tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post425771449069387172..comments2024-01-11T04:26:33.475-05:00Comments on Drifting Through The Grift: Spitting Tacksgriftdrifthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04509712527908530572noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-14241335589252567622008-08-03T14:15:00.000-04:002008-08-03T14:15:00.000-04:00Griftdrift: Sounds good to me - KenGriftdrift: Sounds good to me - KenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-27425610157587230132008-08-02T00:32:00.000-04:002008-08-02T00:32:00.000-04:00"I think we've all continued to discover exactly h..."I think we've all continued to discover exactly how we are going to interact."<BR/><BR/>So not at all then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-59085941840593969122008-08-01T18:08:00.000-04:002008-08-01T18:08:00.000-04:00And another thing. Don't think for a moment we don...And another thing. Don't think for a moment we don't approve of skepticism. Hell, in some cases we are probably more skeptical than you.<BR/><BR/>I personally have something I call the "asshole rule". I won't link to a new blog for ten days. This gives me time to see if they are truly a good citizen or just some agenda driven fly by night operation. Currently there's one out there which I will not link to because its my belief its sole purpose is to criticize a particular candidate in this particular election cycle.<BR/><BR/>We do understand how the system can be abused and we do have a healthy skepticism but the recognition that needs to be reciprocated is that we are usually quick to sniff them out and act accordingly.griftdrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04509712527908530572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-53515840369829026572008-08-01T17:48:00.000-04:002008-08-01T17:48:00.000-04:00Maybe Ken. Maybe. After re-reading what you wrote ...Maybe Ken. Maybe. After re-reading what you wrote and your subsequent explanations, I understand how a handle would have made sussing out the FEC report more difficult.<BR/><BR/>So I guess I did jump to a conclusion. And its not excuse but when you've been hit with that particular flame so many times one gets a bit jumpy.<BR/><BR/>And ultimately I think all of this discussion is a very very good thing and I think we've all continued to discover exactly how we are going to interact.<BR/><BR/>What I really wish is if we could have some kind of summit in person. It works because I've seen it. The first time Amber, Rusty and I went to the APC we met with an openly hostile crowd. The next time we went 90% of the room nodded their head at our points. So there is a way to sort all of this out.<BR/><BR/>As far as lumping, I won't lump if you don't lump. Detente?<BR/><BR/>Oh and I think Travis is pretty good too. (Blake too but don't tell him I said that).<BR/><BR/>Also the lack of link was an oversight. Thanks for pointing that out. Its now fixed.griftdrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04509712527908530572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-88532684624081726872008-08-01T17:37:00.000-04:002008-08-01T17:37:00.000-04:00I'm a bit wary of wading in. How about trying to t...I'm a bit wary of wading in. How about trying to take these comments at face value, y'all?<BR/><BR/>Griftdrift: I wish you'd actually linked to my first post in your first post rather than just publishing the one paragraph without the link. That way people could have seen that it was an afterthought -- the 16th paragraph in a 19 paragraph post. And in the second post, the subject is raised only as the last, brief question.<BR/><BR/>But I raised the anonymity issue because Andre Walker's conflict of interest could only be identified if one knew his name. Meanwhile, there are other bloggers — particularly on Peach Pundit — who do political consulting and are anonymous. I thought decaturguy and APN did good work in uncovering Andre's conflicts of interest. But if Andre used a handle and Matthew Cardinale didn't know his name, he'd be less likely to have figured out that conflict of interest. Using handles isn't wrong, in my opinion; it's just a bit more opaque. Does anybody actually disagree with that?<BR/><BR/>So Mike, there's the connection -- tangential, secondary, not the central issue to this little scandal. But, hey, it certainly seemed to end up being the hot topic of conversation!<BR/><BR/>And it still seems to me a fair question -- not at all intended to offend or even to question the practice of using handles. <BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, griftdrift, I'm not sure that you disagree with the substance of what I said -- at least from your comments here and on Fresh Loaf. It seems to me that your more upset because other "print" journalists have said similar things -- or worse. But it's just as wrong to lump me in with Julia Wallace and/or Jayson Blair, as it would be for me to lump you in with Andre Walker. And if you actually read what I wrote, I didn't imply that any bloggers did anything unethical, except for Andre.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the "old media" vs. bloggers thing has an us-vs.-them tone that seems exaggerated. I know that there's a difference between working for an established print organization and doing your own independent blog, but the differences are getting gray in a lot of areas. In my opinion, Travis is one of the best bloggers in Georgia. Griftdrift: I've long thought you've brought the kind of reasoned insight to your blog that more "journalists" should bring. <BR/><BR/>Except, to be perfectly honest, I think you jumped to a conclusion in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-66243358909474325222008-08-01T15:47:00.000-04:002008-08-01T15:47:00.000-04:00Amber's last post, by the way, is exactly right --...Amber's last post, by the way, is exactly right -- anonyminity is irrelevant to the issue with Peach Pundit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-35774606308915435482008-08-01T15:45:00.000-04:002008-08-01T15:45:00.000-04:00Well, exactly.But seriously, it's not like I'm pic...Well, exactly.<BR/><BR/>But seriously, it's not like I'm picking on bloggers and using anonyminity as a reason why I don't like them or why they're no good or whatever. I read a number of blogs and find some of them indispensible. In fact, Metsblog (I'm a fan) is consistently as reliable if not more so than many of the New York papers. What lucid wrote was all things equal, an anonymous source is a less credible source. I agree with that, and if that implicates bloggers more than other media, than so it does. If he wrote that something light and portable was more convenient to take in the bathroom with you than something heavy and plugged in, I would agree too, and not because I needed an excuse to say that a book is better than television. <BR/><BR/>We can disagree about the effects of anonyminity. I guess we do. But please don't think that it was me using as Grift calls it an old canard (or a cudgel) so I can attack bloggers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-3254823519571318622008-08-01T15:30:00.000-04:002008-08-01T15:30:00.000-04:00And given the fact that the thing that supposedly ...And given the fact that the thing that supposedly prompted all this - Andre's lack of disclosure -is totally irrelevant bc Andre was not anonymous, makes me question KE's timing of his post. It looks like an excuse to slag off bloggers based on his existing biases.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-62066113792184844982008-08-01T15:17:00.000-04:002008-08-01T15:17:00.000-04:00OK, but who do you mean to say has less credibilit...OK, but who do you mean to say has less credibility when discussing anonymous writers, if not bloggers?<BR/><BR/>I haven't seen any anonymous stories in the newspapers, that I can recall.Sarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18339673763054572203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-38809360508154457282008-08-01T14:47:00.000-04:002008-08-01T14:47:00.000-04:00Thanks, Grift. I always stray far afield.OK, here...Thanks, Grift. I always stray far afield.<BR/><BR/>OK, here's the part I want to make clear: I don't think I said anything against bloggers. I don't have anything against bloggers. I wrote about anonyminity because that's what we're talking about. I don't think I used it in any way to cast aspersions on bloggers, or anyone else. I don't think Ken did, either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-8819977241559896442008-08-01T13:10:00.000-04:002008-08-01T13:10:00.000-04:00I brought it up precisely to make you feel the sam...<I>I brought it up precisely to make you feel the same reflexive sting that we all feel over Andre's stupidity and how it will make it easier for the media to continue to shit all over bloggers.</I><BR/><BR/>YES.<BR/><BR/>Often, teaching by showing is the most effective method.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-57909974971865617952008-08-01T12:19:00.000-04:002008-08-01T12:19:00.000-04:00Okay I think we've wandered pretty far astray here...Okay I think we've wandered pretty far astray here.<BR/><BR/>Mike I get your points. And I agree with them to a degree.<BR/><BR/>But I think Sara hit on the central point.<BR/><BR/>It's not necessarily the anonymous thing itself. Its the continued use of it as a cudgel.<BR/><BR/>It would be as if everytime any one questioned the credibility of a paper we all went around screaming "JAYSON BLAIR! JAYSON BLAIR!".<BR/><BR/>We can have an honest conversation about the conventions in the online vs the real world and their implications. But the difference is, at least it seems this way to us, is eerytime there is a discussion of bloggers this becomes the primary issue.<BR/><BR/>It wears us out and frankly it is lazy. It is the bugbear of the slothful who use it as a convenient excuse to hand wave away all in one fell swoop.<BR/><BR/>And that's a fact jack.griftdrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04509712527908530572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-90377940757461883612008-08-01T11:20:00.000-04:002008-08-01T11:20:00.000-04:00Y'all are making my head hurt.The Jayson Blair thi...Y'all are making my head hurt.<BR/><BR/>The Jayson Blair thing stings, I can tell. I brought it up precisely to make you feel the same reflexive sting that we all feel over Andre's stupidity and how it will make it easier for the media to continue to shit all over bloggers. I don't pretend the situations are the same and I don't think the entire media is less credible simply because of one bad reporter at the NY Times.<BR/><BR/>I think the fundamental disconnect we are having here is that we are not saying that mainstream media has no credibility. We are saying that while it might be a natural reflex, when you dig down there is no real reason to correlate a full name with credibility and a pseudonym or partial name with being a hack. People who write under their full name fuck up all the time, and people who blog under a pseudonym absolutely bust their ass to triple fact check and source their stories. Like, say, our host for this here comments thread. And knowing how hard he works before he runs with something, it pisses me off to have people suggest that he should not be taken as seriously or be presumed to have as much integrity simply because he blogs as griftdrift.<BR/><BR/>I have a hangover though, so all that up there may be garbage.Sarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18339673763054572203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-79974260189524531142008-08-01T11:12:00.000-04:002008-08-01T11:12:00.000-04:00This whole debate started because poor lucid said ...<I>This whole debate started because poor lucid said that all things being equal, he thinks an anonymous source of information is less reliable than a known source. That's what Ken wrote, too.</I><BR/><BR/>And that's what Grift, Sara, I, and many others have said, too. The only difference is we're saying what matters is that the person is a KNOWN SOURCE, not whether or not their byline is their real name or a pseudonym.<BR/><BR/>I am utterly baffled that this debate continues to go on?<BR/><BR/>Re: exhausting, things that are worth it are rarely quick and easy.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-53947053795984671412008-08-01T10:53:00.000-04:002008-08-01T10:53:00.000-04:00Sorry, that should be "first-hand knowledge," but ...Sorry, that should be "first-hand knowledge," but please enjoy the image.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-16677270099649327532008-08-01T10:52:00.000-04:002008-08-01T10:52:00.000-04:00That sounds exhausting. And where do you check th...That sounds exhausting. And where do you check the underlying facts contained in the article? If you don;t have fist-hand knowledge, or know someone who has, you eventually have t trust a source of information. Maybe you retain a healthy skepticism, but sometimes you let go and let God. <BR/><BR/>This whole debate started because poor lucid said that all things being equal, he thinks an anonymous source of information is less reliable than a known source. That's what Ken wrote, too. I know there are anonymous bloggers who have built up credibility. I know there are known writers who have made shit up. And I know that many of you have legitimate reasons for staying anonymous. But why can't you accept the trade-off?<BR/><BR/>If a newspaper (or a blogger) quotes a "campaign insider" or a "person with knowledge of the situation," to me that's less reliable than one who quotes a named source. I don't get why that's wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-45211522179990365412008-08-01T10:34:00.000-04:002008-08-01T10:34:00.000-04:00I agree with that. But what do you do with your sk...<I>I agree with that. But what do you do with your skepticism? How do you confirm what you read?</I><BR/><BR/>By looking at the writer's record (their other work), taking into consideration other information about the writer that might be pertinent (such as if they got paid by a particular company they're writing about), comparing and contrasting their work w/ other writing on the subject matter - that kind of thing.<BR/><BR/>In grad school I was a TA for a computer literacy course and we did we class on media literacy where we covered this stuff (in the context of sources to cite for research papers, etc) - but I think there should have been an entire course devoted to it, and more people (not just college students) should be educated in media literacy.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-77872280022478641922008-08-01T07:54:00.000-04:002008-08-01T07:54:00.000-04:00I agree with that. But what do you do with your s...I agree with that. But what do you do with your skepticism? How do you confirm what you read?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-64721403108552292342008-08-01T07:36:00.000-04:002008-08-01T07:36:00.000-04:00And I don't understand this double standard on lum...<I>And I don't understand this double standard on lumping everyone together. If its unfair to denigrate all bloggers because of Andre, why do you denigrate all newspapers because of Jayson Blair and his friends?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I don't advocate for denigration but rather for healthy skepticism - of all content re: politics, law, etc. regardless of medium.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-25540176992836105972008-08-01T07:20:00.000-04:002008-08-01T07:20:00.000-04:00No, I think lucid's point is different -- or at le...No, I think lucid's point is different -- or at least mine is. The name makes a difference because the person is more likely to be accountable, which is what makes it more credible.<BR/><BR/>And I don't understand this double standard on lumping everyone together. If its unfair to denigrate all bloggers because of Andre, why do you denigrate all newspapers because of Jayson Blair and his friends? <BR/><BR/>Look, if I need some work done on my house, I can use the guy at the business recommended by my home warranty company or I can use the guy who knocks on my door offering to do some odd jobs. I have no idea at the outset who is better -- the guy walking door to door may be an excellent handyman, and the guy from the service may be a thief -- but one thing the service guy has is accountability: I know where to find him, and if he does a bad job or something wrong he could lose his job, or his company could lose business, or the home warranty company could cut its ties with him. The guy who knocks on the door could just disappear, never to be heard from again. This may be an imperfect analogy -- aren't they all -- but to me the guy who I can identify, the guy with something to lose, and the guy who has an organization with even more to lose behind him, is more credible at the outset. And the fact that some legit companies do crappy work or cheat their customers or steal their jewelry doesn't change that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-23936234724995221922008-07-31T23:39:00.000-04:002008-07-31T23:39:00.000-04:00As for anonymity, I'm only arguing one simple poin...<I><BR/>As for anonymity, I'm only arguing one simple point: All other things being equal, if you know who someone is you're more likely to believe what they say, because they are more accountable.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly, which proves the point Grift, Sara, and I are making: it's not about the NAME, it's about the PERSON - knowing who they are, what their affiliations are, their history, etc. When you know that stuff, it doesn't matter if their byline is their given name or a pen name. So you just proved our point.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-47698530925799504922008-07-31T23:38:00.000-04:002008-07-31T23:38:00.000-04:00I think one thing we're arguing about is that espe...I think one thing we're arguing about is that especially nowadays it's laughably disingenuous to trust a newspaper "just because." I think traditional media outlets know that they'll be given that kind of credibility out the door and they've taken advantage of it, and had some really epic failures that I'm surprised more people aren't affronted at.<BR/><BR/>Also, re: opinions, that reminds me of something I read the other day, talking about how there's nothing new about getting paid for an opinion. Tradtional media outlet have had opinion columns forever. But that's kind of a tangent.Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-35190558684217488342008-07-31T23:32:00.000-04:002008-07-31T23:32:00.000-04:00It's not that we don't understand "the online worl...It's not that we don't understand "the online world," it's that we don't know how to make money off it in the amounts the business is used to.<BR/><BR/>How's that going for you guys?<BR/><BR/>As for anonymity, I'm only arguing one simple point: All other things being equal, if you know who someone is you're more likely to believe what they say, because they are more accountable.Lucid Idiocyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10944213596158450338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-33506665250882347502008-07-31T20:25:00.000-04:002008-07-31T20:25:00.000-04:00Heck, Sara -- kos uses about as much of his full n...Heck, Sara -- kos uses about as much of his full name as you do. I have no idea what Digby's real name is. And you have "full credibility" with me. I have nothing against bloggers, and I'm not sure how I somehow got turned into the Emissary From Old Media here.<BR/><BR/>All I'm saying is that, to me, all things being equal, a person who doesn't sign his or her name has less initial credibility than someone who does. I don't see what's so wrong with that. I understand there is a long tradition on the Internet of using handles. There's also a long tradition in the world of "come over here and say that to my face."<BR/><BR/>Talking about factual reporting and not opinion, I do trust what I read in the paper I've never read before more than on a blog I've never read before. That's because I believe that it is most likely that the item in the paper was reported by someone who was committed to the principles of accuracy and objectivity and getting multiple sources and so on. Maybe it wasn't -- I don't know. But that reporter has a lot to lose by not being that committed -- a job, the respect of peers, and not least the ability to ever talk to that source again. The editors have similar incentives, even if they don't believe in those principles as a rule (and I think most do), so they serve as a backstop. Let me tell you about trying to go back to a police detective the day after you write something he's not happy with -- it's not easy. <BR/><BR/>I think this may go to your point, Amber. It's not that a name tells me everything about a person. It just creates a further incentive to get things right.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm not really sure what we're arguing about. Sara, what credibility is it that you're seeking? From what I gather, you write mostly about your life and share your thoughts on issues. Obviously, you have total credibility on those points. But if you were to all of a sudden write that some local government official had taken a bribe, should your story be given the same accord as an AJC or Loaf story that says the same things? I have no idea what kind of standards you have for that kind of thing (though I assume they are high -- I'm just using you as an example). I also have no idea if you're a supporter of her opponent. There are bloggers who do this kind of reporting, and I'll tell you that the fact that the folks from firedoglake go on CNN and discuss their reporting goes a long way with me.<BR/><BR/>So, really, I understand why you all use handles or are semianonymous, and that's fine. Sara, you obviously have a very good reason. But I don't see why -- all things being equal -- it's wrong for me to look a little more askance at information from someone who doesn't put a name to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24847601.post-84639575969088569142008-07-31T18:41:00.000-04:002008-07-31T18:41:00.000-04:00Also Mike, to clarify above the "just not getting ...Also Mike, to clarify above the "just not getting it" ws in refernce more to lucid idiocy - but yeah, on it's own, I would probably take your first comment as "not getting it" too (without your later comments)Amber Rheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02109708537597646450noreply@blogger.com