[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Poll: Who doesn't get the netroots

by: Bob Brigham

Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:12:05 AM PDT


The San Francisco Chronicle has a front-page story on the blogs at the convention. It is a good read, but what chickenshit mofo said this?

But one key state Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of concern for riling the netroots crowd, warns that such efforts are potentially positive and negative.

Netroots commentary can frequently be intensely personal, even "totally mean and irrational," the strategist said, with some bloggers finding power in their ability "to assassinate political characters online."

"It's amplified by the anonymity, and it can be scary that it's so irresponsible," the insider said. "And it's pulling the mainstream media in that direction."

Please take the poll.

UPDATE: Tim Redmond spell checks me, but I can't update the poll (sorry, it was 1AM).

Bob Brigham :: Poll: Who doesn't get the netroots
Poll
Who is the whiney ass tittey baby?
Steve Maviglio
Dan Gerstein
Garry South
Katie Merrill
Peter Ragone
The Press Secretary for Speaker Nunez

Results

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Netroots (0.00 / 0)
I think you are overreacting to the comment and I think it is essentially on target as long as it doesn't go any further.  I have defended the posts on this site and disagreed with Merrill about the fairness of a primary challenge and I think blogs are a great thing for the system.  But anyone with fairness should note that there have been cases where criminal charges have been filed in part because of things posted on the internet that wound up being not true and a lot of personal attacks including false accusations of politicians having affairs outside of their marriage have also shown up in anonymous blogs.  Luckily, sites like this one require people to register, but that is not every site and even that is not foolproof.  But I don't want to overstate it.  I think the good clearly outweighs the bad.  If you take the "insiders" comment as a warning to readers similar to "Caveat Emptor" then it is very appropriate.  To take it as anything more, seems to me an assumption and although a logical one, we do have a tradition in this country of giving people the benefit of the doubt.

"pseudonymity" does not equal "anonymity" (0.00 / 0)
they are significantly different scenarios.

No matter how obscure your blog handle, what you post online is attached to your handle "forever" (and quickly available via google), unlike a comment from an anonymous source in a newspaper article buried in a paid archive. And as bloggers know, there is no depending on pseudonymity to keep your real world identity from being outed. or to shield you from community moderation re: sock puppetry, paid shilling, not disclosing professional connections, etc., let alone simple (and sometimes immediate) debunking of your assertions.

And the political blogs Mr. Anonymous must certainly be talking about here don't allow anonymous Comments, right? haven't done so for a long time, if ever.

Maybe, with 50 bloggers in San Diego this weekend (y'all must be having a great time), some of the old guard professionals (strategists, politicians, political reporters) might "get" this a little better?


Isn't it nice to be able to make an accusation (0.00 / 0)
anonymously in the paper and not have to cite any examples of it?  It's the perfect hit and run.  That's pretty sad that the writer apparently stenographed that smear into the article without checking the veracity of the charge.

(sorry for missing this post about the article.  needless to say you guys have been quite prolific in the past 48 hours and it got buried)

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here


It was Jerome Armstrong (0.00 / 0)
It had to be. We're all Jerome Armstrong.

Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox