‘Ethics and Interactivity’ at the Post
25 January 2006 11:38 am by Taylor Marsh
"Ethics and Interactivity" at the Post
Jim Brady: Deborah has chosen for the time being not
to any live discussions, but we’ve talked about it, and you’ll see her on
here at some point.Jeff Jarvis: I’ll push the transparency button: Why
not? I worked with Deborah (at my last job). She is, indeed, tough. So I don’t
believe she fears this; I wouldn’t make that simplistic assumption. So I have
to believe she has a reason she believes is good for avoiding live interaction.
What is it?
We never learned the answer to that question. Why wasn’t Deborah
Howell on the panel? That she wasn’t says so much.
Frankly, I also found it very interesting that Glenn Reynolds
was on the panel. He doesn’t even take comments and does his blog as a "hobby."
He also used the event to take a crack at DailyKos and Atrios. He swiped at
LGF, but almost as a painful aside.
Jane came back to address the crux of the Post’s problem.
Alexandria, Va.: I think washingtonpost.com has learned
that a week is a long time in internet time. Will WaPo be reconsidering leaving
misleading content uncorrected on the internet? Has a correction been appended
to Deborah’s original column?Jane Hamsher: A lot of the uproar came as we wwaited
for that to happen. The last time I looked no correction has been appended
to her original column.This is the ombudsman, it’s her job to respond to reader
criticism. They set up a system where readers could respond to her column
instantaneously and she refused to address those concerns.That she continues to play the victim only throws fuel
on the fire.
But the one thing Jim Brady and the Post did not want to talk
about was the Abramoff scandal, which is what
got Deborah Howell in trouble in the first place.
Jane wanted to get into specifics, get answers, talk about why
the Post took down the comments.
Anonymous: Could Mr. Brady please tell us what the
Washington Post means by the term "hate speech"? I am confused as
to how it differs from a personal attack. Does saying I hate Ms. Howell’s
writing or lack of journalistic integrity qualify as hate speech? The Post
seems to be using this term in a political sense; it seems to be something
beyond the "personal attacks" or obscene language that The Post
also cites as unacceptable within its Comments.Jane Hamsher: "Hate speech" is a very specific,
loaded term, and since the Post has so far refused to release any of the comments
that could be thus characterize they insist we take their word for it. Are
they referring to what Ed Gillespie calls "hate speech?" There are
any number of people who have managed large online communities (though none
of them here) who deal with these problems every day. Kos (of DailyKos) says
"I would challenge them to release the emails and messages that were
so abusive that it gave them the vapors. On DailyKos, hidden comments are
still visible to trusted users. Transparency goes a long way toward verifying
that censorship is being responsibly managed."
What she got in return was very telling.
Jane Hamsher: There is a big difference between
"several" and "hundreds." Is it a "dozen" as
Strauss said, or "hundreds" as Brady said in the Hugh Hewett interview?I think Jim Brady owes us some specifics.
Jim Brady: I don’t know the exact
number, but I can assure you it was more than dozen. I removed about 50 myself.And, Jane, since you obviously don’t want to
discuss the topic at hand and would instead prefer to play Columbo, let me
pose a question to you: I looked at your blog last night in preparation for
this, and in addition to all the nice things you had to say about me, I noticed
that you often link to "WaPo" articles that are critical of the
Bush Adminstration and give them your implied endorsement. But then when we
publish something that doesn’t fit into your worldview, we’re called "shills
of the GOP." Which is it? You can’t have it both ways, but you seem to
want to.
Jane didn’t answer the question and no wonder. That is so much
bunk it’s hard to know where to start. It’s like asking, Why do you read Froomkin,
but skip Charles Krauthammer? It’s not about the Post supporting anyone’s world
view. It’s that sometimes the Post gets their facts wrong because the person behind the article has an agenda, because they’re on the side of the Bush administration. This should not come as news
to anyone.
The media has not kept a critical eye on Bush, his administration,
or even the Republican Congress, from the beginning. Now they’re defensive and are facing a pissed off public, so they don’t know how to react. So, instead of facing the music, they hide, which only makes matters worse.
But at the end of it all, we still don’t know the answer to the
one question that matters. Why didn’t Deborah Howell show up for this event? It’s the reason journalism is in the sorry ass state that it’s in. It is also illustrative to how the Post got into this mess in the first place.
