---I can't recall her name off the top of my head--has a husband who was among the recent crop of Bush appointees."

That was Vivica Novak, Time Magazine ;

-----------------------

Add Kurtz to the mix...

----------------------

Ok...which reporters are not married to GOP operatives...

just asking....
justmy2 | 01.21.06 - 5:51 pm | #

Jane's not been invited to DeeCee to tell the WashPo(o) how to do its job better. Jane's been invited to help the WP moderate civil discourse in this new blogworld. (Is it true that the other invited bloggers don't even have comments? wtf?)
=
But civil discourse isn't the WP's problem; truthiness is. Until the WP addresses their truthiness issues, I see no reason to help them with their blogginess issues.
-
Oh, but Jane, if you do go, wear some pretty pajamas.
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 5:52 pm | #

Jane, please do go or send Redhedd, which I think is a great idea. She can speak very loftily when she wishes and her being an attorney is a plus.

Perhaps some nearby FDLers could babysit the dogs.

I think this could be a turing point. Be sure to explainto the WaPo the bit about how they could have increased their traffic by highlighting the conflict.

Thanks so much for everything,
Ruellia
Ruellia | 01.21.06 - 5:53 pm | #

Teresa and Patrick Nielson Hayden have grokked it for years - thanks for the mention of T's great post on how to do comments. I'd print that out and offer WaPo copies.

I think it's great that they are distressed enough to have a meeting - give them one chance at a decent discussion and hit them hard if they try to use Jane's participation afterwards to justify more bad behavior.

How should WaPo handle comments - by welcoming the discussion and not being afraid of a bit of heat. They should be pleased to have passionate readers - and should see something like the Froomkin and Howell swarms as opportunities - both as mentioned in Jane's post but also as a chance to host timely discussions. Imagine if - instead of acting like fraidy cats, they had set up a live online chat on the Howell column - inviting reps from the involved blogs to provide responses to Howell's column and inviting Howell to provide her comments. Instead of the attack/defend model, they could have had real dialogue. Hot media not cold ...

Underlying it all - and I think even more than the lean towards WH talking points - is the assumption that they (and DC folks in general) are the only smart ones and that we are the great unwashed.
siun | 01.21.06 - 5:56 pm | #

I applaud FDL and other bloggers for the both their veracity and the (at times) verbal savagery of their much-needed critique.

The savagery of our times, post 9-11: Iraq, Abu Ghraib, torture as US policy, Guantanamo nightmares, secret "rendition" of innocent citizens, "black" torture sites, the utter incometence of Katrina, and the seizure of our govt. by extremists, call for savage Swiftian discourse.

I would advise telling the Post to Pog Mo Tho/in (pogue ma hone, kiss my as) in irish. But that might not be the responsible thing to do.

At a minimum: turn up the fire and aim the sharp words well.

The WaPo wants a vanilla ice cream discourse in the midst of hell.
dancas | 01.21.06 - 5:57 pm | #

"But civil discourse isn't the WP's problem; truthiness is. Until the WP addresses their truthiness issues, I see no reason to help them with their blogginess issues."

ROFLMAO Teddy. 'Blogginess', love it.
Shez | 01.21.06 - 5:57 pm | #

many comment pages enjoy good manners just by putting "please keep comments civil and on topic" where the comment post is typed. notice (compare/contrast) the decrease in the quality of discourse around here over the last several months since people started with the "fitz/frist" junk, the "continuing on from the last story comment page, dunno if you saw ME say that..." and the "LOOK AT ME paste an entire off-topic article instead of a URL that just happens to derail the topic by its size". Many times people simply don't think about having any topicality in what they say unless reminded of things the site editors would like them to remember when commenting. The Post could obviate a lot of what they think is inappropriate by describing what they think is inappropriate at the place people express themselves (the comment box).

That said, who cares if the Post takes comments or not? They tried it, and perhaps they just don't get it, or are too old to figure it out and just decided that this whole intarweb thing is just too wild. An audience that wants to talk about this stuff will find its outlet. Even though they ignore "people on the street" chatter at their peril, becoming even more insulated than they've been, nobody's clamoring for the Post to be this outlet. Fine, they don't let people comment. Then they can keep being DC lapdogs and go down the toilet like they have been anyway. No loss there, someone else will fill their void and some other sites will become the strength of community commentary. They don't have to be the same thing.
manys | 01.21.06 - 5:58 pm | #

"It's hard for me to get very exercised about this. Given the Post's addition of technorati links to many of their stories, they're in a better position than most to say "the blogosphere is our comment section." And, you know, it is." - Glen Reynolds on the Post pulling down its comments.

I still don't understand why this guy has been asked to attend this roundtable.
JWR | 01.21.06 - 5:59 pm | #

OT but ...

some of us are commenting on the Dem Party Alito page - trying to find ways to up the pressure for an Alito filibuster - come join us!

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/ ...ents=1#comments

and if anyone has suggestions of other locations where we might comment, please pass them around. We've all (I hope) contacted our Sens, etc but we need to keep the heat up.
siun | 01.21.06 - 6:01 pm | #

They need a straightforward policy and then if they need/want filters and registration - so be it. I hate registration bc I forget my signins, but I don't mind including contact info with a post.

I also think a list of fact issues so that they can understand the difference between "leaning" writing and incorrect facts or omitted facts that rise to the level of incorrect statements.

They should have a stated policy as to how they will handle incorrect factual assertions brought to their attention (a time frame for review and response and manner of response or retratction). They need for their policy to be clear cut that if they make a mistake, they acknowledge and retract, not blubber along about, "yes, we said it wrong, but what we meant to say would have been ok, if we had said it that way so oh yeah, somewhere in our equivocating and excusifying (where is Colbert - fake words are my gift and this one's for you - Mary Banilow)

did mention WE WERE WRONG?

Take this picture with you

http://www.worth1000.com/web/med...6124/ truman.JPG

and explain that no one really wants to hear how it "could have been right" when it's not.

I also think that, in honor of Molly's piece, you should contact a local dog group and walk in with a GSD (not Granite State - German Shepard) If they get out of hand, we have a headline ready:

Dog Eat Blog.

Ms. Firedoglake and Her German Shepherd, Librul, Demonstrate What Happens When You *Misspeak* And Say "Librul Attack" Instead of "I Was Wrong"
Mary | 01.21.06 - 6:01 pm | #

As so many have pointed out, the problem is not with WaPo blog responses, but with the WaPo itself. It's unfair to single out just one good set of comments, but.. paul lukasiak has had consistently excellent comments on this over the past few threads.

Part of the reason (and only part) that there were so many outraged comments on WaPo blogs, esp. MM, is that WaPo is totally unresponsive to reader feedback. As Jane noted earlier, sending emails to WaPo is like dropping messages into a black hole. So, everyone who was tuned into the Howell issue took the chance to get out the black hole.

It really wouldn't take a lot of common sense for WaPo to figure out how to moderate blogs in a fair way. I send emails to WaPo, with my email address, and thus my identity attached. Thus, I wouldn't mind a registration process for blog commenting there. Caveat- I'd want to able to use a protected screen name, so that I didn't get hit with a flood of email.

I think WaPo is avoiding the real issue here.
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 6:01 pm | #

Howell has a new article out: Link

My email to her:
Regarding, "The Firestorm Over My Column", the question is how you could make such a boneheaded mistake in the first place. I'm afraid that mistake gives you away, despite your protestations. You refuse to print the simple truth, which is that the Republican party has soared to levels of corruption never before seen in the history of the country.

You should resign immediately.
Semblance | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Just remember, Jane, that Andrew Sullivan got gobbled up by TIME this week. Perhaps WP is shopping for a blogmistress?
-
Be on your guard!
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Manys,
I've been coming to FDL for several months now, and I've always found the comments threads fascinating as well as difficult, with many different topics.
Also, I very much like the practice of stopping one thread when a new one starts. I think that facilititates discussion.
marky | 01.21.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Go. Otherwise they have an empty chair with "Jane isn't here" written on it.

Decide ahead of time what the two or three things are that are most important. Answer questions with those, never mind what the questions are.

One point I would make if they invited me: getting the facts wrong upsets people who feel they have the real facts on their side. Getting them wrong and aggressively refusing to correct the error makes those same people angry.

Sometimes angry people respond in an uncouth way. The internet is unfiltered until the recipient applies a filter, whether it is the spam filters on your email, virus scans, or blog technology. It's not up to the senders to self-censor. There are always some who won't, and the remainder have no responsibility for what the smaller group has to say. It is up to the receiver of information to decide what to receive and read. And the receiver should not hold themselves out as available for comment, then shut down all comment because they didn't like a few of them that they should have filtered in the first place.

The issue that started all this is fairness. The Post, and others, have been so busy pushing the "bi-partisan scandal" story that they haven't really looked at the facts. Russert had Susan Schmidt, Evan Thomas and Karen Tumulty on tonight, and Schmidt admitted that the work on the so-called Abramoff client contributions to Democrats had not been done. But that didn't stop her from saying that such contributions occurred. If you don't know, then shut up.

If you do go, make them schedule you at a time when you would be awake on the west coast. Jet lag going east seems to be worse than the other way. Hey, and if Gannon can get a pass to the WH press room, why not you?
Susan in Iowa | 01.21.06 - 6:06 pm | #

Jane

I agree with Pachacutec - A profanity filter. Period!

Both you and Redd have commented many times how you draw inspiration and ideas from your FDL community. If the WaPoo continues to over react to a "blog swarm" that ensue due to patently false reporting - their stock holders need to sell now!
Ann Regina | 01.21.06 - 6:07 pm | #

the importance to the WaPo.com of comments is our eyeballs. They make money by selling advertisements. technorati links to discussions of WaPo stories send eyeballs off to other sites. a vigorous debate at WaPo.com draws eyeballs thus advertising thus cash. Labor folk said "Ford doesn't make cars, it makes money." Same with the Washington Post: "The Post doesn't print newspapers and advertising, it makes money."
Comments can be very valuable commercially for the WaPo !
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:07 pm | #

Gosh, why don't they invite Brent Bozell too? He'd really elevate the tone of the discussion, and he's a big time media critic!
marky | 01.21.06 - 6:08 pm | #

Hugh | 01.21.06 - 5:28 pm | #
ca y est - merci
punaise | 01.21.06 - 6:09 pm | #

Dog Eat Blog.

Ms. Firedoglake and Her German Shepherd, Librul, Demonstrate What Happens When You *Misspeak* And Say "Librul Attack" Instead of "I Was Wrong"
Mary | 01.21.06 - 6:01 pm | #

nice image Mary
punaise | 01.21.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Valley Girl,

"Thus, I wouldn't mind a registration process for blog commenting there. Caveat- I'd want to able to use a protected screen name, so that I didn't get hit with a flood of email."

That's not bullet-proof. The Court TV Message Boards work that way. They have one moderator. If you get banned, you grab another Yahoo or hotmail address, re register and you're back in 5 minutes with another screen name. A minor inconvenience.
Cozumel | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Does anyone know why trolls are trolls. Do they not have a life or is it more complicated. It's a genuine question. And I'm not trolling. Atleast I don't think I am.
Aloha | 01.21.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Dang it - here's a different link

http://www.is.uwp.edu/academic/p...l100/ truman.jpg

It should be the Dewey Defeats Truman pic.
Mary | 01.21.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Semblance,
Incredible. She just rewrote the same story. Again! She's really sticking to those charts as proof that what she wrote was essentially factual.
JWR | 01.21.06 - 6:11 pm | #

Yep marky, our commenting here rolls with the flow. I happen to like how all topics are fair game, latest news, breaking news, and what ever we're all discussing in general related to mant posted topics. Works for me. My scroll button works just fine too.
Shez | 01.21.06 - 6:11 pm | #

Dear friends, and our famous Jane:

Very little time to comment tonight after a day zennursing, but wanted to weigh in here.

Jane, you told us yourself that you had respect for Jim Brady for his achievements and I think you should remember that core belief. I hear what others are saying about an ambush, a set-up but if we are willing to be here at FDL making suggestions and demanding a better policy, I think this could be a great opportunity to bring some reality to the situation the WaPo now finds itself dealing with. I also immediately think of your Hollywood experience as a producer and worry far less about an ambush. Having produced a movie like Natural Born Killers in that environment, I have no worry about Jane Hamsher allowing an ambush.

I think the choice of inviting bloggers who don't allow comments is pretty inappropriate, but since they are conservative, it can work in your favor in terms of demonstrating that liberal bloggers are dealing with an unvarnished and uncensored discussion of the facts, rather than bloviating on a soapbox without input of criticism. It makes them look afraid of liberal comment (can you spell banned at lgf? I thought you could) while here we give opposing opinions a hearing as long as they're not rude or exhibiting obvious troll-like behavior.

continued
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:13 pm | #

We have had significant disagreements between regular commenters (GSD and ???
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:14 pm | #

2nd try-

We have had significant disagreements between regular commenters (GSD and ???
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:15 pm | #

I've been ADD and offtopic, but I do think this suggestion is very very good:

If you run into a flame situation, put up a counter of posts that make the same point over and over, and run the counter but not the posts.

e.g.

FLAME WATCH:
Deborah Howell reported the Abramoff money went to both parties
AGREE..............672
DON'T AGREE......15
Mickey | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 5:45 pm | #

(t/y Pun)
Mary | 01.21.06 - 6:17 pm | #

Good points and another point to make would be that the first instinct of the Washington Post's managers is to suppress and reject. They show us what they're about by their actions.

Bubblegeneration's analysis is excellent. When the Post seizes up like this, they're hurting themselves. They've shut down in just the place where they need to open up...to survive.

No adaptability equals death of the species, over time.
Slothrop | 01.21.06 - 6:17 pm | #

jane, regarding your upcoming blogging roundtable:

a few up-to-the-minute facts (via dailykos) you might want to jot in your notebook ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...1/21/165738/ 106

bon voyage!
aarrgghh | 01.21.06 - 6:18 pm | #

Deborah's new column is up and it is all about her and how nasty people were to her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6012100907.html

Her piece is so referential; it really gives you a sense of what she is all about. Don't blame Brady for shutting down the comments. The decision was suggested by someone high up at the Post who was hearing how upset Deborah was about those nasty people who were verbally assaulting her.
Ben Brackley | 01.21.06 - 6:18 pm | #

Jane,

Three suggestions:

1) Yes, you should go to DC for the roundtable.

2) You should give Jim a gift of one of those trolls pictured at the top of this post.

3) In preparation, maybe you could start a thread where we all pretend to be right-wing bloggers (not trolls necessarily, though I understand fine distinction), and come up with the type of questions you might face in such a panel, so you can practice your answers here.
.
JohnGabriel | 01.21.06 - 6:19 pm | #

Interesting.. I didn't know what kind of response my post at TWN would get, but so far there is a lot of support, with P Lukasiak and Jane among those who posted.

I believe that Steve has been getting much more criticism from some of his long time readers and admirers of late, as people are dissatisfied with his pace and lack of results.
Right now, the Bolton fight is the measure of Steve's influence. He was instrumental in building the opposition to Bolton and preventing Bolton's confirmation, but after the recess appointment, it appeared that there was no point. I understand that Steve plays a longer game, and it's possible that Bolton's power is severely diminished because of his lack of confirmation.

The sole reason I lack patience with Steve's approach now is that we appear to be heading towards war with Iran. There is no time for dilly-dallying.
marky | 01.21.06 - 6:22 pm | #

Okay, I went over and read the Jay Rosen piece that Jane linked, and the first part of the comments. Two things:

1) Jay Rosen was unfair and wrong when he said: And so Jane Hamsher is wrong in her post about the comment shut down, where she raged at Brady, claiming he wanted to silence critics of the newspaper. “I’m assuming WaPo management just imperiously decided they didn’t want to have a public record of opposition to the embarrassment that is Deborah Howell, and Brady was forced to make some excuse for shutting it down.”

I enjoy reading JR's page from time to time, but in dissing Jane he also dissed FDLers- Jane's comment IMO was a perfectly reasonable one, considering ALL of the articles, and ALL of the commentary re: WaPo and the MSM generally that's been going on at FDL. I have to ask how often Jay reads FDL AND the comments. (I know he sometimes reads, as I've seen a few comments from him here.)

From the comments in response the JR Brady interview, this one is a keeper http://journalism.nyu.edu/ pubzon...ml#comment23622
===I've rarely heard anyone or any newspaper emphasize a lack of civility when it makes their critics look bad, and buttresses their position. It's only when the contrary is true that I see it happen, as here.
Brady would have us believe, years of Internet experience to the contrary, that the Post was forced to remove ALL of the comments about the Howell fiasco to stop a surge of insulting negative ones. It's ridiculous, and it's sad to see Brady (someone who Hamsher has consistently praised by the way for his implementation of visionary practices within the stodgy print media world) forced to embarass himself publicly in this way.===
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 6:22 pm | #

zennurse -- thanks. Ambush by Jeff Jarvis and Glenn Reynolds? I can't tell you how "not worried" about that I am.
jane hamsher | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:24 pm | #

David Pogue’s rules for membership in the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society were included in the slashdot link from Jane's "Even Techies aren't Buying It" post last night.

It might be worth considering the perspective of a NYT writer who is a regular recipient of flame mail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/1...OGUE- EMAIL.html
RBG | 01.21.06 - 6:26 pm | #

last try, because it's important to me...

I said two days ago that I wasn't comfortable with some of the more extreme comments at WaPo, and I still feel that way. But well over 90% of those comments linked to proof that the Howell info was completely wrong, and we were discarded as a large and conversational community. That would never happen here or on most of the blogs I visit, and I think the WaPo needs to respect the majority, not demean us based on a minority of "along for the ride" trolls. Thier internal issues of trollbusting have been exposed by other bloggers, and hold no water.

I hope you will go to DC, do the panel for podcast and have fun with Pacha and David. I agree the Post should pay, but will be happy to contribute if you need Starbucks and shoes money, no worries. Be true to the cause, Jane, I have no concern that you will advocate for progressive liberals in a way we will applaud and provide input which benefits the WaPo and the future of blogging in general.

With love and respect,

zennurse

Namaste
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:26 pm | #

yay
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:27 pm | #

From Ms Howell:

"To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind."

The entire purpose of an ombudsman having a contract is to protect the voice of readers from the wrath of crossed editorial management. Ms Howell's employer needs to buy out her contract, since her trust with readers has been broken.
-
See, it's really not about comments. It's about Howell. Oh, and that truthiness thing, too.
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 6:27 pm | #

Also note that whoever Mark Kelch is, in San Antonio, his anonymity in writing to Ms. Howell has been forever shattered. Trustworthy much, Ms. Howell?
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 6:29 pm | #

You're welcom, my friend, I didn't thin for a minute that you were.

;-}
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:29 pm | #

Jane,
a modest (and well-earned) swagger suits you well!
punaise | 01.21.06 - 6:29 pm | #

Hey Jane, what was that Townhouse comment of yours about... over at SC's?
marky | 01.21.06 - 6:30 pm | #

No apology from Howell. She spends most her new column ranting about all the uncivil commenters and how it doesn't shake her faith in the 1st Amendment. Incredibly self-referential as everything is all about her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6012100907.html
Ben Brackley | 01.21.06 - 6:30 pm | #

Can you tell it was a long day??

Sorry for typos, the thought is sincere.

Can someone post a link to Steve Clemons' site, TWN, I have no idea what it is.

Thanks.
zennurse | 01.21.06 - 6:31 pm | #

Well, I don't know if this constitutes "policy" but if all the comments are singing the same tune - that something in a reporter's reporting is a FACTUAL ERROR - whether by accident or by design - it's a no brainer that the newspaper or the reporter should think "Doh, maybe I should do some actual research and find out what all the hubbubb is about." Good chance the reporter is WRONG and the rabble is RIGHT - at least have the common sense and respect to look into the matter with more than a cursory glance at what some other reporter wrote or what some operative said. Mainstream reporters today are just plain lazy and we access the resources that they should be accessing.
everhopeful | 01.21.06 - 6:32 pm | #

Also, this from the Jay Rosen piece:

===Steve Yelvington has been in the newspaper biz: Yes, it was out of control. Yes, people were attacking reader rep Deborah Howell personally. But so what? When Deborah Howell was editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, she was nicknamed “Dragon Lady.” She’s a tough woman and she can stand the flames.=== (quoted from http://www.yelvington.com/200601...coms_jim_brady)

Dragon Lady...hahaha
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 6:35 pm | #

I don't think it's possible for the WaPo to have comments to its liking, simply because what they want is fawning tributes rather than critcism. The Post isn't interested in being excoriated for its failures and biases. Old Media™ types think of their audience the way Victorian parents thought of children -- there to be seen, not heard.

They can filter out profanity, but they'll never be able to filter out strong opinions and criticism of their work. The only remedy for that is to toughen up, get better at editing so that falsehoods such as the one put forward by Howell are prevented from seeing print and treating readers with respect.
Xeno | 01.21.06 - 6:39 pm | #

"To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind."

##############

Lord she's obnoxious. And very "in your face." Why don't they just hire her as a conservative columnist for the rest of her contract? That's what she's talking about by highlighting the fact that she'll continue to speak her mind. I thought her job was to answer readers' concerns about the way WaPo reports the news? Guess I was wrong.

I wasn't one of the posters on WaPo last week - but she sure is waving the red flag and shouting "F$#K You" to all of us.

Jane - I truly think you need to go to this meeting on your terms, not theirs. It really concerns me that the topic is the civility of blog commenters - not the rudeness of their ombudsman who doesn't seem to understand the concept of fact checking, and when called on it, continues the controversy by defending her right wing talking points. Harldly the behavior readers expect from someone who is supposed to be the public's advocate.
-
dab | 01.21.06 - 6:41 pm | #

Another favorite of mine from Ms. Howell's latest: "The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column."
-
Yet, apparently, she can spend an entire week without correcting her own mistake, and then launch another column defending herself and calling her critics swearers and abusers. If this is what she spends her time doing, then it's no wonder she only writes a weekly column!
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 6:42 pm | #

just read your article about the flap concerning your report on the Abramoff scandal..

You are correct that "cuss words" have no place in this discussion- you have not, however, gottten to the bottom of this issue yet..

You say that Abramoff "dircected" contributions to democracts..

Your evidence for this is that dems received contributions from indian tribes..

What do you mean that Abramoff "directed" these contributions? What is your evidence for this?

Indian tribes have made contributions to democrats for years- well before Abramoff came on the scene..

The fact that this has continued offers no proof that Abramoof "directed" these contributions.

It seems to me that you have still not gotten to the unvarnished "truth" of this issue..

If you cannot prove that Abramoff "directed" contributions to democrats- then you should not be saying that he did. If, on the other hand, you CAN prove it- then please do. Otherwise- please correct the record.

Sincerely,

(Just fired this off the Debbie)
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 6:42 pm | #

Zunnurse here's the link

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
Ann Regina | 01.21.06 - 6:44 pm | #

How should they moderate?

I spent years reading newsgroups on Usenet. If the WaPo thinks that people were being uncivil to them, my god they have no idea what things are like on Usenet hehe!

Civility is overrated, assuming the poster actually has a valid point. As a reader I don't care about seeing words of the 4 letter variety, takes more than that to give me the vapors!

I have to agree with another poster above, if the WaPo was smart, they would use the flame wars that occasionally erupt to draw attention to their stories, rather than trying to censor someone who said the word "poopiehead", or whatever.

People are going to disagree with them, they have to get over that if they want to have a vital online presence. They can either get offended and get their panties in a bunch, or they can let people speak their minds, and let them get engaged in the conversation.

I'd show them some Usenet threads to demonstate what real flaming and trolling is ;)
Kurt | 01.21.06 - 6:44 pm | #

Deborah Howell obviously has some "civility issues" herself.
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 6:45 pm | #

Jane,

Have you seen Howell's half-assed response ?
rkrider | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:45 pm | #

Deborah Howell: what's tough about "taking a stand" against commenters on a blog? There's nothing to it.

The tough thing to do is admit you were wrong and says you're sorry and that next time you'll be more careful.

But you're not up to it, are you?

Dragon Lady? More like frightened kitty.
Slothrop | 01.21.06 - 6:45 pm | #

Jane I've changed my mind. Don't go. This is just an effort by Pravda to change the subject. Instead of facing the fact that their readers weren't about to stand for blatant lies, they want to talk about how "obscene" said readers allegedly were in expressing their displeasure. In other word, "shoot the messenger." As media professionals they shouldn't require your advice in dealing with on-line posts. Tell them that. Then tell them that if they want to discuss editorial mendacity in the "mainstream" media you would be happy to attend a conference on it.

And nothing else.
David Ehrenstein | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:47 pm | #

Whoops...already posted.
rkrider | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:47 pm | #

Where in the ombudsman's job description does it say anything about "continue to speak my mind."
=
She simply does not understand her job.
-
TeddySanFran | 01.21.06 - 6:49 pm | #

By the way,,,that's not a troll, that's a wishnik.
rkrider | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:49 pm | #

Why can't the Washington Post- after ALL OF THIS time and nonsense at least get the basics of the story straight? Fucking unbelievable! They're still trying to argue that they were "sort of right"..
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 6:54 pm | #

poor Debbie in her latest scrivening: She seems so full of herself, so proud to be the center of attention. An ombudperson is supposed to be a peacemaker, a fixer of broken relations. The WaPo has hired for a 2-year contract a Dragon Lady to mend fences with the readers (eyeballs). Doesn't bode well for the Post, does it?

this is crossposted at the continuing Maryland Moments WaPo thread http://blog.washingtonpost.com/ a...ns_dough_1.html
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 6:54 pm | #

I guess their U.S. waterboys are proving so inept in the field they gotta get off their asses and get ready to throw down themselves:

JERUSALEM (AP) -
Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said...
.
Anonymous | 01.21.06 - 6:55 pm | #

Deborah---There is ample evidence that you are a piss poor journalist- you STILL haven't corrected and clarified your statements

But perhaps you'd like a second opinion--

OK- yer ugly too!
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 6:55 pm | #

"To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind."

Wapo subscriber can fire Deborah anytime they want. Unsubscribe.
anotherpawn | 01.21.06 - 6:56 pm | #

CNN's Phillips misstated the Wash. Post ombudsman controversy
Phillips falsely stated that Post ombudsman Howell's assertion is "true" that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats, though, Phillips added, "most of the money went to Republicans." In making the claim, Phillips misconstrued the substance of reader complaints over Howell's January 15 column. Read More

It's a fuckin epidemic!
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 6:57 pm | #

I think David Ehrenstein makes a good point. You should know, however, that whatever you decide Jane, we'll be okay with your decision. Hey, maybe what David said doesn't have to be an either or kind of thing- go, and talk about the conflicted position you were in (well, I know you wouldn't say it that way and would say it better) as to whether to attend or not, and then say or shout: actually, I think the real issue is editorial mendacity in the "mainstream" media .
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 6:57 pm | #

btw, the ever-assiduous WaPoo censors are still picking at the Maryland Moment Blog: they just deleted a clever anti-Howell posting that had been up for hours...
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 7:00 pm | #

Teddy, I think that's a winning point about an ombudsman's job description.
SaltinWound | 01.21.06 - 7:00 pm | #

It would be interesting to know what Debbie Howell was contracted to do. If part of it was to serve as Ombudsman, the usual understanding of such suggests that she is in breach of contract.
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 7:04 pm | #

Slightly off topic.

Has anyone ever claimed that a Dem has done anything for Abramoff clients in return for Abramoff supposedly directing money to Dems? I recall seeing things about what Repubs have done in return but not Dems.
Alvord | 01.21.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Tim Russert is on CNBC right now, really starting with the basics. First question: "Who is Jack Abramoff?"
SaltinWound | 01.21.06 - 7:07 pm | #

Brady & Howell have proven themselves to be dishonest hacks.

Why become part of their charade?

Go if you want to be their prop, but in the end you'll be sorry for doing it.
RR | 01.21.06 - 7:07 pm | #

Reporter round table on Russert trying to make the scandal about "fleecing clients," which conveniently lets Congress off the hook.
SaltinWound | 01.21.06 - 7:09 pm | #

I agree with Tedddaayyyy. WaPoo has succeeded in changing the subject. We were outraged at the content and the propagation of false information about Democrats and their purported relationship to Abramjackoff. Now the discussion is about process and how to operate a blog. God, what bullshit. They fucked up and they still don't have it right. So they change the subject instead of figuring out how to investigate the story and put out the plain truth. Suddenly, they have the whole world working on their two-bit problem about how to ingest comments they don't really want in the first place. It's like they read an article somewhere about the "blogosphere" and figure they should get them some.

FDL knows how to run a comment section. No big brother registration, no tea party politeness, no such thing as the Off Topic charade, and presto. This place is crawling with human beings who crave honest curiosity and real unsponsored exchange. It's organic, WaPoo. Just dial it in.
meta | 01.21.06 - 7:18 pm | #

This episodes makes me even more convinced that there is something seriously wrong with the media. How can the Post think it is in their financial interest to alienate readers? But somehow they must. We are called nutters, and trolls, and then Brady runs to a Hewitt, a right-wing blogger so he can further insult us.

Something is deeply, deeply rotten at the Washington Post. Starting with their hysterical coverage of Clinton, the WMD coverage, the Woodward episode, trying to marginalize Froomkin, the repitition of the RNC talking points on the Abramoff scandal. I'd go up there just to see what is going on, but don't expect them to listen to reason or truth. From now on, the only person I'm going to support on WP.com is Froomkin. He'll probably be gone soon enough anyway.
annxburns | 01.21.06 - 7:18 pm | #

NEW YORK - Three months before the annual Easter egg roll at the White House, the usually festive event is already taking on a divisive edge because of plans by gay- and lesbian-led families to turn out en masse in hopes of raising their public profile.

The Family Pride Coalition and other organizers envision the April 17 action as a celebration that will earn good will and showcase their families engaging in the annual tradition.

“It’s important for our families to be seen participating in all aspects of American life,” said Family Pride executive director Jennifer Chrisler.

Yet some conservatives, alerted to the plans this week, accuse gay activists of trying to “crash” an event for children and turn it into a forum for ideological politicking. Some groups are discussing ways to respond.

“It’s improper to use the egg roll for political purposes,” said Mark Tooley of the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy. Tooley wrote a critical article this week in the Weekly Standard magazine about the planned event that has circulated widely on conservative Web sites.

Since the article appeared Tuesday, Chrisler said Family Pride has received “a flood of hate-filled, venomous messages telling us that our families aren’t welcome.”

“It’s not surprising that the right would be against it,” Chrisler said. “They are very clear about wanting to make our families invisible.”

‘A good family celebration’
The issue was raised at a White House news briefing Wednesday when spokesman Scott McClellan was asked if President Bush would seek to prevent the gay families’ action.

“This event is a time to celebrate Easter and to have a good family celebration here at the White House,” McClellan replied. “In terms of any other details about it, I think it’s still a few months off, so we’ll talk about it as we get closer.”

On conservative chat rooms, some critics of Family Pride suggested the White House could make the egg roll an invitation-only event, as it did in 2003 when attendance was limited to military families. Other critics said conservatives should mobilize to outnumber gay families at the egg roll.

Chrisler, who raises twin boys with a spouse she married in Massachusetts in 2004, intends to bring her family to the egg roll. She said organizers were intent on proceeding despite any criticism, but that plans might change if, closer to Easter, confrontations seemed possible.

“I’m a parent first — I would never want to put my child, or anyone else’s child, in harm’s way,” she said. “If we get any intelligence about that happening, we’ll make a decision.”

100 families signed up
Family Pride has been recruiting participants for several months. Chrisler said more than 100 families had signed up thus far and hopes at least 400 eventually enlist.

“Religious and political extremists who oppose our equality have targeted our planned participation in this event, saying we have no right to ‘crash’ the White House Egg Roll,” Chrisler wrote to supporters Thursday.

“That’s not our goal,” she said. “We simply want our children and our families to be able to fully participate in an event generations of children have enjoyed.”

Free tickets to the egg roll will be distributed first-come, first-served starting at 7:30 a.m. on April 15 — two days before the event. Family Pride has urged its supporters to be in line the night before so their families can be among the first on the White House lawn.

To ensure visibility for the action, Family Pride will issue T-shirts to participants, bearing a “nonpolitical message” that would identify them as gay and lesbian families. Chrisler said the T-shirt theme would be “Love makes a family.”

Co-sponsors of the effort include Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and Soulforce, a national interfaith group.

The egg roll, in which children use spoons to push dyed eggs through the grass in a race, has been a Washington tradition since the mid-19th century. Last year, 16,000 tickets were issued.
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:19 pm | #

which is exactly the force that's hypercommoditizing media. Learning to leverage the edge is a kind of judo.

God, I wish I could learn this leveraging your hypercommoditization stuff. If I could only hypercommoditizationalize my edge, I'd have this world leveraged by the short hairs.

I mean, valid point and all, but god these people have no shame when it comes to buzzwords do they. At least we don't have to hear about killer apps anymore. Guess I can be thankful for that at least.
DrBB | 01.21.06 - 7:22 pm | #

Jane- why don't you teach the post about "trexin" lots more fun than their approach!
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:22 pm | #

So we may have an Easter Battle on the White House lawn--get yer brown shirts here! Get em while they're hot--
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:24 pm | #

Froomkin is pretty safe at the WaPo.com Brady admitted our Froomkin is the most viewed "blogger" he has on the site. Firing corporate superstars (money-makers) is difficult ...
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 7:25 pm | #

Toddlers of gays vs. toddlers of straights--toe ta toe--eye for eye--tooth for tooth--may the meanest survive! Parents teachin kids- good clean family fun!
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:25 pm | #

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...12100907_2.html ==So is it the relative anonymity of the Internet that emboldens e-mailers to conduct a public stoning? Is this the increasing political polarization of our country? I don't know.== (Debbie says)

No, you sure don't know. You give us a choice between option A and option B. Actually, there are other, more correct options. As in, it's your shit poor performance so far that made this happen, and BTW, you are enabling political polarization by your failure to get the facts straight, which even a minimal amount of research would have allowed, had you wanted to do so.
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 7:27 pm | #

I'm not sure that it is a good idea for you to go, Jane. It seems like they are setting you up.
karen allen | 01.21.06 - 7:28 pm | #

Howell: "To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind."

As I just wrote to her, in slightly more polite terms: that's not your fucking job. Debbie, you're not an op-ed columnist, or on the editorial board. Your job title is Ombudsman.

Debbie still thinks she's a bureau chief or a newsroom boss, and if she continues to 'speak her mind' for the next two years, she's going to have a very, very rough time.

It's Peter Principle Alert: she has indeed been promoted to her level of incompetence.
pseudonymous in nc | 01.21.06 - 7:28 pm | #

Jane- if you go- please find out what it means to "direct" campaign contributions.
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:29 pm | #

WaPo wants to bring you there to terrorize you.
karen allen | 01.21.06 - 7:32 pm | #

A national survey by pollster Mark Penn shows two-to-one sentiment that not only Rep. Tom DeLay but also top presidential adviser Karl Rove should resign from office.

Interviews of 1,003 voters last Nov. 5-16, conducted for the Democratic Leadership Council, showed 59 percent felt Rove should quit while 25 percent said he should not. Comparable figures for DeLay were 63 percent and 24 percent. While DeLay faces trial in Texas after being indicted in a campaign finance controversy, Rove has been investigated but not indicted in the CIA leak case.

Penn's poll showed deteriorating Republican support for both Rove and DeLay. GOP votes favored DeLay's resignation, 45 percent to 40 percent, while 35 percent said Rove should go and 43 percent that he should stay.

Robert Novak is a television personality and columnist. Novak is also editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report available through a free offer from Human Events Online.
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:33 pm | #

the horrible thing about Ms. Howell's original column was that she was trying to defend the Post against winger accusations that the Post was making the Abramoff/Delay scandal too much of a GOP story. She defended the Post with her inartfulness and promised to show more of a Democratic involvement in the scandal in the future!
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 7:35 pm | #

I still don't think the WaPo has really touched on the real issue. Yes, comments should be civil, respectful, and all the rest of it.

But bloggers are not dumb, so when we asked (rightly) for the correction or clarification and then we got the "directed" comment I took it as an insult to my intelligence. I thought Howell was trying to be a smart ass (I still think so) and that's what really set people off.

But the real questions still remains: Why is Howell using the term "directed" regarding donations from the tribes to the dems? That is not accurate.

Jane, maybe you could offer to help them with their questions if they will answer ours.
Tony Ross | 01.21.06 - 7:36 pm | #

rwcole - is there a link to your "read more" Phillips post?

I am wondering myself about the difference between what I see as lobbyist budgeting (spread the contributions or event sponsorship as effectively as possible ) to "payoffs" i.e., send $$ to Mr. X and he will do Y for you.
Mary | 01.21.06 - 7:36 pm | #

"Froomkin is pretty safe at the WaPo.com Brady admitted our Froomkin is the most viewed "blogger" he has on the site. Firing corporate superstars (money-makers) is difficult ..."

Really? Doesn't seem like they are making sound financial decisions when they imply all those viewers of Froomkin's blog are nutters and trolls ....
annxburns | 01.21.06 - 7:38 pm | #

I think Jane is wise enough to avoid a "set up". And, if WaPo tries it, I'm sure we'll get a blow-by-blow deconstruction by Jane. But, after reading the latest by Debbie, I have to say Jane may be wasting her time if the reason for making the trip is to help WaPo figure out how to deal with blog comments. It's really pretty obvious, that one. On the other hand, the upside might be that of making contacts etc. etc.
-
Valley Girl | 01.21.06 - 7:38 pm | #

Actually, the Russett show was not as bad as I feared. When talking about the Dems involvement, one of the pundits said "It is a Republican scandal". There was something about maybe a couple of Dem Senators being involved, but not really that much. A whole lot about the wives and staffers. While they didn't say Republican wives the names that they gave were Republican. Delays wife was mentioned and some giggles about what she got paid for what should have been about a weeks worth of effort.

Most interesting comment. Someone said the public does understand that they get to go golfing in fancy places while the regular guy doesn't, and the public does not like it. Tim talked about his Dad saying you don't get anything for free.

I never watch MTP anymore. And Iwouldn't have watched this if I hadn't caught the topic. But I can't help but wonder if they are figuring oubeginning to figure out they might get "slammed" if the stretch to truth too far... no free lunch anymore.
JWC | 01.21.06 - 7:40 pm | #

I think the language on blogs gets "rough" sometimes because it is a convenient shorthand. It is also emotionally expressive.

Verbal discourse is different. It generally doesn't help your argument if every other word you make is bleepable.

Most online shorthand, like WTF, conveys more than just the words. Three simple letters convey the emotion and implied body language along with the words. When you are speaking you can choose to use any number of expressions appropriate to your audience, but online who wants to spend the time find them and then typing them out when those three little letters work so well.

This is a bit of a long winded build up to my suggestion on language use should you decide to go to Washington.

Once in Grade nine I was explaining to my mother how I had called bullshit on one of my teachers.

At the time, my mother was not the type of woman to use such language. She told me she didn't appreciate my use of it in her presence.

As an alternative she suggested the term "Arrant Nonense" (arrant = thorough) whenever I felt the urge to use Bullshit.

And in polite company I have ever since. It is especially satisfying because I know exactly what I mean.

Try it. You'll sound edjamicated and impressive especially to those who spew said nonense and all the while you're calling them on their bullshit.

So if I might suggest, Jane, when you go, call them on their arrant nonsense. Use the term liberally during the discussion.

We'll all know exactly what you mean.
Bionic | 01.21.06 - 7:41 pm | #

So we may have an Easter Battle on the White House lawn--get yer brown shirts here! Get em while they're hot--
rwcole | 01.21.06 - 7:24 pm | #

###########

Okay - that's funny. Sad but very funny.
dab | 01.21.06 - 7:42 pm | #

new thread (old wine - new bottle)
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 7:42 pm | #

Maybe we could even make "Arrant Nonsense" a rallying cry of the left.

It's unbleepable and yet it sums up much of the Right's postion on issues so pithily.
Bionic | 01.21.06 - 7:44 pm | #

Jane, don't listen to Ehrenstein.....you can handle ANYTHING they throw at you. Sending you everything positive, for the journey!
Franco | 01.21.06 - 7:45 pm | #

Jane

should you go? maybe, but don't expect much to result from it. the Washington Post is in an entirely new business environment here, but they don't realize what's happened to them. They think the blog world is just a slight variation on the margins of conventional newspaper world, and they get pissed off when it refuses to behave like a newspaper that you read on the screen. they want to know how to make the new stuff behave better, when in fact what they need is to find out how to work in a new way.

this whole pissing match brings me back to my previous life as a business consultant. the first rule (easier to state than to obey) was to qualify your prospect's interests. the prospects you really wanted were the ones who were ready to prove their interest in your work with money. those were rare. then there more those who who were in trouble and knew they were in trouble and were so desperate to get out of it to the point of paying you money. those were the ones you had some hope of helping. Then there were the rest, who just wanted to talk and suck your brains for free.

I don't think the Post is in the first category. I don't think they have reached the point of desperation yet. or rather, there may be some people in higher echelons who are desperate, or anyways are getting nervous, but it doesn't sound like you'd be talking to them.

bottom line: only go if you expect to get something out of it.
Treesong | 01.21.06 - 8:10 pm | #

During the Cuban missile crisis, the Russians sent President Kennedy two messages, and they contradicted each other. Kennedy picked the one most favorable and responded to it, while ignoring the other completely. It resolved the crises.

There is plenty to be offended at in Ms. Howell's latest column. We could respond to that, and it's pretty predictable what will happen. However, she also said this:

"Going forward, here's my plan. I'll watch every word. I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can. The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column. But I will reject abuse and all that it stands for."

I honestly don't hold out much hope -- it appears the lady's concept of her job is very different from ours -- but if I thought there was any chance at all of moving forward, I would respond to the second message and use it as a means to introduce the concepts/points we value and just completely ignore the other in-your-face stuff. It may not work, but it could be tried.

If it fails, we little rodents just wait for the meteorite to darken the skies. Just a thought.
scarecrow | 01.21.06 - 8:18 pm | #

i think you should go, Jane, but please go with the quoted "proof" that Howell cited today and make her look at the details as far as proof that Abramoff directed the money to Dems. Show the chart that shows Dem contributions have gone down since K street project. Also mention Delay's name being whited out. Talk about facts, precision in language, and truth. Thank you.
y | 01.21.06 - 8:29 pm | #

The best obscenity screener I've encountered is the one at MMFA. That comment area used to be the Wild West, a la Deadwood. Then they implemented profanity detection, and forced the offending commenter to reconsider his content so as to exclude cursing. Now I see next to no profanity over there, even though the back and forth is very heated.

Or they could just upgrade their ombudsman detector software, to exclude partisan hackery.
Mr Blifil | 01.21.06 - 8:30 pm | #

Many years ago, I ran a couple of forums for discussing science fiction shows, so of course I'm an expert ;-). While you and I, and at least half the people who are posting on this forum know how it's done, it doesn't seem that the WaPo understands these things, so I'll insult their intelligence for a moment.

To run a forum on the Internet, any forum, you first need a plan. The plan goes like this:

* Look at similar forums that are available. Figure out what you like and don't like. Ask the people who run those forums, if you can, how they run them and how much effort it takes.

* Decide what your forum will be about and what the rules will be.

* Explain the rules, stick to them, and point out to participants why you're taking whatever action you're taking when they don't follow them. On the rare occasion when I deleted posts for rudeness, I left a message inviting them to re-submit without the insults. Sometimes they re-posted, sometimes they didn't.

My experience was that if you follow this plan, most of your regular participants get the message, and those who don't like it leave in short order. My rules worked for my forums, partly because I was interested in people's opinions and demonstrated that interest. On other forums, the rules might have to be different, but they should always be clear and it should always be clear that any opinion is welcome as long as it fits the purpose and rules of the forum.

Oh, one other thing. You'll get spammed. I don't care what you do - you'll get spammed. The worst thing you can do is let it clutter up your forum. Plan for it. Maybe hire some firm in India or Hong Kong to clean out the spam at night while your own admins are tucked in their beds. Most forums (like Slashdot, for instance) try to make it difficult to send automated posts into forums, but there's always the manual option. If they go to
the trouble of getting past your defenses, it's best not to let them admire their handiwork for long.

Yeah, I know, it's obvious, Psychology 1 (not even Psych. 101 - it's the kind of psychology social retards like me take to get our sociology credits) kinda stuff. Still, these guys seem to have not done even that much planning.

Of course, I wasn't hawking a newspaper on my forums, nor was I dealing with hundreds of messages a day. All that takes a staff, or much better tools than I was using.

So, you actually asked, what do I want to see in a newspaper's forum? Three things come to mind:

First, I don't want to have to sign up to comment on it. Don't make me find a bugmenot account. If I wasn't interested in the paper I wouldn't be there. I think this is true of most people. For those who aren't, well, as we say in Posixland, that's what the null device is for. Use it when anyone goes beyond the pale. If you don't know what a null device is, or don't know what "beyond the pale" is, then be sure to hire someone who does to run your website.

Second, I expect that when people take the time to point out articles, facts, websites, whatever, that are related to a story, the people who wrote the stories or run the forum will check them out or at least discuss them. People who are just venting don't require much of a response ("thank you for sharing" is probably enough), but quite a few of those posts about Ms. Howell pointed out things they thought were wrong, and even offered links or pointers to where these facts were. The Post ignored all of that information, near as I can tell. Finding information and presenting it takes time and effort. Respect that enough to at least look at it or acknowledge that you've seen it.

Third, however you do it, make sure that there's a palpable (tangible?) connection between the forum and the journalists who write the stories. I'll try to refrain from making any jokes about hiring an ombudsman, but that's really only part of the solution, anyway. If this forum is going to be much use, it should be clear that reader complaints are being translated into corrections and additions to stories, or there's much less likelihood that there will be any comments more interesting than " sucks" or "Eat me, ". At a minimum, the paper's journalists should be participants in the forum when their time allows. Discussion forums are for discussions, not dueling monologues.

That about covers it. Once again, obvious stuff, I think, and no doubt the previous thousand posters have said much the same thing. Nonetheless, it seems to be stuff that the Post isn't aware of.
Cujo359 | 01.21.06 - 9:09 pm | #

The media spends a lot of effort, and employs many tricks, to manufacture and bank credibility. This stands them in good stead when they have to lie.

People get thrown out of balance.
Thrasyboulos | 01.21.06 - 9:22 pm | #

Oh crap, I hit "reload" on the browser and that whole bloated post appeared again. Sorry.

Lesson learned: Close page first, then reload.
Cujo359 | 01.21.06 - 9:28 pm | #

Jane, if you do go and you are disrepectfully treated or silenced, Pravda needs another tsunami.

Personally, I'd like to see the whole lot shunned until we are given a measure of respect, at least one tenth of the way they bow and scape to the right.
TF-MA | 01.21.06 - 9:37 pm | #

Before the blog there was the 'panel'. Merely having the panel makes the Establishment feel they're 'talking to the public'. But, as the panel only seats a few people, so too are the number of voices limited. This changes the balance of power from millions (the public) vs. 1 (WaPo) to a more manageable small ratio 2-6 vs. 1. Also, they select the setting and the ground rules. They can change the rules whenever they want. They can violate the rules without letting you do the same. They can use this as a setting to specifically smear you without giving you a rebuttal time. They can use this to silence you by saying they've already heard you or by 'acknowledging' you were on their panel and therefore your 'message' is coopted. There are many ways they can use you.

So, don't go in all naive and hoping for anything good. They know you're the enemy and they're quite likely to bash you roundly.

Still want to go? Wear a helmet.
MarkH | 01.21.06 - 10:32 pm | #

Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan