Washington Post Shuts Down Blog 347
Billosaur writes "C|Net has an article by Katharine Q. Seelye of The New York Times, which indicates that the Washington Post is having to close one of its blogs, due to 'too many personal attacks, profanity and hate mail directed at the paper's ombudsman.' It seems that Deborah Howell, the newspaper's ombudsman, wrote an article on the Jack Abramoff scandal which elicited a storm of protest and led to readers using profanity and making unprintable comments, which the paper had to take extra care in removing. This was apparently more based on the issue at hand, as the Post's other blogs have not experienced similar problems." What kind of precedent does this set for other mainstream news sites? What we'd consider a normal day around here has to look fairly intimidating to the average newspaper editor. Will this dissuade news sites from blogging in the future?
Rules for hateful posting (Score:5, Interesting)
One of Pogue's observations, which is by no means original, was that this sort of thing is partially driven by anonymity. You can say the meanest, most unreasonable, stupid crap in an e-mail or blog comment, and there are no consequences. If you want, you don't even have to deal with the consequence of a reasoned reply or rebuttal.
The Post could employ some automatic filters to weed out some of the worst offenders, and thus it seems hard to believe their claim that it was requiring two full-time moderators to keep out the blog comments that violated their standards. Either those were some pretty heavy standards that made context such an issue that automated filtering was ineffective, or their web guys are pretty inept.
- Greg
A vague feeling of "so what" (Score:4, Interesting)
From my reading, the ombudsman was the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Second - it seems that most of the anger was from a comment that tied Abramoff to both democrats and republicans. Republicans, of course, want to say it's a problem for both sides - the old "Well, don't get mad at us - we were both bad!"
Democrats get mad at that because Abramoff evidently never *directly* gave money to any Democrats. Note the use of the word "directly", since Abramoff's firm *did* give money to some Dems, but nobody's found a Dem that got money right from Abramoff unlike some Repubs.
So now you get one side pissed off because of a percieved inaccuracy (and literally, they are right), and the other side feeling like they have to defend themselves (which they should), and then it's a flame war and OMG! LIKE THE END of the WORLD or something! Oh noes! Teh internets are on FIRE!
Either way, it seems like the Post just didn't handle their filter system. Slashdot and Digg and Kero5hin and a few others have the "self modifying system" - things like "anonymous users get lower views than registered users", "users can label people flamers/spammers/etc". The Post should have put that in first, or just put comments in a separate area so regular readers wouldn't be plagued by Dem and Repub fankids on either side mucking up the issue. Now, they have to throw away the baby with the bathwater (which is too bad, because babies don't like getting thrown into the dumpster. Or so I've heard.)
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Re:Rules for hateful posting (Score:4, Interesting)
Anonymity doesn't play nearly as much a role as most people think. This had to do with politics, and that inevitably leads to a flame war, on the internet and in real life. Just look at Congress. Besides, internet anonymity is a myth for the vast majority of people.
Fundamental problems (Score:5, Interesting)
But there were also two fundamental problems: (1) The Washington Post has printed demontrable factually incorrect statements concerning Abramoff, a lifelong Republican and key friend/confident of Grover Norquist, giving money to Democrats - which he did not (2) both the WaPo and WaPo.com (note: two different entities) utterly refusing to engage this question any any level. The closest they have come is to admit that their articles were "inartful" - when they were in fact wrong.
It is like the old problem with taking quality surveys: if you take a survey, and then don't do anything, your customers are left angrier than they were before. WaPo.com solicited feedback, received it, and then cold-shouldered its readers. Guess what the reaction was.
sPh
What we need . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
A while back I was calling for the creation of a service that would create a slashdot-style thread corresponding to any website, which would be viewable in a browser frame at the bottom as you browsed. The site itself would in no way support or give permission for this -- it would be entirely independent. You'd just click the button on the bottom of your browser and view the thread for the page. This would be an incredibly useful service, and I almost guarentee that it will exist before too long. Imagine being able to read slashdot-type threads on any news story, immediately see feedback on any website deal, online store, or interesting site you run into on. Wanna know if it's a scam? Check what people are saying about it.
Basically, this is a wikipedia with an entry for every website, with the information in the form of moderated posts (which is much better if you want to avoid having information deleted; people can only respond and moderate, not edit.)
There is absolutely no technical barrier to it, someone just has to make it. I've taken a few cracks at it but I'm not a programmer and don't really know how to do this. If one of you builds it, they will come.
With moderation, the problems described in the Washington Post story could fade to the background, and suddenly every website and major news story would have blog comment threads attached. It would be valuable in the same way that Slashdot, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, and blogs on the whole are -- that is, it would show you what other people have to say about a topic, and it would fit perfectly around the structure of the web.
Someone build this, then in time add paid services, and get rich. I just want to use it.
Re:Never Quote Facts.... (Score:1, Interesting)
What amuses some of us is when right wingers call us liberals when we aren't liberals are are quite critical of liberals.
But hey, when the right wing thinks that anybody to the left of Bill O'Reilly is a liberal, it's pretty pointless to discuss facts with them. You can't even talk to them. Just avoid them and keep them on the other side of the fence.
Re:From my reading, the ombudsman was the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Close but not quite.
Abramoff didn't give to democrats, and neither did his firm.
Some of Abramoff's clients gave to Democrats. and after Abramoff began representing those clients, they generally gave less than the previously had to democrats, and more to Republicans (no doubt on the advice of Jack Abramoff).
Now, I'm not claiming the democrats are pure as the driven snow, just that Abramoff was -- from his days in the College Republicans -- someone who benefited from Republicans and in turn benefited Republicans.
Abramoff is about pervasive corruption in the Republican Party.
The sad thing is this: I believe many (not all, but many) of the Republicans who made up Newt Gingrinch's "revolution" in 1994, who put together the "Contract With America -- I believe many of them started out as idealistic, honest men who genuinely wanted to reform Washington DC.
But they got captured by the system. They had to become perpetual fundraisers to keep their seats, so they ended up spending nearly every day (really, ask any politician of staffer) begging rich people and rich corporations for money. After a while, that has to get to someone, even if -- especially if -- he's an honest guy who is living in a tiny DC apartment because he still has a mortgage back in his home district.
Everyday the congressman begs for money, and everyday he votes for millions and billions of dollars in appropriations. Eventually, these guys crack, and decide they want a piece of the pie too.
We have to change the system. We have too -- as the real conservatives tell us -- shrink government. and we have to provide for public funding of campaigns, so politicians don't have to beg for money and become beholden.
Section 113 editorial (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what the odds are that the closing of that blog is going to show up as amicus curia briefs when challenges to the legality of section 113 are heard in court?
I was brought up in a era when journalists were some of the most respected people around. I really miss those times.
When I realize that the most respected journalist today by far is Jon Stewart, I wonder how we can sue the journalism schools for polluting the media. Not that I don't think Jon isn't a great comedian, and, actually, a pretty good journalist, but he and Amoss (whose a publisher, not a journalist) seem to be the only two ones who still believe in journalism.
Journalism has occupied an important place in our society since prehistoric times, it is sad to see it dying so ignomious a death. I would have expected there would be at least a few reporters who still respected thier profession enough to at least go down fighting.
Re:From my reading, the ombudsman was the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Later, we can try to figure out if he managed to bribe people via soliciting donations for them from others, but just straightening out the direct bribes is enough work for now.
However, considering Abramoff was part of K Street, it is extremely unlikely that he, at any point whatsoever, was responsible for any Democrat getting any money at all. Anyone who implies otherwise doesn't know what K Street is, or is a liar, period. Newspapers should, indeed, know what K Street is, and the only possible conclusion is that what's-her-name was delibrately trying to mislead people, or is so flat ignorant that she should be banned from writing about political stuff.
And, yes, for people who don't know what is going on, the ombudsman of the Post has decided not to respond to the public this problem, which is, in fact, the entire point of the ombudsman in the first place. And, no, neither the ombudsman, nor the newspaper itself is supposed to hide behind 'technically accurate'. Newspapers can write 'technically accurate' articles that make old ladies out to be mass murderers.
Re:ORIGINAL - Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think that the money paid did not buy influence on both sides then you are a pretty stupid person. As far as I am concerned anyone who got money from this slimeball and his clients should do the right thing and step down.