November 16, 2005

Taking off the Pajamas: now, what do you see?

Kevin Alwyrd is present at the revelation of Open Source Media, the erstwhile Pajamas Media, and he's a little distracted (by one of the speakers), but he "still [doesn't] completely get it." He links to Mike Krempasky ("It’s a pretty flashy event - but I don’t think they’ve done much to explain their business to the attendees") and Jeff Jarvis ("Now I’m even more confused").

Jeff Goldstein is live- fake-blogging the event beginning with a trip to the hotel bar:
I found Tim Blair, Roger Simon, and Ed Driscoll bunched around a small table near the restrooms. Ed and Roger were nursing Gibsons, while Tim (who at 5’1" is much shorter than I thought he’d be) was drinking what looked to be IPA out of a pilsner glass inscribed with the legend, "Bloggers Do It In Their Pajamas." "Heh, cool," I said, motioning to Tim’s glass. "You have those made up for the launch?" "What do you think, genius?" Blair asked, not looking up. "I maybe had it printed up special for myself?"
Would you drink a fluid out of something that said "Bloggers Do It In Their Pajamas"? I think of bodily fluids. But no matter, now the bloggers can do it in their Open Source Media. Or as somebody already quipped: Open Sores Media. Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise.

UPDATE: Did they notice the "Open Sores" pun? I see that back in June, Roger L. Simon raised the question of what to rename Pajamas, and "Open Source" came up in the second comment, got repeated a few times, and then drew this:
Open Sores News--
"Band Aiding the World"
So they had to know the joke was there.

But what do you think of the new Open Source site? Is it fun to use and workable? I notice a lot of flabbiness in the writing. The home page currently features this block of text to draw us into the blog opinion on a top news story:
The historic Gaza border deal reached yesterday between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor), brokered by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in marathon negotiations, has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned. Blogger Joshuapundit seems quite unhappy: he says that Israel was pressured by Rice, the Eurooean Union's Javier Solana and Middle East special envoy John Wolfensohn to accept the agreement with little, if any, safeguards. The deal, whose full text can be found at the State Department website, would allow Palestinian authorities to take control of the border between the Gaza strip and Israel, notably in Rafah, and would open links with the West Bank. Both Time and the Washington Post have all the behind the scenes details on how the agreement was reached. War to Mobilize Democracy is "nervous" about security, but notes that the deal will ease the international pressure on Israel; Heavy-Handed Politics write that history makes them simply skeptical. On the other side, Anything They Say not only cautiously welcomes the new situation, but is pleasantly surprised by Rice's deal making skills, at least compared with her "terrible performance as National Security Advisor."
"Has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned"? You'd think they'd write their very first sentence crisply!

And why should anyone care what these bloggers think? Who are they? Unless you're already sold on blogging, the teasers are laughable: "Blogger Joshuapundit seems quite unhappy," "War to Mobilize Democracy is 'nervous,'" Anything They Say "is pleasantly surprised."

There's nothing snappy or exciting in any of that, no sense that these bloggers are likely to come out with anything more interesting than whoever was sitting next to you in the living room where you watched the evening news.

"Eurooean," "Heavy-Handed Politics write" -- so much for professionalizing the image of blogging.

And this on the day when you are asking for attention, trying to hook new people.

ANOTHER UPDATE: If I were an insider to OSM, would I mock them like this? Isn't much of the value of bloggers that we are on the outside? Rolling up together in a group to make money -- is that worth the sacrifice of independence? Everyone who signed on is now stuck with the presentation on that website that we were not able to see when we were asked to sign on to 18-month commitments.

STILL MORE: I'm told Jeff Goldstein wasn't even at the OSM launch, which surprises me, because I began reading it on the OSM home page under their heading "live-blogging." That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service. Aren't ordinary people being asked to trust the OSM portal?

Also, Charles Johnson linked to this post to note my bad taste -- the "fluids" wisecrack -- and this set off his commenters who just started wildly insulting me -- hilariously assuming I'm a big lefty and using lots of bad taste insults against me. How does that make sense? If they are outraged at my bad taste, as Charles suggests they be, then why aren't the comments primly proper? They must be insulting me because they assume I'm a lefty. Ha, ha. Somebody tell Armando! Anyway, Charles's fans end up hurting him on the day when he is trying to make an impression as an elder statesman of blogging, by making his site look all trashy. And the irony is priceless: he is complaining about my bad taste. Yet "semen" and "pus" are both perfectly sound English words, not slang at all, and pointing out literary images is quite high tone.

AND NOW THIS: Wonkette links, and it's not to the semen-pus thing.

THURSDAY MORNING: One day after the launch, Jeff Goldstein's fake-live-blogging is still the only blog post quoted on the home page, under the heading "BEST OF THE BLOGS." In all this time, that's all they've found? The highlighted post ends with this line: "Or as my friend Bill Bixby once said to a French prostitute (god rest his soul), 'bonjour, you plump little tart!'" How they can think it's a good idea to open the site with such writing? Who does that appeal to? And if it didn't appeal to you yesterday morning, but you kept going back to give them another chance, what would you think? The site is stupefyingly inactive and as yet devoid of sharp commentary. There is only this obscure insider humor about the founders of the site getting drunk and talking about a prostitute.

129 comments:

Icepick said...

Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise.

Maybe they can put that in their banner ads!

Incidentally, is that the grossest thing Ann has written on this blog?

Paul said...

I'm sticking with your consensus. Anyway, we drink wine on podcast night.

Ann Althouse said...

Icepick: I thought it was quite elegant!

Nick said...

Apparently I'm not the only one doubtful of how well OSM will do.

JSU said...

Uh, Ann, you realize that Goldstein's posts are jokes, right?

Icepick said...

It was very elegant, but also disgusting!

The best part of Jarvis's article was this bit, covering one of the OSM panel discussions:

And now they’re entering into a politics panel with the oh-so-fresh question: Who’s a blogger?

Perhaps they should have called it Brigadooon Media.


LOL!

Icepick said...

Okay, I'm a little confused. Open Sores Media is someone else's crack. Was the line right after that yours, Ann, or someone else's?

Ann Althouse said...

JSU: Well, yeah. But he is actually there, I think.

Verification word: poopk. No kidding!

Icepick: Yes, the last line was mine. Somebody else said "Open Sores Media."

erp said...

Ann, put quotes around Jeff's "live" blogging the launch and If you haven't read his "live" blogging at the Republican presidential convention, you're in for a treat.

Icepick said...

After reading the posts about the festivities in NYC, it sounds like OSM is already just another ossified media institution. Or is that just me?

And looking at their current headline story (www.osm.org) on the new Gaza border deal doesn't help.

The historic Gaza border deal reached yesterday between Israel and the Palestinian Authority .... has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned.

Okay, so the Israeli government and the PA are up for the deal, but now that the blogs are against it, it's doomed to fail!

Right out of the gate, they're more arrogant than the New York Times! Can OSMSelect be far behind?

Jacques Cuze said...

Where did you see the "Open Sores" mention? I've only seen it on a few left wing blogs myself.

anne said...

Ann, I don't believe he's there at all. It's all his peculiar brand of bizarro blogging, such as he did for the GOP convention (and which Salon thought was real, just as the Philly Inquirer thought this post was initially real).

Mark Daniels said...

Now, I don't feel as stupid as I did before. When I read the explanation of Open Source Media on their web site, I was completely confused. I listened to their proceedings on RealPlayer for a few moments (it's all I could spare while working on other things) and still didn't get it.

I'm happy to know that I'm not alone.

(Did you allow some fourteen year old access to your blog? That seems to be the likeliest explanation for the last several lines of this post.)

Allah said...

Ann -- Jeff isn't at the OSM launch.

Jacques Cuze said...

Careful Ann, I think you may be violating their copyright:

2. Our Site and all its contents, which includes, but is not limited to, text, graphics, photographs, logos, video and audio content, is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. All individual components of Our Site, including, without limitation, articles, content and other elements comprising Our Site are also copyrighted works. Additionally all of the weblogs linked to by us are likewise protected. You must abide by all additional copyright notices or restrictions contained on this site and our linked weblogs.

3. You may not reproduce, distribute, copy, publish, enter into any database, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this site. The only exceptions to this are that you may download material from Our Site for your own personal use, provided such download is limited to making one machine readable copy and/or one print copy that limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. No other use of the content of Our Site is permitted.

Jacques Cuze said...

And I do apologize, I may have just violated their copyright by posting that excerpt here. If the copyright police come by and tackle you, please let me know, I will pay to have your clothes dry cleaned.

Jacques Cuze said...

verification word: fvtuckq.

To which I grumble, tuckq2.

Ann Althouse said...

Quxxo: Thanks. More evidence that they don't quite get blogging.

reader_iam said...

Speaking as a former editor in the "noospaper" biz and current assistant editor of a quarterly foreign-policy journal: If that excerpt cited by Icepick is supposed to be the "lede," I say, "Yuck!"

Even if it's not, what a clunker. It certainly doesn't make ME want to abandon traditional media, despite the flaws.

(And yeah--I know I make lots of typos in my comments for an editor. Somehow, my mindset is different, maybe because doing this strikes me as more like having a conversation, and I have OFTEN said to newbie writers, back in the day, "You don't want to write the way I talk!")

peter hoh said...

Just looked at the OSM website. That photo of Condi sure looks bad. Isn't this the crew that went nuts because a USA Today (?) online photo of Condi looked bad?

gm said...

Well, aren't you the arrogant tit?

Ann Althouse said...

Allah: "Jeff isn't at the OSM launch." Well, then I think it's really weird that the OSM home page had a heading saying "live-blogging," under which the text of Jeff's blog post began. That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service, with a completely misleading heading. Does OSM mean to be the Onion or a real news service? I don't see how you can mix these things like that. Ordinary people who don't know these bloggers yet are supposed to start at the OSM portal, right? I had to assume Jeff was really there, much as I could see he was doing some humorous take. You know Tim and Roger and that other guy aren't exactly celebrities. It seems really unprofessional to send us to a post lampooning them, when we the readers don't know or even care who they are.

Icepick said...

GM, wrong thread. That would belong here:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/11/obscure-comment-of-day.html#comments

leah said...

Bitter, bitter, bitter.

leah said...

Bitter, bitter, bitter.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

I've got to say, Ann, that the notion that Charles Johnson and Glenn Reynolds "don't quite get blogging" is just a little jarring.

Old Dad said...

Ann,

I'm with Charlie (Colorado). I'm not sure just how much there is to "get" about blogging, but it's hard to see how Charles and Roger don't have a pretty fair understanding of this black art.

Sissy Willis said...

Hell hath no fury . . .

cincinnatus said...

Ann, as a lawyer, you'll appreciate this: Open Source Media is already in use as an online media source -- here, http://www.radioopensource.org. Ca you say trademark infringement? Not sure if they registered the tradedmark, but regardless they use the mark in commerce which qualifies as an ureg'd trademark. . . . this sounds like an open-and-shut case under the Lanham Act.

By the way for the commenters who say that Glenn Reynolds and Charles Johnson are somehow the model bloggers: I guess if calling anyone who disagrees with teh war in Iraq or who questions our leader's assertions in late 2002, early 2003, a traitor (i.e. Glenn) or someone who consistently libels an entire religion of one billion people are the model of good bloggers than I would not want to be a model blogger or want to read any model blogs.

Knemon said...

Uh-oh, Professor. You made the Grand Lizard mad.

Apparently you've "jumped the shark" - a phrase which has itself, of course, jumped the shark by now.

playah grrl said...

lol, sissy.
;-)
mmm...Ann, and Den-Beste-sama, and these other slightly bitter cynics kinda remind me of that baleful Peggy Noonan essay, the one about the wheels falling off. i think OSM is just a way of organizing information and letting the bloggers get some advertising bucks off of it. An information server, like google, for instance. (hmmm...i sure wish i'd bought that IPO);-)
the blogverse is organic and robust and it will evolve to deal with this. honest.
i think it will be wildly successful.

playah grrl said...

cinncinatus, den-beste-sama has already covered the trademark angle.
second entry here

Ann Althouse said...

Charlie (Colorado) said: "I've got to say, Ann, that the notion that Charles Johnson and Glenn Reynolds "don't quite get blogging" is just a little jarring."

Well, so much of this has been sold on those names, but I don't really think they set up the web page or wrote that block paragraph, or the copyright warning, or put Jeff's fake live-blogging under the heading live-blogging, etc. etc.! I'm pointing to specific things and all you say is but Glenn and Charles are really good. Engage with the actual criticisms, why don't you?

Ann Althouse said...

playah grrl said. "i think OSM is just a way of organizing information..."

Which is why we ought to look at how they are organizing information and talk about whether it's good. As for making money, I make more without them, so I don't feel a sense of lose in that regard. I rejected their offer because I would have lost money on it.

JP said...

Comments to the LGF thread are pretty funny, in the pathetic sort of way. They seem to think Ann is a 'moonbat' - that is, part of the Cindy Sheehan crowd. Ha!

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks, Jason. Well, I'm getting a lot of traffic from that link, so, what the hell? They seem to be slowly figuring out who I am. It's funny that my slightly gross joke upset them, but then the used all the words they could think of to call me names. It's funny that Charles is supposed to be lending gravitas to the OSM project when his site seems like such a cesspool, at least in the comments. And it's really dumb to think that anyone who criticizes OSM must be a lefty. I think there's an awful lot of desperation about the project.

nada said...

Over at Dennis's

"Well, all I can say is reality has gone well beyond anything I can make up.

Here's the latest...

It appears that Pajamas Media's morph into Open Source Media ain't gonna be an Open Source Media morph for long. That's because there already is an Open Source Media operating in the media industry.

Selected comments from the Open Source Media post I put up yesterday should suffice:

From MisterMark:

According to Atrios/Eschaton, Open Source Media may already be trademarked by Chris Lydon in Boston. If that is true, some of the money raised by Simon and friends may quickly be going to their attorneys.
From Steven Den Beste:

I think this may be the first time in history that I actually enjoyed following a link to a post by Atrios.
Didn't anyone at PJM bother with a trademark search before they announced their new name?

From Seth Finkelstein:

Chris Lydon has a "service mark" for "Open Source". It's serial number 78582544 , look it up on http://www.uspto.gov/
Word Mark OPEN SOURCE
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, a continuing series of audio programs about current events and culture via radio and global computer networks. FIRST USE: 20050428. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050428
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Design Search Code
Serial Number 78582544
Filing Date March 8, 2005
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) Lydon McGrath, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 7 Webster Road Milton MASSACHUSETTS 02186
Attorney of Record Michael Melford
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

From Seth, again:

Ah, here'a link with more details, it's in-process
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78582544

From Steven, again:

It turns out that their trademark is "OSM". The logo uses "Open Source Media" as a motto beneath that. You can see it at the top of this page.
There's no way that this is not infringement of Lydon's trademark. It's much too similar, and they're competing in exactly the same market with essentially the same kind of product.

And again:

This seems to be Charles/Roger's registration.
I wonder if they assumed that the USPTO did an infringement search automatically, and assumed that USPTO wouldn't grant them the trademark if it did infringe someone else?

That isn't how it works. Defense of a trademark is up to the person who owns it, and if they don't defend it they lose it. That's why it's very likely that Roger and Charles are going to be hearing from Lydon's lawyer as soon as Lydon himself hears about this.

Here's BTD Venkat:

The USPTO does conduct an infringement search and usually catches potentially conflicting marks. (An application takes a while to cycle through and OSM's application isn't even in process.) When presented with a conflicting registration or even a pending application the applicant has an opportunity to explain away the conflict. The Examining Attorney then makes the call and either issues the mark or rejects it.
You're right, Lydon's lawyer will be touching base with OSM soon I'm sure.

And Seth, again:

Steven: The links to the full records are only session links, they expire after a few minutes.
The OSM application status link should work, though the server is acting badly now:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78738751

All I can say is what I've been saying for a month now...

THOSE BOYS ARE WINGING IT!

Note To Jim Koshland and/or Aubrey Chernick:

Time to call Roger..."

Send in the clowns, er, the lawyers. (No offense Ann--my favorite lawyer!)

tefta said...

I don't get it. If the concept is so revolutionary, either it hasn't been explained very well, or it's too complicated for my limited mental ability. The website is pretty ordinary, no fabulous graphics or new concepts. Ads along the right hand column. No option for reader's comments.

The editorial board will decide what stories to feature and who will be asked for comments? Whoa? Right now I pick what I think are the big stories and I surf around to read what bloggers I like have to say about them and that's not likely to change.

Another thing I don't understand. What advantage is there to being a member blog. The new entity seem to like control and bloggers by definition, don't want to be controlled. So now what? Will the editorial board seek to control content? If they're appealing to advertisers, they will have to guarantee the product.

I wonder what kind of an agreement blog members signed? Will they be able to withdraw from the OSM should they not like having their blogs edited by that expensive all encompassing editorial board.

This may prove very entertaining.

Icepick said...

Comments on the LGF thread are actually more on the clueless side.

Sample: Its nice to know that our political/social opponants keep things on an up-and-up level, intellectually speaking.

-and-

Ann Outhouse is a bile stool of the left.

Yep, Ann's one of them crazy left-wingers, maaaan! That's why she voted for Bush and supports an aggresive foreign policy! Un, wait a minute. That's not right. Or, uh, it IS Right, but not, you not, right. Uh, where was that shark again?

And this from one Jammie WearingFool: Does this dumb slut realize the left is well represented at OSM?

I guess not. Typical ill-informed invective from a Berkeley house whore.


The fact that none of Ann's criticism had anything to do with the political slate of the enterprise escaped them. I guess it's pointless to mention that the last sentence managed to get, let me count 'em, SIX things wrong!

1 & 2 & 3: "Typically ill-informed invective..." Well, Ann isn't exactly typical, she isn't ill-informed (See her Alito postings, for example) and her post didn't contain anything worthy of the term invective.

4: Mis-identifies Ann as being from Berkeley.

5 & 6: Mis-identifies Ann's profession and work location.

Yikes, you'd better not tangle with these types again, Ann. The ability to pack that much negative information into that compact a statement is frightening!

playah grrl said...

Ann,

I make more without them

now you do. ;)

Emcliff, OSM is the trademark, not Open Source Media, Inc. (Chris' logo)
there will have to be litigation to decide if it's infringement, and that would have to brought by Chris.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm considering putting "Typical ill-informed invective from a Berkeley house whore" in the banner, what do you think?

Aaron said...

Ann, I think that is a great idea :)

RWB said...

Count me as a fellow OSM skeptic, Ann.

If Blogs Run Free

Fresh Air said...

Ann--

First off, I wouldn't necessarily grade OSM on its first day. Second, you're out of your tree if you don't think these guys "get" blogging. These guys not only understand it, they have come up with a first in the annals of blogging (excluding "bleg" sites like Andrew Sullivan's): a model that will make money.

Okay, I'll grant you that post they put on Page One this morning was a little flabby. But are you telling me when Austin Bay or Cathy Seipp or Eugene Volokh writes a "special to OSM" that it will be turbid or turgid?

As for Jeff Goldstein, who ever knows what the hell he's talking about? It was probably an error to host a vast inside joke on the homepage, however.

All in all, I think the idea is great. It will evolve. And it will vacuum up traffic like the Miele Dog and Cat.

DennisThePeasant said...

If you do, Ann, I'm pretty sure you'll be violating a Markos trademark.

You don't want KOS and LGF mad at you at the same time, do you?

Aaron said...

I'd take the high ground and change the banner to Outhouse. Although, I suspect that ProfA experienced this joke frequently in middle school and it may still be a tender spot.

Re: OSM - it is too early to say if they are Air America and Time Select or The Huffington Post - all had mixed reviews and rocky beginnings.

The most interesting thing they have talked about was marshalling blogs for on scene journalism of things like natural disasters. At this point that is just all talk - and there are a ton of legal issues if they ask folk to stay in dangerous locales to report for them but don't offer insurance etc. Still, if they can offer some of the editorial and business services an MSM news outlet provide for their journalists this could be something new and possibly profitable.

protein wisdom said...

"I'm told Jeff Goldstein wasn't even at the OSM launch, which surprises me, because I began reading it on the OSM home page under their heading "live-blogging." That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service. Aren't ordinary people being asked to trust the OSM portal?"

Ann -- I was liveblogging the event, just not from New York. Also, I took some license.

Like, for instance, not being in New York...

Charlie (Colorado) said...

I'm sorry, Ann, I guess I mistakenly thought saying they didn't quite get blogging was an actual criticism. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

XWL said...

I'm intrigued by the jobs that a 'Berkeley House' whore would be expected to do.

You'd have to be bisexual, and willing to be transgressed mightily, as well as transgress others aggressively.

You'd have to be comfortable with using, how shall I put this politely, wielding temporary appendages, with both men and women (and bois and grrrls, etc.)

You'd have to be politically aware and refuse to degrade any person of color (unless having you degrade them is some sort of drawn out bit of performance art, then you should allow the acts to be filmed in front of a live audience and broadcast over the school's closed-circuit TV network)

And you'd have to be unionized, cause non-union prostitutes are just plain immoral (whereas union prostitutes are performing a needed social function and should be viewed as the goddesses/gods they truly are)

(that about covers it, I think)

erp said...

Aaron, I just had a dark thought when you mentioned insurance for on-scene journalism -- the reality of life in the 21st century has reared its ugly head.

OSM is an msm wannabe which if it succeeds, will take the light heartedness and silliness out of blogging.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Cincinnatus:

By the way for the commenters who say that Glenn Reynolds and Charles Johnson are somehow the model bloggers: I guess if calling anyone who disagrees with teh war in Iraq or who questions our leader's assertions in late 2002, early 2003, a traitor (i.e. Glenn) or someone who consistently libels an entire religion of one billion people are the model of good bloggers than I would not want to be a model blogger or want to read any model blogs.

Cincinnatus, I'd like to thank you for such a marvelous model of the straw man argument.

(Oh, and along the same lines, Ann, I'm not quite sure how you got from my finding it jarring to see the assertion that Glenn and Charles don't get blogging to the claim that I said that they're "really good." Could you possibly explain the argument there in a little greater detail?)

Aaron said...

I am half convinced that this is a fake blog fight to try and create buzz. An out of character dip into pretty disgusting imagery from ProfA - in synch with another kind of misaprehension of inside Blogging humor by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Everyone acts touchier and complains more than usual to keep the pot boiling. It strikes me that this is just like when Lindsey Lohan is in a car accident coincidently during the press run up to a movie or Tom Cruise wigs out on the Today show - just geekier by an order of magnitude. It is all just a little too convenient. Now we have Protien Wisdom drop in for a cameo. This is a lame online version of a publicity stunt. Or not.

Knemon said...

LGF used to be a very different place, about 30 or so months back.

Sigh. The front page is still useful. Beyond that ... Kos in reverse. Sometimes the opposite of a bad idea is also a bad idea.

Meade said...

Right Wing Bob: Bravo!

Harkonnendog said...

Er, come on Ann- you know that was gross.

"Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise."

There is nothing elegant or pretty about that. I dig your site, and I DON'T agree that you jumped the shark... but you are on a surfboard and there IS a shark nearby...

Just admit you got pwn3d- it is bound to happen to every blogger- and move on. :)

Aaron said...

Knemon - I agree. Charles doesn't spend nearly enough time interacting with his commenters in a way that keeps the tone on his site non-toxic.

I love the front page and used to look at the comments now and again but I haven't bothered in months until this latest flap. I am greatful that someone is doing the exhausting work of archiving together every terror story and a number of adjoining themes. It is good to see one place that tries to look at the war on terror in a unified way.

Unfortunately, I think that there is some element of Nietsche's line "Stare not into the abyss too long or the abyss will begin staring into you" Unrelentingly paying attention to the evil nihilism of Islamofascism and documenting the seeemigly wilfull lack of interest in confronting it by western civilization - as well as a side dish of tracking anti-semitism would make anyone a bit toxic. I think this weakens his message which I largely agree with.

Pete said...

Vying for obscure comment of the day:

Martha Stewart Apprentice begins soon. Can we expect more Apprentice blogging by morning? Please?

Ed said...

Precious... bodily... fluids...

sonicfrog said...

christheprofessor at lgf wrote:

"Well, if she wants to be childish:

Ann Outhouse is a bile bitch.

There, I said it. "

Man, do I feel sorry for any kids this guy is teaching IF he really is a professor. Oh well. One of the good / bad consequences of blogging / trolling is that you are free to express who you really are.

As for Open Source. I'm not sure if I like that term being used in this fashion. As a Linux user and advocate (using SUSE 10.0 even as we speak), open source tends to convey that any one can contribute, copy, and modify the thing as long as:

A) the original author gets credit for their work, and
B) the work in question is not restricted under a standard copyright.

Linux is distributed under the GPL liscence. Written works, such as songs, are published using the Creative Commons liscence. Both of these do not have the restrictions that QUXXO noted, and if you compare the two licenses above with the one that Open Source Media uses, well, it's hard not to conclude that they are not "Open Source" at all.

PS. You should check out the site "Groklaw", which has been documenting the lawsuit between SCO vs IBM... and Novell, and Chrysler, and Autozone, etc. etc. The site get very "lawey". You'll like it.

Meade said...

Hyphenating any word with "-wise" renders inelegant whatever is being written.

Otherwise, swapping semen for pus was damn good comic writing.

Simon Lazarus said...

Swapping semen for pus, bodily fluids-wise.

What class.

Must be one who Clinton came on. Yet this one still hasn't cleaned it off her lips.

sonicfrog said...

Damned. I got "Open Source" scooped by KOS.

Ann Althouse said...

Aaron: "There are a ton of legal issues if they ask folk to stay in dangerous locales to report for them but don't offer insurance etc. " Wow! Great fact pattern for a Civil Procedure exam!

BoneUSA said...

Ann

Your actual criticisms seem to boil down to the fact that OSM is not like your blog. Granted, the passage from OSM that you highlighted is far from elegant prose. But in order to "get blogging," does a blogger have to write "snappy and exciting?" Clearly that's the style of your blog and clearly it works for you.

OSM, equally clearly, is trying something very different. The piece on the Gaza deal is a prime example: take a newsworthy event, link to primary sources (whether MSM or "freelance" blogger), link to analysis, link to blogosphere debates over the analysis, and so on. All in one place, aggregated, and nearly contemporaneous to the event itself. This is a new concept made possible by technology that is still in its infancy. We don't have to wait for the next issue of Newsweek, or the handful of major newspapers and TV networks, all of which have demonstrated fairly lock-step thinking and biases, to explain what's going on in the world. The Gaza post makes this point -- the MSM's reporting of this event is simply a continuation of the "stalled peace process" narrative which, as is known by anyone who watches the Middle East closely (and many of the OSM bloggers do), is completely divorced from reality. However flabby and clunky the writing, on this topic OSM offers access to more informed and rounded information and analysis than any MSM source I have seen.

I agree that OSM is going to have to do a much better job explaining why anyone should care what its bloggers think about anything. But I've been reading several of those blogs for a while and their analysis is often much better than what the MSM offers. Whether OSM can convince newcomers of this remains to be seen, but do keep in mind that this is the first day of this new concept. Many of the OSM participants have reiterated the point that they don't know where the venture is going, that it's uncharted territory, etc.

You did not want to be part of that. Fine. But your criticisms are misguided, because they pertain only to why it wouldn't work for you. Give it a little time and see how things unfold, at least more than one day.

Elizabeth said...

Quxxo's quoting the copyright confirmed my initial skepticism -- what on earth is Open Source about this conglomerate? Open Source is just that, open. Anyone who uses products from sourceforge.net or enjoys works from Creative Commons knows this. Is this some subtle parody of blogging? Or is this group truly that dense? If so, doesn't that problematize the whole conceit of blogging being more clued in than the MSM?

This may be a jumping the shark moment for blogging.

Thermblog said...

swapping semen for pus

I'm unable to get beyond this. I've tried but Ann said it was "elegant." I think someone swapped her lactic polymers with vinegar. (The cheap, white, generic kind.)

Yr. Fthfl. Svnt. said...

"Yet 'semen' and 'pus' are both perfectly sound English words, not slang at all, and pointing out literary images is quite high tone."

I have no idea what difference it's supposed to make that the two words are not slang, but your use of them is not "high tone" (sic)at all; rather, it's patently vulgar and rude, as any well-raised twelve-year-old would know. You can try to sell it as elegant, but that only speaks to your shallowness; besides, no-one referring to "semen" and "pus" in taking a swipe at another's style and presentation can possibly expect to be taken seriously.

Ann Althouse said...

Don't judge it on the first day? But they had a big launch ceremony, essentially saying: hey, wow, look, look, look. If they didn't want to be looked at, if they wanted to ease into it slowly and get their footing and work out the kinks, what they hell were they doing in the Rainbow Room today? And just think how those guys would have mocked anybody else showing off like that and screwing up!

Elizabeth said...

I revise--a jumping the shark moment for rightwing blogs. It's a bit fun to see the spotlight turn to examining the warts on that side of the blogosphere for a change. I've seen so many claims of the high-minded and level-headed nature of the right, and just in time, here come the Little Green Footballers and Joobo and his ilk to remind us that kneejerk idiocy and thoughtless nastiness are unfortunate human traits, not content to devote themselves to one side of the political spectrum.

Matt Barr said...

This is just surreal. Hey, Althouse -- maybe next time you'll think it over harder when you're made a generous offer, heh?

This is sort of like when the New York Times prints disparaging remarks about and sics its fans on Tom Maguire because Maguire won't get in line. But the Times doesn't do that! Well, this is the New Media!

I'm a minor blogger aspiring to climb the ecosystem and heck, yeah! I'm getting all great vibes about Reynolds' and Johnson's outfit today. If I ever get big enough for them to send me a dull and incomprehensible business proposal I know what I have to do to avoid the spitballs from LGF's eighth graders.

amba said...

Sonicfrog: Good point!

Given what "Open Source" really means, their use of it is downright Orwellian!

BoneUSA said...

No one's suggesting they don't want to be looked at. Obviously, a Rainbow Room launch is not a soft-opening (although, I have to say, the Rainbow Room is not what it used to be). But where's the screwup? A bumpy launch party? Because you haven't pointed out any meaningful screwup yet. You don't like the loss of independence joining OSM requires; you believe you'll make more money outside than inside. These are not screwups; again, they are just reasons why you feel OSM wouldn't work for your blog. Your remaining criticisms -- the writing style and need to show that "OSM bloggers are likely to come out with anything more interesting than whoever was sitting next to you in the living room where you watched the evening news" -- are things that will either improve with time or will cause the venture to fail. Pointing out these problems is legitimate. Suggesting that the enterprise is doomed because these problems exist on day 1 smacks of something less than dispassionate observation.

For what it's worth, and you probably already know this, the attacks from the LGF commenters are just plain wrong and make them look foolish.

Fresh Air said...

I agree. Where's the "screw up"? Why all the criticism, exactly? Smells kind of sour to me—like grapes.

nada said...

"But where's the screwup? "

Stealing the name doesn't sound like an auspicious beginning.

MisAnDrope said...

Uh, LGF has to impress someone?

And what was the point anyway?

nypundit said...

Fresh Air: It would only be sour grapes if Ann was not asked to join OSM. If you would bother to do any research, you would know that she had an offer and turned it down because she a)was happy with what blog ads was doing for her and b) she wasn't crazy about the documentatation and other details of OSM.

Steven Den Beste said...

Every once in a while, someone in the blogosphere makes the statement, "We've got to get organized so that we can make a difference!"

And every time I respond, "Why?"

I'm like Ann; I had an offer and didn't accept it. (Given that I'm not even posting regularly about politics any longer, I had to assume they just wanted me for name cred, which is pretty cynical.)

BoneUSA said...

emcliff: yes, the name thing doesn't look good. And as Ann points out, the investors can't be too happy about that.

But what's the significance of the name issue, or the other criticisms of OSM? Does it show that the concept behind OSM, however inchoate, is meritless? That its leadership is so incompetent that OSM is destined to fail? Likely to fail? If we're being reasonable, the answer to all of these is no. Yet Ann's comments about OSM today are infused with a sense of "look at these fools, look how right I was to turn them down." And the "screwups" simply don't support the "fools" part of that sentiment (turning them down was Ann's prerogative and there is no right or wrong to that decision).

For some reason this whole thing has been taken very personally by Ann. Pajamas Media's business proposal was received as a personal affront. Now Ann gleefully transforms superficial and correctible problems into harbringers of failure. The rigorous objective analysis that is applied to other topics on this blog is nowhere to be found on this one. Weird.

protein wisdom said...

"I'm like Ann; I had an offer and didn't accept it. (Given that I'm not even posting regularly about politics any longer, I had to assume they just wanted me for name cred, which is pretty cynical.)"

Not sure if it's "cynical" exactly, Steve. More like Bill Veeck putting Satchel Paige in a rocking chair in the Cleveland bullpen in the late 40s. A treat for some of the old-timers, and a novelty item for some of the new kids just beginning to follow the game.

Marketing is inherently cynical; why show such a profound lack of grace? I really expect more from you.

****
Incidentally, to correct an error in one of Ann's updates: OSM didn't list my post under a section called "Liveblogging the Pajamas...". Instead, they listed it under under "Best of the Blogs." MY title was "Liveblogging" etc.

From where I'm sitting, it shows that they can laugh at themselves -- even on launch day.

nada said...

"Does it show that the concept behind OSM, however inchoate, is meritless? That its leadership is so incompetent that OSM is destined to fail? Likely to fail? If we're being reasonable, the answer to all of these is no."

The name thing is today's glitch in a long line of glitches. A pattern. One that doesn't inspire confidence. It is amateur hour. More importantly what is it that they are trying to do? Forgive me but I still don't understand and whose fault is that? After all I have loyally read all of their announcements and spent a good deal of time today at their site. If I want the Belmont Club I'll go to the Belmont Club directly. If I want a list of A.P. articles I'll go to the A.P. If I want a list of morning reads I'll go to Real Clear Politics. Different people will make different decisions. Go different places. When a story breaks I'll be lead through the blogosphere by the bloggers I read linking to one another. The thing about OSM is that there is really no reason for it. It isn't a question of failing or not. The question is that there is no reason to succeed.

(And it feels like they are trying to make a quick buck. And that ticks me off to no end.)

nada said...

emphasis on "quick"

Icepick said...

Strangely, I don't see the purported bitterness on Ann's part. She noticed that other people had been making a joke of the name, and in a fit of wicked inspiration followed through on the joke.

Ann has made some other criticisms. She's just commenting on an issue of the day. Hardly a surprise! But there hasn't been much evidence of rancorousness on her part. (For that go to Dennis the Peasant's site. Now there's a guys grinding an ax.) Now if you want to piss Ann off, tell her that Florida has better weather than Wisconsin: THEN you will see blood spilled!

And BoneUSA, the name thing looks like a disaster. They have completely screwed up by using someone else's copyrighted name. I thought right-wingers were supposed to be fans of property rights. Or is it that they didn't bother to see if someone else was using the name? That doesn't look real good either, given that $3.5M is being sunk into the operation.

So, it appears they're either incompetent, or don't give a damn about who they step on. Not a great list to choose from, is it?

vnjagvet said...

I admire the entrepreneurial spirit shown by the OSM venture.

Like many such enterprises, there are significant pitfalls in trying to be the first.

But you have to start somewhere and be willing to move quickly in order to correct mistakes and to capture a significant marketplace.

OSM should, therefore welcome constructive criticism.

One of the strengths of the Blogosphere is the ability of the audience to assemble a customized daily menu of news and commentary which meets its interest. For example, my daily menu changes with the type of issues in which I have a current interest.

It seems to me that an aggregation of good bloggers all in one place may or may not fit my needs on a daily basis. I will generally check out this site because of the unique Althouse personality and my affinity to the subject matters she chooses.

She is a lawyer as I am. She teaches, I practice. She appreciates the arts as a participant as I appreciate music. Her outlook on legal matters is remarkably similar to mine although she is considerably younger than I am and has a much different background.

I have similarly long admired Roger Simon's blog. He has over the years succeeded there in stimulating civilized comment about controversial issues on his Blog.

He was once a democrat. So was I. He was once a liberal, so was I. Since 9/11, he has reacted to issues of national security in much the same way as I did.

But I think I would be less inclined to visit an aggregation site like OSM to check out the views of Althouse and Simon than I am to visit their individual sites.

I think that is because OSM will not convey their insights in as complete a way as their individual blogs do. Moreover, because their comments attract interesting views, I have an opportunity to react actively to their views rather than merely reading them.

Somehow, that is a more satisfying way to absorb information and formulate my own opinions about things.

I understand why folks would choose to keep their own voices rather than homogenize them on a aggregator like OSM.

I am not sure what these observations mean for the future of OSM, but they do explain why I support the reactions of Althouse and den Beste in declining the opportunity to join this venture at this time, while I also support Roger and Charles in their ambitious endeavor.

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks, Icepick. I think people have latched onto the Ann-must-be-bitter theme because they can't engage on the merits.

Steven, thanks for coming by! Yes, the idea of people needing an organized portal for the internet -- isn't that what AOL was? I like the self-organizing mechanisms of the web. The freedom to link on the basis of what seems good today works well. Pre-linking and then boosting those you've committed to seems so deficient by comparison.

Jeff: About the "live-blogging" title. I read it as their title. I apologize for getting that wrong but have to criticize them for the web design that allowed me to misread it.

Generally, I can't believe I'm getting so much attention for this little post. It's because a lot is at stake, and the hope was that by collecting intimidating names, no one would make fun of them. How dreary!

playah grrl said...

'Kay now.
erp sez--"OSM is an msm wannabe which if it succeeds, will take the light heartedness and silliness out of blogging."
And then Ann sez--"Well, then I think it's really weird that the OSM home page had a heading saying "live-blogging," under which the text of Jeff's blog post began. That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service, with a completely misleading heading. Does OSM mean to be the Onion or a real news service? I don't see how you can mix these things like that. Ordinary people who don't know these bloggers yet are supposed to start at the OSM portal, right? I had to assume Jeff was really there, much as I could see he was doing some humorous take. [ed. riiiiiight]"
puh-leez, Ann, you were p'wnd. be graceful.
my question is, how can OSM be suckin' the joy out of the blogverse when they're still being silly and funnie right on the front page?

And, Den-Beste-kun, how do you know OSM isn't the next layer of emergent behavior in this self-organizing system?

Sorry, you are all waaaaaaay too uptight for me!!
A coolio experiment--so what if it fails? Are either of you invested? Sit back and enjoy the ride.
Why are any of us here? It's supposed to be fun.
;-)

Ben Regenspan said...

Ick, LGF commenters. You have my sympathies. It's actually pretty safe to say you are a total lefty from their perspective...

Dean said...

FYI - The first of the pun "Open Sores" was introduced by Vincent Flanders back in 1999 on his web site http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ and later appeard in his sequel book, "Son of Web Pages That Suck."

Considering the whiney nature of the people Vincnet was poking fun at - I don't think he'd mind its use in this context (though I'll email him to double check).

miklos rosza said...

I don't think Ann's joke was witty. Neither do I think the "Pajamas Media" concept has ever been particularly exciting.

To those who don't know Little Green Footballs, the front page is often worth seeing, it's valuable, but the comments are worthless -- notoriously so.

As long as I'm saying everything on my mind, although I've been a regular reader of the Althouse blog I listened to one podcast and didn't like the "star turn" impression it gave me. I understand that Ann is trying it make it big, to get on television I suppose, and that is fine with me. I sincerely hope she makes it, though I don't much watch that sort of TV.

Jim C. said...

As to the reasons you did not join OSM, they sound reasonable to me and I don't dispute them. And, of course, the success of OSM is not guaranteed.

"If they are outraged at my bad taste, as Charles suggests they be, then why aren't the comments primly proper?"

Why did you make those, um, biological comments in the first place? Think of the LGF commenters as responding in kind. They go further and are not as polished as you, but you opened the door and that's LGF.

"And the irony is priceless: he is complaining about my bad taste."

The pricelss irony here, as I see it, is your complaining about the response in kind.

dzzrtRatt said...

I looked at Open Source and was very disappointed. Considering who was involved, I was surprised to what degree they didn't get it.

Writing for blogs only has the appearance of extreme casualness. You can't really do it unless you edit yourself.

For me, the only large-group blog that seems to work is The Corner, because participation seems so random. The Huffington Post is pretty bad, and she must be grateful to Scooter Libby, who must've driven her traffic that otherwise would've "stayed away in droves." And Open Source is, so far, worse.

LagunaDave said...

I'm only Primordial Ooze in the ecosystem (no blog...) but would it be out of line to suggest that this entire spat is self-defeating and does neither Althouse, LGF or OSM any credit?

Having read some of Ann's comments, both today and in the past, I detect a certain mean-spiritedness. It is certainly not out of bounds to criticize other media - that's what the blogosphere is all about, but it appears to this blog-reader that there is a certain element of mockery and impugning of motives going on which is more likely to generate heat than light. It may well be that Ann has legitimate complaints about her interactions with the proprietors of OSM too. And as others have noted, while LGF is an invaluable archive of information, the LGF commenters (of which I am occasionally one) and the way Charles incites them with his own well-intended, but still unsettling demagogy are often an embarrassment.

Anyway, I hope all concerned will bury the hatchet, agree to disagree (with civility), or do whatever else it takes to stop this from turning into the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. OSM is an interesting experiment, and I wish them well as someone who is tired of being force-fed the MSM's excretions. Constructive criticism from one blogger to others (which Ann did provide, but probably not in the best way) is a good thing.

col said...

"You dare defy me!??

Release the slavering idiots!!!

Muhahahahaha...."

-The Dark Lord of Newts

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Thanks, Icepick. I think people have latched onto the Ann-must-be-bitter theme because they can't engage on the merits.

Oh, Ann, come off it. What "merits" ? You think OSM's site is visually cluttered, you didn't get Jeff Goldstein's joke and you don't like their business model so you didn't sign up. You think a tiny startup ($3.5 million is a tiny startup) shouldn't have typos on the front page. And you think Roger, Glenn, and Charles don't get blogging.

The merits of those criticisms are that some of them aren't silly, but merely banal.

Ann Althouse said...

Oh, Charlie, it's an awful site, and you're admitting it! There is nothing positive to say. You're just proving it.

playah grrl said...

I disagree

teh l4m3 said...

Ha. Open Source Media? Sadly, nyet!

Steven Den Beste said...

If you want to talk about "clutter", load this page of theirs and take a look at the HTML source. At this moment it's 1.1 megabytes long. I did a quick editing pass on it just out of idle curiousity and was able to cut it down to 100K without removing any critical code at all.

I suspect if I recoded it (taking out the gawdawful table they're using and relying on blockquotes instead) I could probably cut another 30K out of it, but I'm not that curious.

I don't know who their HTML "expert" is, but he's a tyro.

protein wisdom said...

I must say, I'm not happy that Ann has chosen to use my post as a proxy for what's wrong with OSM's content.

In the future, I promise to concentrate more on reality show spats and cartoon cats, if that's what it's going to take to win Ms Althouse's critical approval.

And I mean that. Really. It's that important to me.

By the way, Ann is right: Jim really DOES rule! And Amanda crying? -- glad I wasn't the only one HOWLING over that!

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Oh, Charlie, it's an awful site, and you're admitting it! There is nothing positive to say. You're just proving it.

No, Ann, my actual criticism is that you keep snarking about people not responding to your actual criticisms and then you have to resort to misstatement (no, I didn't say Glenn and Charles are "really good", I suggested they had some idea about this whole blogging thing) or silly straw men (no, I didn't "admit its an awful site," I said that your whinging about the site was silly, vapid, and boring) to try and defend your position. I don't actually have a lot to say about OSM, but then I have yet to address anything about OSM at all. I'm addressing your comments.

What is up with this that has you so disturbed?

Palladian said...

You're right, Mr Goldstein, it's shameful that a mere frivolous female dare inflict her criticism, serious or not, upon weighty intellectual men such as yourself and the august editorial board of OSM. This weird little episode just proves my worst suspicions of the danger of projects like OSM: it has, almost overnight, changed some of the bloggers involved into the same defensive, opaque entity as the mainstream media they once skewered so effectively.

Viva L'independence.

protein wisdom said...

Actually, Palladian, she's free to criticize whatever she wants. But I don't see how her being a female should keep me from pointing out that it's in poor taste to drag me in as a proxy.

But hey, play the sexism card if that's all you got.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeff: It's not your fault that your post has been featured on the home page under "BEST OF THE BLOGS" all this time. And it's still there, like 30 hours nonstop with nothing to replace it. It's incredibly embarrassing, but you surrendered to them the permission to use you that way. Don't you regret it? Would you say so if you did? Hey, you got the money already. What do you care? Come on, why don't you slam them? Admit it, you're kind of pissed off at them by now, letting you twist in the wind, making your quirky, insider humor look weird and out-of-place.

MartiniPundit said...

Well, I'm a relatively small blogger, but I was invited to join and passed once I read the prospectus. While being woefully unclear about what the venture would look like, two things stood out:

1 - I'd have to submit to OSM's editorial control.

2 - I'd see little to no money out of the deal.

I don't care much about the look and feel of the site, but I do care about some self-appointed blogging brahmins taking over the blogosphere.

playah grrl said...

"...making your quirky, insider humor look weird and out-of-place..."
Ann, please, it only looks weird and out-of-place because you are suffering from OSM Derangement Syndrome
You need help.
;-)

Ann Althouse said...

MartiniPundit: Well put. It's really as simple as that. Those who are trying to make me seem to have some weird vendetta are stretching for their own reasons (kowtowing to powerful linkers you want to like you?). The fact is that it was a bad deal, and seeing how it looks now, I'm glad I'm not in on it. I think I analyzed it well at the time of offer, and, actually, it looks a lot worse than I pictured it. I'm not hot to slam it or I'd say a lot more than I have.

jonnybrepublican said...

Isn't this already being done by Powerline News? Or even RealClearPolitics that has links to all of the people and more.

Is the Huffington Post threatening to them?

I'm confused why they need to group together to publish their thoughts and news when it worked just fine before.

And if it really is just for money, then should they be blogging? It seems a little hypocritical to me since most of the people that started political blogging were doing as way to get the word out.

And I'm a little confused about people calling you a lefty. Do the people responding only read blogs without links?

This whole idea seems a little strange and not very well planned.

playah grrl said...

"Those who are trying to make me seem to have some weird vendetta are stretching for their own reasons..."
i don't think that. I think you thought you could get away with pus and semen and little self righteous snark. And then i think you got p'wnd when you thought Jeff's live-blogging was for realies and couldn't be graceful about it. And then i think you really pissed me off when you invoked Drum and played the sex card.
any argument?

tim maguire said...

I hope it works because I like a lot of the people involved. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We'll see.

But Ann, it's hard for me to accept that you're not overly emotional about this since you didn't merely say you don't think it's a good idea and you're glad you stayed out; rather, you show a barely concealed glee at every mis-step (and of course there are mis-steps. You're not really daft enough to be surprised that a new venture would make some mistakes.) and you must have wasted quite a bit of time following these comments and posting responses.

So don't pretend it's not a big deal to you. If it weren't, you wouldn't be reading this.

That said, anyone who recognizes that the mild mannered, dignified Charles Jonhson smells a bit from the methane oozing out of the swamp pit he calls a comment section can't be all bad.

protein wisdom said...

"Jeff: It's not your fault that your post has been featured on the home page under "BEST OF THE BLOGS" all this time. And it's still there, like 30 hours nonstop with nothing to replace it. It's incredibly embarrassing, but you surrendered to them the permission to use you that way. Don't you regret it? Would you say so if you did? Hey, you got the money already. What do you care? Come on, why don't you slam them? Admit it, you're kind of pissed off at them by now, letting you twist in the wind, making your quirky, insider humor look weird and out-of-place."

Actually, they've done none of those things, Ann. My blog is humming along as it always has; OSM has taken one of my posts and featured it on their site. Frankly, I'm flattered. Their editorial decisions don't have any impact whatsoever on what I do on my own site.

nypundit said...

It seems that there are now rules for being an OSM affiliated site. Ann, you will be happy to know that you're in the rules.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeff: I'm not referring to what you are doing and can do on your own site. I know they aren't interfering with that. I'm referring to the way they are making you look on their site. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed. I think they are hurting your reputation. And here you are, too flattered to notice.

playah grrl said...

ha ha! you're the one that should be embarressed!! they're not hurting jeff's rep, but you are sure are hurting your own.
boring humorless pretentious sex-card-playing poseur.
i'm off to fight with den-beste-sama--at least he can give me a match intellectually, and defend his position with logic--you might as well be pithed.
i will never forgive you for whining to Drum--you want to be treated like a man--act like one. take your lumps and don't whine. better yet, fight back. you could have made those commenters look stupid.
sheesh.
;-)

Ann Althouse said...

Playah: You're just boring me. But, yeah, do go.

protein wisdom said...

Jeff: I'm not referring to what you are doing and can do on your own site. I know they aren't interfering with that. I'm referring to the way they are making you look on their site. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed. I think they are hurting your reputation. And here you are, too flattered to notice.

Actually, the only one trying to do any damage to my reputation is you, Ann. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive to slight as you. Why don't you spell out why I should be embarrassed. Y'know -- help a brother out.

christheprofessor said...

sonicfrog,

Yes, I am a real professor, with a PhD in Information Systems. I also know how to spell the word "license." And I know to put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks.

You may feel sorry for the students I teach, but I feel sorry for your kids if ever they need help with grammar and/or spelling. Frankly, judging from your post, I feel sorry for anybody who tries to engage you in conversation.

But, we'll leave that for another time...

Dr. Chris

Palladian said...

Professor Chris,

Since you're pedantically correcting spelling and grammar, why don't you have a go at playagrrl?

I understand you might not have time for that, if you're the spelling/grammar editor over at the LGF comments section. That's a 40 hour work week, plus overtime.

And playagrrl, if you haven't left yet: You're a match to Den Beste? Grrlfriend, you ain't match enough to light his cigarette.

nada said...

Fyi:

Roger has been sent a letter by the Open Source Media guys. Sounds kind of like a cease and desist or else kind of thing: http://www.thepoorman.net/ Scroll down a bit and click on "letter." It's a pdf.

Norman said...

Just read the pdf letter. Boy, it sure looks like they're off to a poor start, to say the least. Dunno if this points the way to the future, but I don't think it's helping.

To me at least, this osm thing hurts bloggers' images. I now read Instapundit with a touch of cynicism that I didn't have before.

Or maybe just the baby-clean innocence is beginning to wear off the internet.

nada said...

Norman,

I think you might be right. On the other hand it might help the image of bloggers. Or at least help further define what blogging is. As in blogging ain't about wanting to become the new MSM. Or making a quick, ponzi-like buck. Hype and smoke and mirrors. It ain't about a lot of other things this trainwreck has exhibited. As part of the VRWC I have to think lessons learned and lines being drawn aren't a bad thing and might help conserve what is best about blogging. If only Roger would go back to making three or four well-written posts a day and get on with his next movie or novel. Throw up his hands and say, "Sorry, lost myself for a bit. Apologies to all whom I was less than civil towards. Much better now." Sadly, ain't gonna happen.

barry said...

What about this on it?

Scarily true...

col said...

Madam, I am outraged by those horrible words!!!

(I am not going to repeat them, but suffice to say they are a useful thing to get outraged about, in the absence of an actual counter argument to your original post)

Joshua Betts said...

Ms Althouse sounds JUST LIKE JARVIS during his "i didn't need to read the book" insanity.

Mark said...

Ann, I appreciate that you are implacably opposed to OSM, and that's fine, but as one of the participating bloggers, I just want to make one point - I haven't sacrified any independence. I linked to your post and other naysayers, and I feel perfectly free to praise or pan the venture as I see fit. There are legitimate criticisms to make, and you bring up several of them, but lack of independence is not one...

imjustbigboneddammit said...

You DO have a vendetta against them. Several posts about them on your front page, constant back-and-forth in the comments, the weird bodily-fluid thing. Obviously it's more than detached, objective criticism. What is it about OSM that has you so emotional?

Ann Althouse said...

I'm just big boned: "What is it about OSM that has you so emotional?"

I'm not emotional about it. It's just one of my current topics. If you want to know why I'm interested in it:

1. I've blogged about it before and keep getting linked, so I'm part of a conversation, and I feel I need to keep up my end.

2. It's a conspicuous event that is in one of the general areas that I follow: blogging. It's similar to the way I blogged about HuffPo when it launched.

3. I worry that it is destructive to the enterprise of blogging, which I care a lot about. The continual efforts to shush me or to say I'm crazy in these comments and elsewhere demonstrate the problem. Bloggers have developed a connected interest in each others and this is making them close ranks and lose the spirit of blogging, which is tremendously valuable. (That's the idea that made Roger L. Simon hang up the phone on me, btw.)

4. It's just such a spectacular screw-up. It's horrible, but I can't look away.

adamsmith said...

From where I'm sitting, Ann seems to have retained a questioning mindset. Good for her. I'd like to see other bloggers look at OSM the way they size up everything else.

Glenn Reynolds wrote some interesting stuff about how companies are going to have to react to having their employees write anon weblogs. Here's a meta-case. How will OSM (a blog company no less) react to their employees (and employee candidates) writing about their experiences with the company. So far, not so good. From that perspective, it really does seem like Mr. Simon at least doesn't get blogging.

tenafromFirstDraft said...

Ann, with regard to this ridiculous pissing contest you've gotten yourself into with Atrios, let me just tell you that anyone who worries about what is said in comments on a blog is nuts.

sizzleld said...

Lol i love the title and the article makes it worth it!

Herp le Derp said...

Funny to look back at this after all these years and see how silly - and very wrong - Althouse was about nearly everything.