Secrets of the City

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Mudslinging in politics?! Whatever has the world come to!

mudslinging in the local blogopshere happens to be the topic on tonight’s Almanac. I’ll be on there along with Michael Brodkorb (Minnesota Democrats Exposed) and a U of MN Poli Sci professor.

Isn’t Michael Brodkorb’s 15 seconds up yet? I mean, Matt Entenza was sooo last week.

When a political opponent does it, it’s called (despicable) “mudslinging”. When the media does it, it’s called (award winning) “investigative reporting”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it was bloggers who broke the stories of government wiretapping or torturing prisoners in secret camps around the world. It was newspapers. That’s award winning reporting. I wonder why the Republican attack bloggers didn’t dig those up. With few exceptions, blogging isn’t reporting, it’s commentary. Reporting requires getting out from behind your keyboard and doing more than reacting to something other people have written.

Tom, you’re partly right, but the term “blogging” has turned into such a nebulous term that it can range from pathetic teens sharing the story of their lunch to nobody, to exposing ill-conceived forgeries purporting to be record of GW’s delinquent National Guard service.

Reporting the news isn’t good enough anymore. Thanks to Fox News, we are no longer dogs reined in by the leash of mere liberal media bias. In its place we have the cozy crate of agenda-driven news.

Reporting requires getting out from behind your keyboard and doing more than reacting to something other people have written.

Well said, Tom. Now someone needs to slap some bloggers over the head with that written on a stack of papers to make sure they get the point.

Beware…shameless self promotion plug to follow.

Some bloggers do actually do real reporting of original stories, check the facts, and have journalistic standards.

Seriously, there are many fine bloggers who do more than post their own opinion or just cut and paste news stories into their blog. Unfortunately there are a lot of the other kind.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it was bloggers who broke the stories of government wiretapping or torturing prisoners in secret camps around the world.

You’re right. It wasn’t bloggers who committed treason by providing the enemy with useful information, it was the left-wing press.

I only feel safe behind my keyboard.

Yeah, I forgot it was treason to report when the government was breaking its own laws. Sorry. Hey, Buckwheat, ever read 1984? Or do you just get all your info from Fox?

Well, Fox gets the attention. CNN and MSNBC don’t. While the others put pre-filmed programming on at the middle of the night, Fox will actually be reporting on something happening live.

And they do a better job than CNN or MSNBC of getting multiple views of an issue in front of the public.

There’s a pretty good blog at http://cnnvsfox.blogspot.com/ which chooses similar Fox and CNN stories and compares them. They haven’t updated in awhile, though. But it has good content showing the differences in reporting the two do.

BTW, that’s like asking a computer nerd if they get all their gear at Best Buy. That’s just the last line of defense after you can’t find something online, at General Nano, or CrapUSA/Microcenter.

I feel so “old media” but I don’t get news from any tv sources. It’s the NY Times, Strib, Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker and the Economist on paper at home, and the Wash Post, Slate, and, occasionally LA Times online. Somehow I feel more informed by a 5000 word piece than a minute and a half headline. Also, I couldn’t care less about whose house is on fire, unless it’s mine.

Fox reporting on something live at night? Let’s not forget that most “live” broadcast news is not newsworthy unless something is really breaking like 9/11 or something. “Breaking news” for any station on a regular day usually involves rumors of bombs in buildings, or car chases, which is often painful to watch because essentially nothing happens and the news reporter stutters along finding something important to say. I think CNN is smarter by not paying people to go report on “live overnight news” when it’s not important and no one is watching.

Poor Joe. He has to hired the Keystone Kops to run his re-election campaign! Maybe those arrested zombies in Minneapolis over the last several days can bail him out, if everything comes the worst. HA HA!!

I love Slate. I really wish there were more media outlets that did things the way they do.

and a U of MN Poli Sci professor.

Oooh, oooh is it Larry Jacobs? Please, please, please tell me it’s Larry Jacobs! I totally need more of this one man’s opinion. He’s been in academia long enough to amass a 27-page vita but I really need to hear more of his thoughts on politics. I really hope it’s Larry Jacobs.

My favorite Poli Sci professor is Donald Epps, who is currently over at Century College.

That guy can pack some punches in.

Oh, the stories from his class. They wouldn’t make sense here, you totally have to be in his lectures to experience the awesomeness that is Don Epps. Still, that won’t stop me from posting a few of my favorite quotes:

“Some people say — mind you that I don’t subsribe to this — that there’s something wrong with humans that they fight with each other. After all, you don’t see bees trying to attack and sting each other, do you?”

“Wow, the smell from these new markers are making me a little crazy. Of course, you all would know all about that feeling with the crack pipes you guys all smoke.”

Larry Jacobs actually makes a positive contribution in the political arena. If you’re undecided on an issue you can be sure that whatever Larry says is the wrong answer and you will be correct by doing or believing the opposite.

It’s called the Jacobs Factor (used to be the Wellstone Factor but he’s dead now).

When one accepts anonymous comments, doesn’t that constitute an (at least implied) acceptance of the legitimacy of anonymity in the blog comment setting? Isn’t there, then, some sort of covenant made between blog and commenter that, if the commenter isn’t making physical threats or posting someone’s private information, (i.e., not violating the explicit TOS or societal rules), the blog won’t work to unmask the commenter?

It seems rather dishonorable that DeKlined would search his private IP logs and then unmask one of his/her commenters simply based on partisanship, especially when those comments don’t seem to be any more out-of-line than do most all comments from contra-side-of-the-continuum commenters on any poli-blog.

I would hope that, if a blog only wanted like minds posting supportive comments, it could say so up front, instead of posting a commenter’s personal ID as punishment for “trespassing.” Heck, you can’t even charge someone for trespassing unless the property is marked.

Buckwheat I have no doubt you cheered the news of Wellstones passing/assasination.

You sicken me.

Anyone who watches FOX does it soley because they want rub one off to the NeoCon/Hate Agenda. There is no other reason. That crap is pure unadulterated propaganda of Leni Riefenstahl proportions and excedes any claims the Right have made of a “liberal Media” in the past.

The media never was “liberal” btw. It has always been and will always be a lap dog to power and corporate sponsorship.

Some day a big rain will come and wipe all the conservative scum off the street.

To clarify, we DON’T accept anonymous comments. (Hence the word verification for posting) However blogger accepts people creating their own IDs… so people can try to hide their ID if they wish.

Klinefan was not trying to hide his ID. He was trying to hide his motives. That deserves unmasking. He’s also harassed one other member of dumpkline by publishing not only her name, but employer.

This is not an uncommon tactic with paid Republican bloggers. Michael Brodkorb has attempted to do the same with other anonymous bloggers…quizzing them for their employer’s name. Unless you’re employed by a campaign (as Brodkorb is), who’s business is it really?

Anyone for a cage match between Buckwheat and Raindog66?

I’d pay to see that cat fight!

DeKlined, the word verification only guards against bot-spam, not anon posting. Were I to go on to your site (as, I guess, I did) and make a comment under bobby_b (which is obviously not my real name), I would have commented anonymously. Given that blogger allows this, and you use blogger, you DO accept and thus implicitly endorse anon comments. Were you to out me because of my bobby_b post, I would consider this to be a breach of your blogger/societal contract.

Your philosophical fight with the poster is outside of the scope of my comment. I just think you were treading over a line that you should recognize.

Here’s the line. If you’re attempting to hide who you are because you’re working for a campaign that’s deception. Deception needs to be unmasked. Do you support deception in politics?

Anyone who watches FOX does it soley because they want rub one off to the NeoCon/Hate Agenda.

But I really like “24″ and “The Simpsons” and….oh, you mean FOX NEWS. I dunno, I can usually – almost ALWAYS, even – get through the “Beltway Boys”/“FOX News Watch” hour without touching myself – even though that Jane Hall is one sexy beast. (So’s Mort Kondracke, now that I think about it. Cal Thomas, on the other hand, should have kept the mustache.)

“Deception needs to be unmasked.“

“DeKlined”, (no irony there, huh?), I post about politics under an assumed name because I don’t want people to know who I am. As, I suppose, do you. It just makes things easier. (Heck, a LTE to the Strib, which has to include your real name, always brings at least twenty rather nasty anon responses in the mail.) Is that deception? I don’t think so, when it fits the model of allowable conduct at a blog site. If I signed my name “Ted Mondale”, and tried to convince you that I was he, THAT would be deception. Do I work for a campaign? Yep, almost daily. Offically, for pay? Nope, not at all. Either way, though, I think I retain whatever abilities (I won’t call them rights – they don’t rise to that level) a blog allows to all of its commenters.

Saying “here’s my obvious fake name” is not deception, especially when a blog accepts posts with such signatures constantly. I think you had fun doing this, and would rather not think of what you did as being dishonorable. Maybe we could just walk away, and you try to avoid this in the future while making no admissions here . . .

Since I was totally offtopic in the previous comment…

Maybe the saddest part of this story is that they didn’t find a way to place a hilarious piece of PhotoShoppery within that blog entry.

There’s a big difference between disclosure (as you just did) and deception and implied threats (which Klinefan did). Do you support deception and threats in politics?

Saying “here’s my obvious fake name” is not deception, especially when a blog accepts posts with such signatures constantly

I second this. I actually think there is value in letting people participate anon.

The logic against this seems to be that someone with a “motive” might be able to take a shot at someone else who can not then respond by questioning the attackers motives. To me it is a pretty weak comeback. Just answer the criticism – whatever it is – and move on. If you are going to win an arguement you should be able to do it against an anon opponent.

Implied threats are bad.

There’s deception if you’re on the payroll for someone whom you are anonymously supporting. I think there’s a fair assumption here that we post because we’re interested in the topic; not because we’re paid shills.

Here’s the thing about politics today.

There’s a big difference between disclosure (as you just did) and deception and implied threats (which Klinefan did). Do you support deception and threats in politics?

If I said yes to this, even though I’d be joking and it would be clear to anyone who’s read any of my posts for a length of time that I would be joking my political opposites would go about posting it on their whatever website in an attempt to smear me and gain political points. Rather than see it for what it is – a joke – they’ve become so blinded by hate? ambition? ideology? that they aren’t even real people anymore.

I didn’t bother to read the story that started this thread because I don’t care. But somepeople take this way, way too seriously and have lost their sense of humor and perspective. This guy’s questions set me off on that.

‘klinefan’ didn’t cross any lines, but there’s no such thing as Internet anonymity. If you’re going to astroturf, try to be at least halfway smart about it.

Which one of these folks is Raindog66?

Critics will argue that these fine folks do not represent mainstream liberalism and that Republicans are just as bad.

The views of unhinged liberals are no longer relegated to the private remarks of a few Democrat politicians or the bloviations of a few fringe figures on the far Left. The syndrome is far more pervasive, intense, and sanctimoniously self-delusional than anything on the Right.

Sounds like the kind of thing Raindog66 would be involved in!

Why does EVERY SINGLE THREAD have to get hi-jacked by Raindog66 or hess?

It is making it a lot less enjoyable reading the comments people leave to see them fouled up extreme moonbats and wingnuts who, based on their comments, are bordering on extreme insanity.

JUST STOP TROLLING. Please!

“I actually think there is value in letting people participate anon.”

And what value would that be?

Toring = Troll

’nuff said.

The views of unhinged liberals are no longer relegated to the private remarks of a few Democrat politicians or the bloviations of a few fringe figures on the far Left. The syndrome is far more pervasive, intense, and sanctimoniously self-delusional than anything on the Right.

Sleep well, KKKlansmen. May you reap what you sow.

“You see you piss down people’s throats long enough they RISE UP and fight their Opressors (sic).”

You should one day crawl out of your little urban cocoon and actually visit a place where people are oppressed. That way, you wouldn’t insult them by claiming you are oppressed.

Hate like yours isn’t needed any more than that hate from the right.

You should one day crawl out of your little urban cocoon and actually visit a place where people are oppressed.

Like Eden Prairie?

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”

Let me make a reminder as to what a troll is:

An “Internet troll” or “Forum Troll” is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

I myself run a vBulletin message board, and that have two different features to deal with trolls. You can outright ban them from posting ever again, which locks up the boards to logins from that individual and blocks their IP address. My favorite is “Tachy goes to coventry” which allows the troll to keep posting, but no one can tell they are posting. Tachy is basically a forced ignore feature.

I think what we should all do is ignore the trolls here. After all, it is futile to try to “cure” a troll of his obsession.

Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.

If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter.

Goodbye Raindog66 and Hess!

Well, Toring do you want spirited debate, or endless patter about what place makes the best knish (what the hell is a knish, anyway), geek proms and impromptu pillow fights?

The Rat, you need to try and knish right now. You can buy them from Byerly’s and make them at home, or just get one at Cecils.

There is a difference between trolling and spirited debate.

Spirited debate is a good thing. Trolling is not. Trolling is meant to be inflamatory and insulting. Spirited debate is meant for rational discussion.

Good examples of spirited debate can be found in these threads.

See the difference between what they have going on in their threads and what we have going on in many of ours? They have spirited debate, but they aren’t trying to just rile people up.

Here’s some good information about trolls.

My favorite quote from that page: Trolls – if they had brains, they just might be dangerous!

“The Rat, you need to try and knish right now. You can buy them from Byerly’s….”

Has anyone on this board heard of an activity called cooking?

Toring = Troll with WAY TOO MUCH TIME on her/his hands.

That is all.

Toring isn’t the troll. If you haven’t been able to identify yourself from his posts, you are even more delusional than your lunatic posts are.

And if “that is all” and ” ’nuff said”, why do you keep coming back for more?

Oh right. You’re a troll and just crave attention.

Dudes, those last few were posted on a Sunday! Love yer neighbor.

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”

Whateverthehell that means…..,

Rat-

here’s my good deed of the day-to answer your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

enjoy!

(can’t figure out how to post links from my pda)

I’m familair with Zinn by reputation only. He’s not in my stack of must-reads.

I understand…”Mein Kampf” (sic) can really cut into your summer reading…

j/k!

I understand…”Mein Kampf” (sic) can really cut into your summer reading…

j/k!

(barfs)

Raindog:

I’m invoking Godwin’s Law

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. [1]“

and:

“There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”

You lose.

(barfs)