Jay Rosen: Getting to know you

Jim Brady of the beleagured WaPo blog says reporters object to being called vulgar names by people they don't know. He equates it to insults "shouted from a moving car." So if the car's parked, and you know the hecklers, anything goes, Jim?

The real issue with blog comments has nothing to do with whether or not one knows one's abusers, or how fast the car is moving. It has to do with dealing in fact rather than innuendo. It has to do with whether or not you have a right to keep your house (your blog in this case) as you see fit.

At what point did we become obliged to put up with obnoxious houseguests? Why would anyone care whether some ass thinks they are "engaging in censorship" because someone's attempt to derail a train of thought was moved off a blog? If the argument's good, the commenter can start his/her own blog for free, and do the work needed to get the word out. If the argument stinks, why is it smelling up our blog? Don't our other readers have olfactory rights?

In Jay Rosen's piece, Brady does contortions to say everything except what he's really thinking: "We're a big paper. Due to our editorial slant, a significant (and loud) portion of our readers are fools. We crossed them, and we're paying the price. We'll go back online once this blows over, and we'll be more careful in how we parse the news so that they're not upset again. But if we do cross the line, we'll just shut down and let the storm pass."

Rosen points out that Brady's loudest complainers are the paper's best customers, and on that basis chides Brady for shutting down comments. But Rosen wants it both ways, going on to criticize Jane Hamsher for her comments about the shutdown. You know Jay, either comments get shut down or they don't. You never sounded more like a hopeless academic who is clearly not facing a situation like this.

There's much better insight in the "After Matter" than the reflexive Rosen has to offer.

What's sad about the Left is that nothing's quite good enough. WaPo has been a real friend to their cause, yet they're torn to shreds over this one issue. Atrios et al insist that nothing out of bounds happened, but Kokonut Pundits points to a cache of the deleted comments (hundreds of them). See for yourself.

Brainster has some additional thoughts.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

UPDATE: Jay Rosen expects a logic correction, on this basis:

Jane Hamsher might be wrong in her comments about Brady, and the Washington Post might be wrong to dismiss complaints it reflexively labels “partisan.” That’s not having it both ways, Mister. That’s saying two things are true that don’t exclude one another. I expect a logic correction.

We guess Mr. Rosen sees himself as a peacemaker in this situation, sort of like Jimmy Carter at Camp David, bringing the warring factions to the table. Hey, what can I do to get you nutty kids back together.

We don't see things that way. We don't see "dissent". We don't see passionate but well-reasoned arguments. We see nasty, vicious, slimy character assassination. We see filthy language. We see baseless innuendo. We see an overt attempt to assert dominance over the site by shutting it down. And we see the perpetrators pretending that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. Shut down comments? We'd block their IP addresses for a year. Let 'em think about whether they'd kiss their mother with that mouth. And if they carry the hostilities on to their own sites - let 'em foul their own nests. That is free speech, they can do as they wish in their own home. But your free speech ends at our door, just as your right to fire that gun ends when it's pointed at us.

Logic correction, like charity, begins at home. Brady is not reflexively labeling these complaints as "partisan". YOU ARE, Jay. Read your own transcript: Your question beginning "Let me tell you a danger" uses the word "partisan" in one form or another five times. Brady's response? "I guess my quibble would be with the core assumption that the issue here was partisanship."

That assumption (on your part, Jay) would be our quibble too, along with forcing your views down Mr. Brady's throat and then misrepresenting them in your rebuke of our comments. Didn't you listen to him? Brady did what he had every right to do, but we do have an issue with him that no one has yet brought up. It's this: You (speaking to Mr. Brady now) need to stop trying to please extremists. You want to be seen as tolerant and fair and open minded, and you want to be seen that way across the entire spectrum of opinion, and that is just not possible. Fixed on this unattainable goal, you allowed this kind of incivility to creep up on you until one day the inmates controlled the asylum. It reminds us of the bad old days in NYC when you couldn't get on a subway train that wasn't filled with graffiti, and it was apologized away as an art form. So your Mom had to sit on a seat cover with obscenities, and we were assaulted by images we could not escape, all because we could not "restrict the artist's right of self-expression". Well, Jim, this is what your desire to be viewed as a human being of superior tolerance has brought you. The bad guys have shut you down (as was inevitable) and now no one can comment.

That blog is your home. The readers and commenters are your guests. There should be house rules, so set some guidelines. You don't have to invent them out of whole cloth, there are sites all over the 'net that have worked at this idea. Post 'em prominently during this quiet time, invite criticism via email (where they can't inflame passions). Every time an empty comment box comes up, a link to your site policy should appear. If anyone violates the policy, their comment gets emailed back to them with that link to your comment policy. They are urged to try again. Some will. You'll be surprised how much more civil things can be once you lay down an even-handed set of rules that make it plain you are not running Animal House.

Yes, the hard left will call you a Nazi for defending your own home. You can either allow such things to be said that are not true, or you can set yourself up for more instances like this where much worse things will be said that are also not true. Your choice.

We're happy with our logic, Jay. Sounds like you owe Jim Brady an apology for not listening to him, though. Can we expect that?

UPDATE: No, apparently we cannot expect that much integrity from Jay Rosen. Although we responded to HIS charges, he was unable to face up to his own words, and offer Brady the mea culpa he deserved.

Categories: What+is+censorship?