s skippy the bush kangaroo

skippy the bush kangaroo

Friday, January 20, 2006

skippy rides to jane's rescue

it doesn't happen much, but after two great lunches at the cheesecake factory (and coffee and muffins for kobe at coffee bean & tea leaf), it's the least we could do.

jane hamsher at
firedoglake took great exception to how jim brady & co. handled the fiasco at washpost.com over ombudsbitch deborah howell's "misinformation" (to be charitable).

then, the otherwise astute jay rosen at
pressthink took exception to jane's taking exception:

about transparency and the need for the post to engage with critics, you’re not going to find anyone in the national press who gets it more than jim brady does. and 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.”

that’s a reckless assumption. i think he’ll try to bring the comment board back at post.blog, although i’m not sure “civility” should be the watchword there when he does. in fact brady said in his online chat today that he hopes comments critical of howell will be returned to their place in the dialogue. “we’ll go back through them and restore the ones that did not violate our rules.”

meanwhile, flaming the friends of transparency isn’t helping anyone. get it, jane?

of course, jane held her own making points to refute jay. but that didn't stop skippy from chiming in on jay's own comment section:

we have said this elsewhere on other forums: tho we did not read every single comment on the mirrored caches of the post.com's comments, none of them rose above (or sank below, if you will) the standard set by chris matthews, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, michael savage, or indeed, any op-ed page (including the post's) in the country.

some were strident, some were forceful, most were passionate, several angry, and some downright more clever than anything howell ever wrote (i especially liked the one that said the skipper, gilligan and mary ann voted ms. howell off the island).

but what else did the post expect when it vetted a blatant falsehood as fact, and then refused to acknowledge the proofs that were offered that showed as much?

it's a bit like hearing your parents admonish you, "kids, we're not going to discuss why we killed your pet dog until you stop screaming."

only this time the dog is the truth. a national newspaper cannot regurgitate partisan talking points presented as the truth and not expect emotions to run high.

and the supposed "proofs" that ms. howell provided online links for neglected to substantiate several important missing steps, ie, were the clients already giving monies to the democrats, were those monies supposedly "directed" by abramoff actually ever received by democrats, and were the democrats aware of abramoff's invovelment, thus ensuring quid pro quo, to allow ms. howell to allege as much?
no, howell made assumptions and published them as fact, and then refused to acknowledge it when the readers called her on it.

there is nothing that escalates emotions more than insisting to engage in dialogue, without actually hearing the other side (and being blatant about your refusal).

as for jane hamsher's points, even jay must admit she is correct that setting up a national online forum must per force involve an expectation of troll-weeding, and if not, then the responsibility for the resulting fiasco lies with those who set up the forum without foresight, and not the trolls themselves.

trolls are a fact of life on the internets. don't open the door to the public and then get upset because they don't dress as nice as you do.

it takes very little effort and time to delete offending comments, as jay, jane, dkos and others can tell you. and therefore, we can only assume that washpost.com deleted the entire batch to eliminate the offending factual points the readers provided.

no need to thank us, ma'am. jes' doin' what a bush kangaroo needs to do.

our work here is done.
posted by skippy at 3:45 PM |


commented by Blogger 艾丰, 1:10 AM PDT  

Add a comment