Steve Gilliard says: Jay, you're wrong
Jay Rosen at PressThink posted an e-mail exchange with Jim Brady of WaPo in which I think he hoped that he would come off sounding like a reasonable, moderate sort of guy -- worthwhile goals -- but Steve Gilliard respectfully disagrees non-the-less.
Steve writes:
Jay,
You're wrong.
The Post doesn't want transparency. They didn't like the fact that they were challenged on a major issue of credibility and factual error. Deborah Howell refused to conceed this major error and when challenged, they mischaracterized the response and then shut down comments.
The New York Times has never had this problem, despite having open forums.
And then, there was no question that the comments, the fast majority of comments were not uncivil or needed moderation. Frankly, I got nastier comments for insulting Chicago-style hot dogs and had a raging debate over mac and cheese which would have curled Brady's hair. I won't even mention what happens when I discuss Manchester United.
Jim Brady says he wants an open dialogue with the public, but editors want it to be conducted on their terms. And it won't be. What I think the Beltway crowd doesn't get is this: people take politics very seriously.
They feel that Bush and the GOP is stealing their country and the Washington Media is not only standing by, but cheering them on. A cheap comment attacking Michael Moore on MSNBC gets a flood of e-mails directed to them.
The people who post on our sites are extremely passionate and concerned for this country, even if they don't live here. Brady's action did no credit to himself or his newspaper. It reads as just another sign of the media not listening to the public to people who feel the media is against them.
And you are completely wrong about moderation: Slashdot were pioneers in it and that is one wild place to post and always has been, Daily Kos is community moderated and troll free.
The Post clearly has the staff to both design forum software which could flag offensive words and monitor postings. It doesn't need volunteers to work for a multinational company for free. The problem is that they wanted to do it on the cheap.
If you check the posts, available from Democratic Underground, few crossed any lines of civil comment, but most were quite angry.
It would also do your argument some good to admit what we both know: journalists have very thin skins and hate criticism. It would be easy to see that Howell was unsettled by the vehemence of the comments directed her way and unnerved by them. Because criticism in journalism has been restricted to the occasional letter, not daily parusing of stories and constant e-mail contact. In short, the public is holding journalists accountable in real time, and that is a shock for many reporters and editors.
Friends of transparency would have never shut down their comments in the first place. People who want to create the illusion of transparency would.
Steve writes:
Jay,
You're wrong.
The Post doesn't want transparency. They didn't like the fact that they were challenged on a major issue of credibility and factual error. Deborah Howell refused to conceed this major error and when challenged, they mischaracterized the response and then shut down comments.
The New York Times has never had this problem, despite having open forums.
And then, there was no question that the comments, the fast majority of comments were not uncivil or needed moderation. Frankly, I got nastier comments for insulting Chicago-style hot dogs and had a raging debate over mac and cheese which would have curled Brady's hair. I won't even mention what happens when I discuss Manchester United.
Jim Brady says he wants an open dialogue with the public, but editors want it to be conducted on their terms. And it won't be. What I think the Beltway crowd doesn't get is this: people take politics very seriously.
They feel that Bush and the GOP is stealing their country and the Washington Media is not only standing by, but cheering them on. A cheap comment attacking Michael Moore on MSNBC gets a flood of e-mails directed to them.
The people who post on our sites are extremely passionate and concerned for this country, even if they don't live here. Brady's action did no credit to himself or his newspaper. It reads as just another sign of the media not listening to the public to people who feel the media is against them.
And you are completely wrong about moderation: Slashdot were pioneers in it and that is one wild place to post and always has been, Daily Kos is community moderated and troll free.
The Post clearly has the staff to both design forum software which could flag offensive words and monitor postings. It doesn't need volunteers to work for a multinational company for free. The problem is that they wanted to do it on the cheap.
If you check the posts, available from Democratic Underground, few crossed any lines of civil comment, but most were quite angry.
It would also do your argument some good to admit what we both know: journalists have very thin skins and hate criticism. It would be easy to see that Howell was unsettled by the vehemence of the comments directed her way and unnerved by them. Because criticism in journalism has been restricted to the occasional letter, not daily parusing of stories and constant e-mail contact. In short, the public is holding journalists accountable in real time, and that is a shock for many reporters and editors.
Friends of transparency would have never shut down their comments in the first place. People who want to create the illusion of transparency would.
posted by Bill at 1:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home