I really appreciate these two comments from Wombat Rampant.
First:I don't think I'll be dropping by the OSM portal much because I think Steven den Beste and Ann Althouse are correct in their criticisms of the business model and the way Simon and Johnson have handled things, i.e. poorly.
And second:Ann Althouse is getting shot up from the right and the left these days, which unfortunately seems to be the fate of moderates in these polarized times. The Pajamas Media/OSM/Pajamas Media folks seem to have gone into hypersensitive rabid attack poodle mode ever since Professor A criticized them for things they themselves are trying to fix now; the latest blowup seems to be over her fairly mild criticism (if you can even call it that) of PM's Thanksgiving Parade liveblogging and related tightening of comment policing on the Professor's blog.
As for the yahoos at Daily Kos, sounds like the same hypocrisy on a different day as they defend their right to be as racist and sexist as they wanna be, because it's all just funny masks they wear in the comment section as a big inside joke. Ann exposes the stupidity of that argument, and ruminates that the Democrats went a long way towards killing off honest feminism in the Clinton years. All that's left are the "bitches" now, if you'll forgive my use of GULAG thieves' slang.
Thanks. A while back, instead of the quotes you now see in my banner, I had a description that began "Politics and the aversion to politics." I really am blogging as someone with a distaste for politics, someone who is put off by hot partisan passion. Most people who don't like partisan politics and who find themselves close to the political center aren't going to want to deal with the usual ugliness of the blogosphere. Why do I? I have my reasons.
Posts
45 comments:
Ann, you are my new favorite blogger. Keep calling them like you see them...
Every time I click on a link that goes to the OSM portal I can't stand to read it.
Good bloggers don't blog well on that portal, and the setup is pretentious-msm-wannabe...
It is like that idea of unionizing hit men in Grosse Pointe Blank- it just feels wrong- bloggers are supposed to be lone wolf types with nothing to lose but their integrity.
You don't get that feel with the OSM.
Blogging works because it is such a direct connection from one person to another- OSM puts a bureaucratic wall out... I don't like Tech Central Station for the same reason. Sometimes the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
Ann,
Thank you for posting the link to the Pajamas Media discussion board. (For some reason the post permalink doesn't work.)
For those interested, the discussion board is here:
http://pajamasmedia.isfullofcrap.com/index.php
Re Ann's comment: "As for the yahoos at Daily Kos, sounds like the same hypocrisy on a different day as they defend their right to be as racist and sexist as they wanna be, because it's all just funny masks they wear in the comment section as a big inside joke."
As a young journalist 35 years ago, I interviewed Marshall McLuhan. He told me, "All jokes are grievances."
It is like that idea of unionizing hit men in Grosse Pointe Blank- it just feels wrong- bloggers are supposed to be lone wolf types with nothing to lose but their integrity.
I think this hits on it perfectly. The end goal of the cream of the "anti-MSM" blogosphere is to become a poor imitation of said MSM? Wha?
DEK said: "All jokes are grievances."
Or, rather DEK repeats M. McLuhan.
I'd never thought of jokes that way and can only offer thanks to the originator and the memorizer. While McLuhan was often FOS, he did have moments of probity, IMHO.
Thanks for fixing the link!
Pete: Thanks!
Wombat: Sorry I deleted the post you replied to. It contain some ugly overheated language about me "immolating" myself that is the sort of thing I'm moderating out of here from now on. Really, just a typical "shut up" post of the sort I've been getting ever since I criticized the offer PJ sent me back in August. The enforcers of the "first rule of Pajamas Media." What are the chances that telling me that one more time is going to work? If I believed him, then my "integrity" would already be shot to hell forever, so what would be the point of stopping? It's lacking even in internal logic!
Harkennendog: "It is like that idea of unionizing hit men in Grosse Pointe Blank." LOL.
Thanks for the alert on the links. Will see to them.
Re: Pajamas Media. Roger L. Simon has experience in the movie business. Another individual with experience in the movie business, Walt Disney, once said the key to success is to "lick em with product." Pajamas Media failed to do that.
Protein Wisdom:
"So I take you still aren't ready to admit that you accused six people of laughing at the injury to a young girl yesterday, even though it has now been made clear to you that they didn't have access to the information you used to make that charge?"
Didn't she just say "yikes"? Honestly, I thought it was yikes as in y'all screwed up, made a mistake, not "yikes" as in you take pleasure in seeing others injured. I admit I haven't followed this issue closely but that was my impression. Did I miss something?
Big fan of your site, btw.
Bill: You took a nasty tone that I judged to be detrimental to the community of commenters that flourishes here. Read some of the various discussions we've been having around here for the last few months and try to get a feel for the place. Then think about how you look in this environment and try to live up to our standards. I maintain this blog with comments because I care about providing an opportunity for civil discourse about a variety of topics.
Jeff: You need to back off. You have been smearing me and harassing me, and you should be ashamed of yourself at this point. All I did was compare your lightweight live-blogging to the real world press report and indicate that the contrast was unfortunate. It was! Face it. Quit focusing on me and deal with the abysmal problem that is the Pajamas project. The only way out of the criticism is to make the website good. Do that. Let me repeat the email that I published this morning in an update on the post about your live blog, where I linked to what you and Balloon Juice were saying about me on your blogs:
"I think the 2 posts you describe in the update make it clear that these are not just people who are criticizing your blog because they happen not to like the things you say; it's a smear campaign (which means you're certainly entitled to delete ALL of their comments). A normal person would never say that you were lying in your post about the parade. So many of the recent criticisms of you from people who defend Pajamas Media are essentially saying: 'You're criticizing them too much.' (Weird attitude for bloggers to have!)"
Straighten up, Jeff. Back off. You are harassing me. Is that clear enough?
Jan: I had that one thing I wanted to say to him with unmistakable clarity. I'm not going to keep saying it (or anything else) to him. I really believe in civil discourse and tend to think it's possible to engage with people, even when they are starting off very hostile. But he's not participating in a normal conversation. He's bent on smearing me. Therefore, there's nothing to talk to. In any event, I'm not going to let people like him wreck what this place is.
Bill: This is my place, with my standards. It's for me to push the envelope here, not you. You're a guest, and you need to act like one, for the sake of the other readers, who are people who have a special interest in reading me, not you. If my blogging is as bad as you seem to think, my readers will go away. You're coming here to talk to the people who haven't gone away. Do you seriously think they want to hear you repeatedly say how terrible I am? At the very least, it's boring!
Bill from INDC wrote: I find your lecture about standards in the comments - given your recent choices of editorial content, particularly the disingenuous or inaccurate criticism about the parade coverage and jokes about "Open Sores" - situationally ironic.
Those posts were done before the new policy was implemented.
That wasn't aimed at you, Ann!
Sorry, Tigeril. You wrote:
"Jesus. I found more reasoned debate in my college classes. Why the hell do people take the internet so seriously?
"The 'blogosphere' died when the authors' egos became more important than what they were writing about."
I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!
Icepick: There's no new policy about what I'm going to write. This blog is like my house. There are things that I can do here that guests can't assume they can do their version of. If I want to do a literary riff based on Goldstein's reference on OSM to a glass that says "bloggers do it in their pajamas" and the name Open Source Media, where I reference two bodily fluids, I damn well will. And I will call bullshit on the self-interested little men who try to intimidate me about that and anything else I wrote about their piddling, pathetic project.
I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!
Yep, not about you. Sorry about the misunderstanding- I should have been more clear.
I posted about OSM etc. too. To sum it all up: OSM has replicated Air America in that they refused to build from the bottom but just HAD to start from the top. This was a venture that put making money ahead of a quality product judged by the market. Just another Hollywood hustle by a Hollywood hustler.
This is starting to remind me of the flame wars on the news groups circa 1993.
Chuck: I'm glad we've be able to provide some retro nostalgia pleasures.
I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!
He may not have been writing about you, but I can see how you thought he was. That shoe fit you pretty well.
That's she, my dear Loaf.
Ann's the only one who's managed to maintain some dignity in this whole mess.
Ann's the only one who's managed to maintain some dignity in this whole mess.
If I took the time to say why I disagree, I'd get censored...so it's pointless.
I'm glad you're happy she un-censored you when she learned you were actually trying to suck up.
Jeff,
Thanx for the response. I'm quoting your quote of Ann's quote:
"Sorry, Jeff. A lamppost hit a young woman in the head and you guys went on with a series of jokes, including the "snuff" one (which I quoted in my post), and a creepy homophobic-sounding one. You needed to be funny, and seeing something dangerous happen to a crowd that included kids didn't stop you."
I see your point now, but the original post simply said "Yikes," and Ann DID NOT, as you said:
"[accuse] six people of laughing at the injury to a young girl-"
And even the quote you submitted, at the top, does NOT claim you knew somebody was hurt- (in fact it implies you didn't know that) only that somebody WAS hurt and that y'all saw "something dangerous happen to a crowd" and kept joking around. It basically scolds you for being incautious, and in context it isn't even that strong, given it is a defense of the word yikes... So, again, there's no accusation that you took pleasure in people being injured.
Maybe you're caught up in the heat of the moment. Understandable, given the piling on you guys are taking and the original nasty insult that started this whole thing. But this sistuation is the suck.
Both you and Ann are excellent bloggers, and in a cyber world full of evil MSM principalities and Kossite hordes it's a shame when reasonable bloggers hurt each other.
I beg the two of you to smoke the peace pipe, as this is much ado over something not worth that much ado. Puff puff give! Puff puff give!
Jeff: You're upset because Jane supposedly made an ad-hominem attack on you and Ann left the comments there. All I could find were Jane's opinions of your work: she does not find your writing funny or clever, but juvenile. That's a rough criticism but it is based on her experience reading your work. Were you talking about something else?
Thus far today, on your own blog, you have characterized Professor Althouse as "off her nut," "superscillious," "intellectually dishonest,"intellectually bankrupt," and a "borderline obsessive," to name just a few of your more vibrant adjectives. And you honestly think that you are behaving reasonably and that you can come here and make what appear to be non-negotiable demands and expect Ms. Althouse to surrender to your superior position?
I suggest instead you follow Healey's First Law of Holes: When you find yourself in one, quit digging.
After seeing that photo, I'm reminded that poodles (especially French ones) are the squirrels of dog breeds.
That's pretty funny too, because I was just talking to MY friends, and WE came to the conclusion that the kind of people who took unnecessary umbrage at sarcasm usually didn't have the intellectual wattage to understand it.
Of course, your mileage may vary. I could be wrong. :)
Jeff: I understand you are upset about Ann's initial reaction to your blogging of the parade, but it seems to me that publicly questioning her sanity and intellectual honesty is not going to get you very far in the way of a mutually beneficial conversation.
In response to my earlier observations, you state:
As to what I've said on my site, it's all been in comments or in an update to a single post that wasn't even dedicated to this dustup.
So you think it's ok to say things like that as long as they are in the comments and not the blog entry? I honestly don't understand that type of reasoning. How you can demand a retraction from Ann for what you believe was an implied slight while you persist in making specific defamatory characterizations of her is a bit hard to fathom.
Speaking of specific defamatory statements, do you think the Pajamas corporate entity could be liable for a concerted smear campaign among the member bloggers? I've heard they have $3.5 million, so I was just wondering. I'm not a tort lawyer. On the other hand, if the entity policy is to rein their members in, that would go against the assertions that they aren't going to control content.
Ann: I was idly wondering about something similar a couple of days ago. A couple of their member blogs are well-known for outrageous commentary and I was wondering how they were handling their liability as distributors of licensed content? If an otherwise penniless blogger makes actionable statements, and an action is taken, are they liable as well (and stuck with any damages as the only ones with deep pockets?) LGF is a good example of an extremely vocal comments section that often borders on vilification. Are they stuck defending those as well? Am I right in thinking that a violent depiction such as the one you discovered last night could conceivably lead to a lawsuit?
Wow, Jeff Goldstein is presenting evidence of how Ann Althouse has been caught in a misrepresentation, refuses to acknowledge it, and is now banning commenters who reference it.
Ann, you're "getting it" from the right and the left because of how you behave towards the right and the left. meaning, how you behave towards other people.
Please, let us have some respect for the intelligent and capable poodle.....
'Setting the record straight on poodles -- the world's most misunderstood dog.'
http://www.poodle-place.com/poodlehist.htm
Thersites: "Ann, you're "getting it" from the right and the left because of how you behave towards the right and the left. meaning, how you behave towards other people."
I'm getting it from the political extremes because I don't hew to their demands. I'm a moderate, as the attacks from both sides tend to prove. I've been treating even the most abusive attackers with moderation, as I am doing with you right now.
Jim: Thanks. OSM/Pajamas has already shown a great propensity to blame others -- the "guys in suits," the branding experts. I'm sure they will blame the people who were outrageous enough to say that the site is awful.
You know, I love the TV show "The Apprentice," and I'm visualizing a boardroom scene with various Pajama folk offering these kind of excuses for their shoddy work to the Donald. It would be one of those group firing episodes.
Long thread ...... surprising that some still don't 'get it.' And even more surprising, that others are joining in on the nothingness anew (I criticize those who criticize me/my homies, therefore I am).
The ship leaving for the new blogopshere has already sailed. I'm truly amazed at who is being left behind.
All we can do .... is smile back to the shore and wave.
(Reposting my own deleted comment, with typos corrected.)
Ronin: "If an otherwise penniless blogger makes actionable statements, and an action is taken, are they liable as well (and stuck with any damages as the only ones with deep pockets?) "
Well, I wonder how they have thought the risks through. Their member bloggers, especially the ones who say the most outrageous things, are likely to have little money. The Pajamas entity is a conspicuous deep pocket connected enough to the statement that lawyers will surely analyze whether it can be sued for the statements of the members. The PJ folks must know that anyone who decides to sue is going to want to join them as parties. But I'm not a tort lawyer. I was a litigator, and I tend to think in terms of litigation strategy.
Note: I'm not threatening to sue Pajamas for the antics of Goldstein and others. I believe in free speech and I have plenty of opportunity to respond with more speech, the best remedy for people who believe in free speech. Most of what they've said is either satire or opinion. There are lies, for example, saying I'm crazy. But no one really takes that as a statement of fact. It's just stupid and debasing for him and Cole and others to carry on the way they do. They are themselves making the argument that Pajamas Media is not ready for prime time, not anything near the viable media enterprise the venture capitalists must have wanted to think they were. I'm not looking for revenge. I'm sure they all feel quite awful, sitting in the horrible mess they've made. If I were hopping mad at them, it would probably give them some pleasure. That I deny them.
(Verification word: hotsow! Now Blogger is harassing me!)
Here's what I wrote today:
http://theroyalflush.blogspot.com/2005/11/osm-pajamas-media-blogroll.html
Continuing that "Apprentice" visualization:
If there were a mass firing and they all crowded into the back of the cab to do their on camera post mortems, what would they say? Would they, hilariously, be struck dumb?
If they "weren't working out" from Martha Stewart's Apprentice, what would her good-bye letter say?
Straighten up, Jeff. Back off. You are harassing me. Is that clear enough?
Simply hilarious.
I'm vaguely recalling something about heat and kitchens, something else about pots and kettles...
Surely, it's a tryptophane induced hallucination, or perhaps an undigested bit of mutton.
I'm getting it from the political extremes because I don't hew to their demands. I'm a moderate, as the attacks from both sides tend to prove. I've been treating even the most abusive attackers with moderation
You see accountability for your own actions as partisan sniping? That's interesting.
Why do you think a black man cannot mock racism? Or a woman can't mock sexism?
The poodles are really cute. Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment