On the present state of journalism

Navigation

User login

Online users

The Original Yoda
OlyDowntowner
Rick
Guglielmo
oldtimeydave
einmaleins
Phil Owen

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Roger and Launchpad
alwayssharethejoy
olympianwatch
mpeper
BalletArtsOlymp...

On the present state of journalism

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:11am.

citizen journalism

From The American Prospect:

This has to change. There must be some method whereby we can become informed and inspired to action. Maybe the answer lies in retraining journalists to go one step beyond reporting. Get the story, and also seek information about how a reader might constructively respond to it. This, of course, would require increased support for the work of investigative journalists. It would also require strategic partnerships between the professional media and nonprofit worlds, links that already exist between journalism and international affairs schools like those at Columbia University.
Maybe the answer lies in citizen journalists -- folks who often abandon the old-school idea of objectivity and tackle local issues with a verve for making change, not just reporting on it. This trend is already on the rise, and while it makes traditional journalists wince, maybe it could actually serve to empower some of the country's currently disenchanted readers.

All the News That's Fit to Depress | The American Prospect

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

Citizen Journalists

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 2:59pm.

There is promise in the development of autonomous, people powered, media structures.

The current mainstream media is heavily invested in the current system of corporatism. The current mainstream media is invested in a government that is of and by the biggest corporations.

The mainstream media is not capable of holding this government accountable. And the people are suffering harms as a result.

What a bunch of clap trap...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:05am.

Sure there is promise in the 'new media' like blogs. Look at talk radio and the effect it had on the MSM. It was a huge paradigm shift in power. Blogs have the same opportunity. Podcasting does as well, though I don't know much about that medium. As for your strident anti-corporate screed, well, media isn't free. People's time costs money. The media itself costs money. That is why people sell ad space, and such. Perhaps you should look into some of the biggest corporations in our nation and find out just how many of them are overly supportive of liberal ideals. Google, Progressive insurance, unions, UPS to name a few. There are even ads on 1090 am here locally that have advertisers that state explicitly that they only advertise with liberal talk radio in order to support it. Because the media doesn't effect the changes you desire does not mean the media doesn’t hold the government accountable. Often times the media is complicit in matters that affect the entire nation, but not in favor of the half of the nation that votes conservatively. CNN and the debates come directly to mind. And what harms exactly are you talking about? Could you give an example? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Tschida,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:52am.

Please don't refer to people's opinions as "clap-trap", its not good for the environment on the blog. A better way would be to say, "I think you're wrong, and this is why."

Please refrain

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 2:40pm.

Please refrain from telling me or others what or how to say what they have to say. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

No

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 3:36pm.

I'm sorry if it upsets you, but this isn't the first time people have asked you to tone it down. This blog is not the place for that kind of stuff. If you can't stop kicking sand in people's faces then get out of the sandbox.

I won't tell you what to say but I will make sure you say it in a civil way. Calling someone's opinion "clap-trap" is not OK. I'm giving you a chance here.

Ahh...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 3:48pm.

Docent: 2 : a person who leads guided tours especially through a museum or art gallery Leads and guides. Not tells others what and how to say things. I made my points, I was on topic and not rude. I am not sure why you are creating an issue here. Again, please refrain from telling others what and how to say things. Either this is an open forum of ideas and issues or it is something much less useful. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

OK, last time.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 3:54pm.

This IS indeed an open forum.

Calling someone's opinion "clap-trap", for example, will not be tolerated. It directly violates the values of this internet community. If you don't like being asked to tone it down, either you can tone it down, or, there are a million other blogs in the nets of inter that you can frequent. Frankly, I think you could provide some valuable insights to the conversation here. You just need to stop going into every thread with the battle mindset that you have to win. Sometimes we can all win by learning from one another. It's OK that we disagree, and it's OK to be nice.

Getting caught between

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 1:48am.

freedom of speech and the stupidity of the incapability to be civil.

In another chat it was "parasitic fawning" which didn't even apply in or our of context.

If I was 30 years younger and without a heart condition, I'd probably just say, "lets step outside".

This crap is getting beyond cute.

definitions

Submitted by enpen on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 8:27am.

I was on topic and not rude.

It seems as if the semantics of "claptrap" is in question here. Etymologically, here's claptrap. For all intensive purposes the word is a sign of dismissive repudiation and isn't a particularly polite one in the parlance of our times.

If OlyBlog.net is to act as a forum for community building (as I would contend) then finding means of non-dismissive communication is paramount to it being a valuable resource/tool. I agree with you that the content of your post is on topic and not rude. It was not the content, however, that Rob pointed out as being combative and not having a welcome place in this forum. As we figure out how to operate together we're obviously going to have our differences and there have been and will probably continue to be times where civility gets thrown out the window in favor of emotive responses.

You point out that docents lead and guide. Docents will also ask people to not touch the art and have people kicked out if they continue to disregard the no touching civil code.

Clap Trap...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:38pm.

From Enpen's own reference posted above, and I quote "The word developed from a figurative theatrical device to encourage applause into a more general term for showy or insincere platitudes or mawkish sentimentality directed at the lowest common denominator of one’s audience. From there it was only a short step to the sense of talking nonsense or rubbish, though the older ideas are often still present." (emphasis added)

As for A.Larry, The term sycophant did apply and further I pionted to explicit examples of people I feel the term applies to. I would also like you to explain to me how 'if you were younger and of preimium health' stepping out side would serve to foster communtity building, and as the 'social contract' speech code states explicitly "and in resolving differences through a process with a strong will to collaboration." Making a shallow angry statement like "I'd probably just say, "lets step outside"." Do not under any circumstances comply with the ideals set forth for this blog. Wouldn't you agree?

On a side note, I am curious to see if Rob will further insert himself in the conversation to admonish you as he did me? Considering his own admision of bias in regards to being docent in this situation, I am not holding my breath.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Tsch...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:48pm.

You are clearly pushing some buttons around here and I am quite convinced you are doing so purposefully. Not to be malicious, but because it is normal and acceptable behavior on other blogs. I really hope you can consider taking a different approach here. Other people have managed to do so while still expressing dissenting opinions on this blog. That's great. But right now you are doing more tearing down than building up.

Gug, you need to read the thread I think.

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 1:00pm.

Specifically this comment...

freedom of speech and the stupidity of the incapability to be civil.

In another chat it was "parasitic fawning" which didn't even apply in or our of context.

If I was 30 years younger and without a heart condition, I'd probably just say, "lets step outside".

This crap is getting beyond cute."

I think you need to reconsider who you need to address in this situation or someone might think you have an axe to grind. I am not sure what makes you think I am pushing buttons other than the fact you don't like what I have to say. But last I checked I didn't make some comment about stepping out side. Where am I wrong?

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

I'm not going to argue with you about this

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 1:09pm.

You really need to think about how your tone and manor affect many other people on this blog and decide if that is really the best way you can contribute to Olyblog. What do you want to accomplish here?

I guess...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 1:50pm.

Right now what I would like to accomplish is exposing your inequitable behavior demonstrated towards my self and others as compared to the how you treat others you agree with. It is odd to me that you are worried about my tone, when it comes to the term 'clap trap', and statement such as, "If I was 30 years younger and without a heart condition, I'd probably just say, "lets step outside"." do not warrant your interference.

Would you care to explain your one sided admonishments, your graphics regarding trolls and your seeming complete disinterest in complaining about people you get along with? I would love to understand better how this is supportive of the 'social contract' where it states this, "resolving differences through a process with a strong will to collaboration."

I am ready to listen.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

We're talking about us

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:05pm.

instead of citizen journalism. I'll just go to PM mode.

intellectual honesty

Submitted by enpen on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:03pm.

At no point was the title of the comment rude, offensive, abrasive, or less than cordial. It called into question the assertions made by Robert Whitlock. The comment went on to illustrate my disagreement and why the dissagreement was not only topical but also left leeway for discussion.

I certainly took the title of your comment to be dismissive and rude. Apparently Rob Richards also took the title to be rude. It certainly wasn't anything approaching cordial. As I said, the rest of your comment "is on topic and not rude" and nobody has taken issue with that. It's all in how you joined the conversation, something like slapping somebody before saying hello.

As far as Larry's response is concerned, it certainly didn't help things and certainly wasn't what I would define as cordial either. That being said, Larry's emotive response is pretty logical to me in the face of your rudeness and subsequent denial. My first response to your title was emotional and initially made it difficult to read your post with an open mind. Larry is guilty of taking your bait. Crying foul over that is a bit of a red herring.

Did you read my response to your comment?

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:18pm.

It seems you didn't. http://www.olyblog.net/present-state-journalism#comment-41715 The title was neither rude nor offensive. It was honest, had merit, and was on topic. I am not responsible for your reaction. If you have a reaction to a measured statement used for the title of a comment, how would one go about helping you with that? As for your 'red herring';

My issue is with Rob and Gug's obvious effort at enforcing their idea of a speech code, and doing so with a clear and demonstrable bias. If I was not able to demonstrate it and I was complaining about my hurt feelings, difficulty reading a post, with nothing to support this position, I would enthusiastically concur that it was indeed a red herring. C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

a conversation

Submitted by enpen on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:51pm.

It was honest, had merit, and was on topic. I am not responsible for your reaction. If you have a reaction to a measured statement used for the title of a comment, how would one go about helping you with that?

As you were kind of enough to bring up the social contract, I'll reiterate the quote: "resolving differences through a process with a strong will to collaboration." If somebody tells me they find something I said offensive/rude then it becomes my job to find out why. Collaborating to resolve differences does not mean I tell people they're wrong in their responses to what I've written. Perhaps instead of defending something that other people clearly find rude it can be seen as an opportunity to learn how not to address it in the future. Rob Richards already provided one such example.

The red herring occurred because you changed the subject. Whether or not you committed such a fallacy is not a question.

I'll return to the question of intellectual honesty while we're at it. You also rhetorically asked if I had read your response. Note my comment about you claiming the title was cordial. Please refrain from further intentionally misleading statements.

It is literally like you are reading a different blog.

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 3:26pm.

I don't recall nor can I find a change in subject except that folks like you are up in arms about the term clap trap rather than talking about the original topic. Is that what you mean?

The title was cordial whether you like it or not. If disagreement is going to set you off so much, what can I do to help you? Would my agreement with you help? Is that a reasonable demand to make of someone in a debate/discussion? I hate to say this but I am not responsible for your feelings. You are.

There has been nothing intellectually dishonest about this discussion on my side. I don't think you had read the comment more than to get up set that I suggested that my title was in and of itself cordial. I think you read it afterward. Also the question was not rhetorical.

One last thing, because I point out your and others utter lack of any effort to 'collaborate' and abide by your own speech code, by citing an example from this very thread, does not demonstrate a change in subject. It was part of an explanation of the broader picture of what is actually going on here for all to read. I explained this in the comment you didn't read as well.

To quote you, "Please refrain from further intentionally misleading statements".

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

?

Submitted by enpen on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:52pm.

The change of topic occurs here, is even prefaced with an "(o)n a side note", and continues here. The issue is not whether or not there is equitable distribution of criticism, the issue is that your initial comment's title is a problem.

The title was cordial whether you like it or not.

If you're going to argue that your post's title was sincerely or deeply felt I'll let you have your cake as it's a poor use of the term in conjunction with the others you were throwing around.

If disagreement is going to set you off so much, what can I do to help you? Would my agreement with you help? Is that a reasonable demand to make of someone in a debate/discussion? I hate to say this but I am not responsible for your feelings. You are.

A mischaracterization here with the "set off" description. Too, I neither said nor implied nor demanded your agreement. What I did imply is that in a cooperative environment we are responsible to each other and if people find something one says to be offensive then it is that person's responsibility to discover why and possibly address that. It is not up to those offended to make themselves un-offended. If you cannot operate in a cooperative environment I assure you there are plenty of blogs left on Blogger.

There has been nothing intellectually dishonest about this discussion on my side. I don't think you had read the comment more than to get up set that I suggested that my title was in and of itself cordial. I think you read it afterward. Also the question was not rhetorical.

I'm not sure why you insist on mischaracterization, although I do think it may have something to do with the communication problems you seem to often run into on OlyBlog. I am not nor have I gotten upset about anything you've written outside of my initial reaction to your first comment title, which was really more of a here-we-go-again moment. As you answered your own question about whether or not I read your response, your question becomes rhetorical. I wasn't asking you if you found your comment's title to be rude. I was telling you I found it to be rude. I still do. I still do not find the rest of that initial post to be rude, just the title.

One last thing, because I point out your and others utter lack of any effort to 'collaborate' and abide by your own speech code, by citing an example from this very thread, does not demonstrate a change in subject. It was part of an explanation of the broader picture of what is actually going on here for all to read.

See my first response in this comment. It is a change of topic in that it directs the topic away from your behavior. If you want to start a seperate thread with that as your underlying theory then it would not be a red herring.

If you would like to cooperate in creating a valuable resource for Olympia, feel free. As I made apparent quite some time ago, I'm waiting for you to do so.

There is a conference titled

Submitted by JulieM on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:54am.

Women, Action and the Media in Cambridge March 28-30th. It'd be great if someone could go and report back to Olyblog. www.wam2008.org

To inform and exhort?

Submitted by Scott Haley on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 7:28pm.

Rick, if I understand you, you want Journalists to not only inform people, but also tell them what to do. Why does journalism have to change in this way? --Scott

More investigative reporting schools

Submitted by hrstruggle on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:22pm.

I swear, one of these days when I'm less busy, I have a dream to build a Media Arts program at Evergreen. A cornerstone of this school will be an investigative reporting class taught by some of our best. Evergreen's inter-discplinary approach will be applied, utilizing the Cooper Point Journal, KAOS and their TV facilities (not sure what there currently is for TV). We need more college-level classes and institutions teaching people how to practice the art of investigative journalism. We need to teach people how to think critically.

Tschida,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:30pm.

As far as I'm concerned, this is not up for debate. You do not get to define other people's comfort levels, and you do not get to define what offends other people. I was uncomfortable with what you used as a title for your comment. I thought it immediately devalued the rest of your comment and a did a disservice to the blog and the thread. I have noticed a pattern of causticity toward others, outright ad hominem attacks, and a disregard for the rights of others to express their opinions without being attacked for them, in your contributions to this blog. Your response to my requests for you to tone it down shows me that you really don't care that you might offend others and that you are unwilling to adhere to the standards this online community has set for itself.

Interesting...

Submitted by Tschida on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:40pm.

You are offended at 'clap trap' but let's step out side doesn't warrant your time and effort to admonish? How could that possibly be? Did you not your self state that you felt you were too biased to deal with these situations? I asked you before, what ad hominem attacks you are referring to, so I could better help you understand and clear up any confusion. But thus far you have not offered any, why? Is this a demonstration of intellectual honesty? I doesn't not feel like it to me. It would seem you are only interested in a speech code, as I have said all along, and not 'community building' as stated in your 'social contract'.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

This is my last post to you about this.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 2:51pm.

You can accuse me all you want of trying to censor you. It's not true, and it never will be. Calling someone's opinion "clap trap" goes against the self defined values of this community as laid out in the social contract. I do not feel the need to break your entire history down point by point, because it seems you would have an answer for that as well. I am telling you that if you continue to use the verbiage that you have so far in your time on the blog, I will ask the docents to suspend you.

You, no doubt, will cry foul at this and claim that I am biased and because of that am being hard on you. This is not the case. I have not mentioned anything about your opinions or the content of your posts besides the offensive nature of them. My issue is not with the points you make or the perspective you bring, my issue is with your delivery. Time and again I have personally tried to impress upon you that I find your perspective important to this blog, and I still maintain that. Not, however, if it continues to be delivered at the expense of the community as a whole. When people begin to feel uncomfortable posting here because they don't want to be attacked anymore, it is becoming a problem that needs to be dealt with.

For the record, Larry sent me an apology for his comments and that is why he wasn't asked to tone it down, I would hope he would apologize to you too.

Again, this is the last time I'm going to respond to you on this issue.

Why would Larry

Submitted by Krull on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 5:34pm.

chastise in public and apologize in private, seems to be reversed from what I was taught.

Clearly there is favoritism here, but I guess that is to be understood. Probably not accepted, but understood. This is a flaming liberal blog, so those of that ilk will high-five each other frequently, and fail to hold each other accountable to the same level as they do less liberal posters. I have seen the same thing on the conservative blogs. I don't care for it, but what are you going to do. This is why I laughed when I saw all the hoopla over the development of a social contract. It will be selectively enforced, I'm confident of that. Just like Gug's response to me about a comment that Phil made in another thread. Gug defended and rationalized it away very predictably. Phil did come forward and acknowledge his mistake on his own though. Larry are you reading?

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

Thank you Krull.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 5:39pm.

I don't think it will happen intentionally, if you think it is please bring it to the attention of a docent or post about it and get it out in the open. It is my intention to make OlyBlog inclusive of anybody who wants to be here and live up to the values set we've created. Help will be needed to make sure the "rules" are evenly enforced.

Of course I'm biased

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 8:57pm.

But I think you point out something very important, and that is how Phil actually acknowledged his mistake. We ALL can do that more often.

Why so sensitive?

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 3:32pm.

I gotta say, I didn't find much here to warrant the back and forth dialog. I found Larry's comment to be rubbish - I really don't think he has plans to hurt anybody. Chris is being treated unfairly in my book. Just how I feel about the situation.

Take it to a docent, Rob? Uh, no. Look at the list. There's no equality when looking at the list of docents, sorry.

EDIT: Emmett is on that list, but he rarely gets involved in the back and forth. I like his approach, though. Just shut the thread down so we don't have the chance to show our bias.

not sensitive.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 5:16pm.

This isn't about one event, EG, it's about his behavior since day one. I'm tired of it. "Clap trap" isn't nearly the worst thing he's said on this blog, but it is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

If you have no faith in the process then why did you agree on it? If you're not willing to take my word for it that I will be fair in my judgments or that the docents as a group will make fair decisions then why do you continue to post here?

I'd break the keyboard if I pressed the keys any harder when I say that it's not about what people say it's about how they say it. Please point out an example of me using my position as a docent unfairly. Show me where I used my position of power over somebody just because I'm a lefty and their not.

Rob said...

Submitted by Tschida on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 11:26am.

Rob said, "If you're not willing to take my word for it that I will be fair in my judgments" Unless I am mistaken, Rob stated that he held too much of a bias towards some to be an arbiter of situations like these. Why the change of mind?

Then Rob goes on to say, "Please point out an example of me using my position as a docent unfairly." I would suggest that the docent re-read the entire column again and see if he can identify where exactly he is guilty of what he claims he is innocent of. This particular column is a premium example of exactly this behavior.

I am not able to prove why the docent chooses to apply the rules to some and not to others. The fact that he is a 'lefty' I am confident is no coincidence. But surely it would be refuted.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

well,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 11:51am.

No. I said that I was afraid that if I tried to, say, ask YOU not to refer to people's beliefs/opinions as clap trap that you would say I was being biased. And that's what you've done. But I don't care anymore, you scream bias until your lungs explode, but just do it on SondraK's site.

Have I, in my powers as a docent, said anything about your views or opinions or beliefs? No, I simply asked you to be civil in the delivery of said opinion.

That fact that you defend the subject line you chose, are unwilling to see how it hurts dialog here, and even more unwilling to simply apologize leads me to believe that you are just here for confrontation. Well it ain't happening. You will not post here if you call people names or refer to their opinions in a derogatory manner. As far as I'm concerned this is your last chance, I personally will delete your account if it happens again, and the blog will be a better place for it.

Did you ask...

Submitted by Tschida on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 11:59am.

Anyone else to be civil? Was it needed, in the case of a personal attack or have you taken this speech code as a license to give me static? It would seem that you are exercising your 'power' to apply the rules that suit your mood. Evidence of this would be in this particular threat, "I personally will delete your account if it happens again, and the blog will be a better place for it." If this is how the docents are going to treat the bloggers here, I would kindly suggest that the docent let someone else who can at least attempt to be fair, have the title as well as the responsibility. After all, is this Olyblog, or is it The Olympian? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

We wouldn't be having this conversation on The Olympian.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 12:09pm.

It was pretty fair of us to just let you go on without saying anything to you about your behavior. I assumed you'd settle down and be a part of good community here. You don't seem to get that you have a role in that, and that you DO have responsibility over your words and how people react to them. Until you realize that, you're going to be scrutinized here. Let me clarify, I won't do anything without a consensus decision from the other docents, but the next time you attack someone I will propose that your account be deleted. Again, I don't care if you think that's fair or not, because it's not fair to others that you think it's OK to attack people on our blog and that they should just get over it.

Rob, I am just...

Submitted by Tschida on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 12:32pm.

trying to help you be fair and treat people equally. Even you said "Help will be needed to make sure the "rules" are evenly enforced." This discussion is out in the open, and for all to read. Also something you felt was needed. You said, "If you're not willing to take my word for it that I will be fair in my judgments..." I for one do not trust your judgement, or willingness to be fair. This column makes this point plainly obvious. You also said, "Please point out an example of me using my position as a docent unfairly." You are angry that I used a term like clap trap, and made a big deal of it to the point that you said you would personally delete my account. You did not feel that some one saying if they were younger and healthier they would ask me to step out side, did not warrant any kind of rebuttal, admonishment, or correction. That is the proof you demanded, regarding your own behavior. If you want to scrutinize what I say, great, lets get to it. But that is not what is going on here. Wouldn't you agree? It doesn't matter what I say, you are able to take issue with anything I say. How do I manage your reaction? There is nothing wrong with 'clap trap' anymore than there is anything wrong with 'hocus pocus'. I honestly believe you resent that this blog is something other than an echo chamber for liberal ideas and notions. How am I supposed to make you not angry, or resent the words I choose to describe my thought, when they don't actually inflict anguish as you claim? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

He'll never give an inch Rob.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 1:05pm.

You are wasting you time as you well know. I think the best one can do is simply describe why certain comments are not Olyblog material and leave it at that. The back and forth only reinforces the persecution complex and rewards the obvious search for conflict. It should be enough to simply tell a fellow that his tone is inappropriate. Oh, well.

OK

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 1:02pm.

Calling someone's opinion "clap-trap" is not OK on this blog because it immediately shuts down any chance of meaningful conversation, it makes people feel unwelcome, and people have stated that they stopped posting here because they were being personally attacked every time they tried to join a conversation here.

Larry sent me a private message apologizing for suggesting that had he been years younger he might have asked Tschida to step outside. Larry should apologize to Tschida also. I thank Larry for, even in hindsight, considering the feelings of others and how our words here might have an affect on them, and accepting responsibility for the experience that other people have on Olyblog.

I'm sensing that's the

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 3:11pm.

I'm sensing that's the catalyst for all this. Larry's apology was in private and not even to the person he was talking about. Meanwhile Tschida gets called out, again.

Whether he's wrong or not, whether you're right or not, starts to mean little when things aren't consistent.

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Thanks Merwyn

Submitted by Tschida on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 3:19pm.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

well,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 4:31pm.

If "joe" gets upset and breaks the rules every once in a while, it should be addressed. If "joe" apologizes and doesn't make a habit of it, then there's not a problem, in my opinion.

If "joe" consistently, almost daily, uses mean language and always seems to be here just to provoke an argument, then that behavior needs to be addressed, and something needs to change. If it's not "joe's" behavior, then it's her/his ability to post on the blog.

Terms of Service!

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 12/18/2007 - 8:28pm.

Hola O-Blog posse!

I just noticed this thread and now I'm all fired up! Looking at the term "clap-trap" on a few threads I posted I'm still trying to figure out if I'm getting insulted! wow, this is so cool, kinda like a "choose your own adventure"...

...so, just for the record and a big FYI to me, are the terms "clap-trap" and "wonk" OK or "off-limits"?

I'm just curious, because I think my speech on the ole O-Blog here has been called "clap-trap" and also concerned that I may have insulted & really upset some folks by using the term "wonk" (which I figured was better than deriding a perceived lack of education or other possible causes of an individual's ignorance & stupidity).

--any thoughts?

docent assist here?

PS: pls spell this out, it is getting very difficult to understand most of the dialog on the blog (as in, "is the author joking, being serious, drunk, etc...").

Thanks alot for all the work on the 'blog!

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: