Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
I Told You He Was No Good!
by: Rob Kailey - Jun 22
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search

Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

A Potential Change in Policy

by: Matt Singer

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:49 AM MST


Jay Stevens and I have been talking about additional steps to get this site more active and to restore some more positive dialogue. One policy change we're considering is to restrict front-page status to contributors who post under their own names. We'd reserve the right to promote diaries of all contributors, but we think that this change would help restore the frontpage as a credible location. I'm throwing up a poll on the question and would love feedback.

Feel free to share other ideas by email or in comments.

Also -- Jay and I would love some more contributors to this site interested in writing, especially under their real names. Specifically, I'd be interested in contributors with some policy focus headed in to the next legislative session. If you're interested, email or comments are great.
Matt Singer :: A Potential Change in Policy
Poll
Should front-page status be limited to non-anonymous bloggers?
Yes -- only people with their real names
No -- anonymity is just fine

Results

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

A Potential Change in Policy | 75 comments
Anything you can do to drive more traffic/create more dialogue (0.00 / 0)
would be good. I'm not voting because I support whichever policy creates the most participation..............
Real Names Only (0.00 / 0)
In order for any for any contributor on this site to be taken as seriously as they should be, they need to be subject to the same honest scrutiny that legacy journalists are subject to. The readers of this blog deserve to examine the contributors to understand if they have any sort of conflict of interests, particularly when blogging in support or opposition of candidates.
It's a small matter (0.00 / 0)
As someone who knows a considerable amount about blogs and blog dynamics, I can state unequivocally that one of the things that has damaged this blog in the past are assumptions of commenters about conflicts of interest and bias towards whatever.  Anonymity played no role in those assumptions.  If anything, known identity has been a detractor to actual discussion because it allows for personal attack.

That having been written, I favor the proposed policy of disclosure for front page posters.  What that will do is invite more activity from those who are not interested in trolling or overwhelmed with their own agendas.  

[ Parent ]
For the record (0.00 / 0)
If'n you'll need someone to post about gun rights and policy (good or bad), I got a few smarts 'bout that stuff.  I'll even do it under my own name.

Hi.  I'm Rob Kailey.  I love to work with people, I am a dog person first.  I was born on the cusp of Cancer and Leo.  My turn offs are ...

:-)

Would a partial name count? (0.00 / 0)
I post as Turner.  Do I need to use Richard too?  Doh! That was careless of me! Now everyone knows!
Shameful Day for LTIW (0.00 / 0)
Chances are, if I had to guess, the owners of this blog have taken serious heat from powerful politicians and other actors of whom Cowgirl has been critical, addition to heat from readers who comment on Cowgirl and don't like her. Singer and Stevens are in a tough spot.  Let's support the status quo, and not vote for censorship.

This blog became interesting when Cowgirl started blogging. Blogs all across the country are done anonymously. If high-ranking public officials can't stand the heat, they shouldn't read the blog and should try growing a thicker skin. We Want Cowgirl.  I must know 50 people in my city alone who read this blog only for Cowgirl.

In addition, this poll is rigged--if you wana do a real poll, then let's allow all readers/viewers to vote. That one, I could only imagine, would be overwhelmingly in favor of Cowgirl. Account-holders-only will probably stack up against her.

Finally, of all the things Left in the West should not do, censorship of a progressive blogger critical of politicians, including Democrats, should be high on the list.  Cowgirl's posts seem to be impeccably sourced, and "inflamatory" only because they are very incisive and piss people off. They are never libelous and never spread falsehoods. She delineates between fact and opinion.  And it seems she has scoops.  She is the only person on the front page that seems willing to get right down to brass tacks and talk about the real buzz, the dirt, the skinny, inside of Helena, which is nice for out of town readers. Not that I don't enjoy Matt and Jay's writings, but Cowgirl provides this site with something that it otherwise lacks.

We Want Cowgirl.

No one's being censored (4.00 / 1)
Cowgirl - or anyone - is free to post a diary on the site. And no one's suggesting that this policy is because she, or anyone else is critical of Democrats.

We just want to make clear any agenda or conflict of interest the blog may have. To do so, we agreed it's best that only identifiable and known folks will have automatic front-page status.

It's not a knock against anonymity either. I've defended it for ages. People have excellent reasons for not using their names.

Still, this and other blogs are constantly evolving. We're trying to promote dialog and open discussion, and I do think transarency of featured writers is important.

[ Parent ]
matt and jay use the wooden handle of the hammer to drive a nail... (0.00 / 0)
this site should help illuminate.....

http://hightalk.net/2010/06/23...

it isn't the posts that drive people away from blogs. it is the comments.

blogs are declining all accross the world as people seem to prefer shorter means of communication twitter et al .....

http://wearesocial.net/blog/20...

good luck with your new policy and driving that nail matt and jay.

[ Parent ]
pbear (0.00 / 0)
Matt is on the Twitter.  Both Matt and Jay use them the Facebook.  Yet you leave a comment about that on the blog ...
[ Parent ]
still - splintering wood won't drive any nails (0.00 / 0)
i don't possess the truth. i just link to it.
[ Parent ]
pbear... (0.00 / 0)
I agree that incivility in comments drives readers away. Thus, the new policy. So far, it seems to be working, as June has seen increasing readership.

Also, you're right that blogs are declining. LiTW's readership, despite the comments, has held steady over the years, with large spikes around elections. This year has been no different. Still, Matt and I both use Twitter and FB to get the message out; we're also involved in different projects offline.

In short, this blog is just one of many different tools we use to try to spur interest and participation in politics...

[ Parent ]
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. OH Elections Commission (0.00 / 0)
"Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry."
[ Parent ]
I recall... (0.00 / 0)
Posting a comment about anonymity recently and being attacked for a job I held 5 years ago. This job wasn't related to anything I was talking about in the posting, and I didn't mention it or allude to it.

It would have been impossible for me to respond or attack any of the anonymous people posting on this site on the same grounds. I identified myself to make a point; and kyle42, you underscored that point with your comment that day. Thank you.

That said, I don't feel censored because people know who I am. If I want to say something I'm not going to hide behind a fake name to do it.  

If people want to hide in the shadows, and they only feel comfortable exercising their rights of free speech if no one knows who they are or if they are credible, so be it. And in return, I have very little respect for what those people have to say.

My assumption has always been that an anonymous blogger is probably the least credible commentator or source available. Which may actually sell that commentator's credibility short, but how would we ever know. I think people should be able to make the choice to be either anonymous or credible.

Anonymous sources do have an important role to play-- issues that need to come to light, whistleblowers, etc.  But anonymity so you can feel free to slander without recourse? Not the same.

[ Parent ]
5 years ago? (0.00 / 0)
I was referring to your more recent collaboration.  If I was trying to claim to be a feminist and supporter of the current folks in office, I wouldn't want anyone to know either.  

Don't worry.  I won't tell anyone here what I'm talking about.  It's already out in Helena anyway as I heard it from a reporter.  Guessing that is one reason this particular client was passed on to someone else.

[ Parent ]
what?? (0.00 / 0)
The most recent collaboration I or my firm has had with Morrison was financial reporting for the Healthy Montana Kids committee account. This ended a couple months ago. I don't think that was anything too controversial. And no clients were passed on to other folks.

This is why anonymous blogging should end, you are making false statements, and I have no way to respond. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, except to say you're hearing and passing along incorrect information. I don't know what is "out" in Helena, but your reporter friend should give us a call directly.  

[ Parent ]
"This is why anonymous blogging should end" (0.00 / 0)
Maybe if you didn't comment anonymously, "Annie" we could take you a bit more seriously. It's odd to hear an anonymous commenter blast anonymous blogging. doesn't make sense.
[ Parent ]
Oh my bad. I didn't realize it was a state contract with DPHHS! (0.00 / 0)
I thought you mean the shell group Healthy Montana Kids that has no reason to exist now that the resolution passed, except to resurrect Morrison from the political graveyard. Apologies on all accounts.
[ Parent ]
Hooboy! (0.00 / 0)
Methinks that Kyle's got YOUR number, annie!  Kinda sucks, doesn't it, to THINK that by posting under "annie" no one would find out your history.  Maybe you should have posted under AnnieNONymous!  Just a thought.  You would not now be suffering from a totally embarassing outing!  DAMN THE TRVHT! It should have NO place on a decent forum!
[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
Sorry to elude everyone... Annie is my first name. My last name is Glover. I identified my full name in the post that I referenced from the beginning where "kyle42" made the original attack.  

The Healthy Montana Kids account was leftover from the campaign. Usually these accounts are kept open to close out any campaign season bills, like printing, etc. Regardless of any activity (check the reports, they're online, there wasn't much activity at all), these reports must still be filed with the Commissioner of Political Practices. No contract with DPHHS. But, like I said, we just maintained these for a few months merely to make sure the account was settled.  

I didn't actually work on Healthy Montana Kids-- during that cycle I was a labor organizer with MEA-MFT.  Still seems like it was a good program to pass though and I know a lot of folks got together on it.  

I'm not suffering from any "embarrassing outing." Just clarifying what is apparently misinformation.  

[ Parent ]
Attack? As you said, you've done nothing embarrassing right? (0.00 / 0)
Didn't realize it was such a sensitive issue.  So sorry you felt "attacked."
[ Parent ]
lol... (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who knows me knows I'm not that sensitive. I only think you intended it as an attack. Like I said, I don't feel embarrassed or "outed." I think Healthy Montana Kids is a good program. My involvement was minimal, but I'm still glad to have helped out a little with closing up the account when the campaign was over.  
[ Parent ]
What the..........? (3.00 / 1)
I thought her name WAS Montana Cowgirl??  You mean it's not?  Does that mean that Hannah Montana is NOT Hannah Montana??  Look, bottom line, Cgirl  has REJUVENATED moribund site!  I think that Gumbo pretty much nailed it.  WE LOVES US SOME COWGIRL!  Who CARES if she's anon?  Not me!  I seriously doubt that she lacks the courage to go public with her real name.  Nope. Anyone who writes like she does does NOT lack the oysters.  So she makes Dopey Rehburp mad.  Big deal.  THAT'S her job!  And really, conflict of interest???  If one got paid for disliking Dopey Rehburp, I'd be a freaking millionaire!

Like many others, my interest LITW has been flagging lately until Cgirl showed up.  Now, I can't WAIT to read her, and  to get the latest dirt on Dopey.  And she does an excellent job of that.  'Cause let's face it, we ALL know that Dopey Rehburp is not a nice person.  I enjoy being reminded of that with insightful criticism full of facts, figures, and insightful commentary. And lest we forget, the gal can write! Cgirl's a born writer. Oh sure, I like Matt and Jay, but to be quiet honest....boooring.  But Cgirl, CGIRL, she's got the gift.  Don't do the typical stupid lefty wussy thing and silence someone who doesn't quite fit the yuppie lefty profile.

Yeah, I'd like to know who Cgirl is too just to find out her age, her background, and how she developed her highly developed political savvy.  For you see, if she's young, by GOD that would make me extremely hopeful for the future knowing that we can still produce quality subversives.  But hey, I don't need.  I respect her wishes to remain anon.  

Right On, Kralj (0.00 / 0)
This whole idea that anonymous blogging is somehow bad, that's silly talk. Anonymity is crucial. Look at the book "Primary Colors". One of the great political pieces of fiction.  
[ Parent ]
Doe v. Reid (0.00 / 0)
In the recent Doe v. Reid decision, most justices acknowledged that part of playing a role in our democracy is standing behind your beliefs. In fact, Scalia, in his concurrence, wrote:

"Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."

If we feel so strongly about our beliefs, we should be willing to stand behind them. If we're not willing to stand behind them publicly, how can we expect to convince people to share our beliefs?  

[ Parent ]
woops (0.00 / 0)
Just realized I spelled "Reed" wrong. It's a double "e"
[ Parent ]
because mike (0.00 / 0)
Cowgirl probably would compromise herself in some way, and thus could not say the things she says.  It's not so hard to understand I don't think.  
[ Parent ]
Um, Mike, (0.00 / 0)
ever heard of a pen name, dude?  But seriously, your argument would have MUCH more merit if you could actually show some instances where your writing was SO controversial as to cause a significant threat to either your physical wellbeing or you employment.  Don't get out much, do ya?  And really, a "threat to democracy"?  That's laughable.
[ Parent ]
Compromise vs. Right to Know (0.00 / 0)
First off, I want to say that I'm not talking about Cowgirl in particular, I'm talking about blogging anonymously (especially in a state that is so small).

Secondly, I think we're getting at a disagreement of principles here. Larry and Gumbo seem to believe that a blogger's right to remain anonymous outweighs the public's right to know who is responsible for the information they are reading. I believe the exact opposition.

However, I have a feeling that Larry and Gumbo would be outraged if they found out that a CNN contributor was being paid by a corporation (such as BP), while also appearing on the network as a contributor. I ask, what is the difference? Don't we, as the public have a right to know who is attempting to shape our opinion? Don't we have a right to know if the person that has this platform to share their views, has any interest in these views that may not be readily apparent to the standard reader?

I say yes, readers have a right to know.

[ Parent ]
Dude This is a friggin blog (0.00 / 0)
that is read by 50 people plus the three of us. Get real.
[ Parent ]
well... (0.00 / 0)
...our readership is a lot higher than that, but it's a valid point, nonetheless. Still, everything written on this site appears in Google searches, and anything libelous or inaccurate could easily be found. Frankly I don't think the number of readers should be a measuring stick for accountability, IMHO. I think we set our own standards, and follow them.
[ Parent ]
I was neutral in this debate (0.00 / 0)
until I read that Scalia was against anonymity.  That makes me all for it.  
[ Parent ]
Let Cowgirl Speak! (0.00 / 0)
I like Montana Cowgirl. She writes about insider politics that outlanders like me find very interesting and entertaining. So what if she's taken stabs at the Governor and the Senators? I really hope that Matt and Jay aren't caving to pressure from elected officials. That would destroy any credibility they and this website have.
i have an idea for your policy focus on the legislature (0.00 / 0)
get out and talk to people face to face with whom you do not already agree. if talking to people is too scary at least get out and mingle with real people in seedy cafes and non-politically-correct bars and listen to what they have to say.

the people are restless my friends.

it is really not looking too good out there matt and jay for progressive agendas.

in 08 democrats ignited a spark of optimism in this country by promising hope and change. then their elected politicians proceeded to pour a big bucketful of water on that spark by listening to lobbyists instead of the people who voted for them.

 

[ Parent ]
Agreed, Viola (0.00 / 0)
It would be terrible if we made this decision on the basis of pressure from elected officials. The questions here that have triggered this actually haven't been from elected officials.

Also, we're not planning on banning Montana Cowgirl, Yellowstone Kelly, or anyone else who would be affected by this. We're just figuring out how to handle the ability to write automatically on the front-page.

[ Parent ]
No one's talking about censoring Cowgirl (0.00 / 0)
Just not having her or any other anonymous blogger as a featured writer. (That includes Yellowstone Kelly.)

And I don't think this is about criticism of any sitting Democratic official. If anyone's read this blog, they'd know we all take shots at Democrats. I've called out Schweitzer for his coal policy, Tester for his the logging mandate in the Wilderness bill and his stance on financial reform, and Baucus...well, it's a long list. Matt criticizes as well, and we've promoted nearly every one of Matt Kohler's posts about Tester's wilderness bill.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could claim with a straight face that we don't allow intra-party criticism here. Quite the opposite.

[ Parent ]
i have often wondered jay and matt (0.00 / 0)
if, in fact, you are not both a tad too tolerant.
[ Parent ]
also matt and jay, that being said. (0.00 / 0)
i hope you will always keep your editing on the open side. the dissemination of differing views is more important to democracy than the need for politeness.

also, it does not bother me too much to be contributing to a medium which is losing popularity. popular opinion is for the most part rubbish anyway. if one good idea or opinion inspires one person to selflessly do something good for others, that is enough.

as i am sure both of you do every day.

[ Parent ]
but don't take my word for it (0.00 / 0)
you could listen to chris hayes instead of insider political wonks to hone your policy.....

http://videocafe.crooksandliar...

Congress overreached when House and Senate negotiators reached a tentative deal on financial reform. Boehner said, quote, "This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon", end quote.

Now, Boehner isn't alone in attempting to minimize the financial crisis. Fact of the matter is as soon as the bankers and the big shots were in the clear, when the bonuses started flowing on Wall Street and politicians could hit their fund-raising goals again, the establishment suddenly lost that sense of panicked urgency they had when in the fall of 2008 it looked like the entire crown jewel of American capitalism was swirling around the drain.

Let's keep this in perspective. The baroque Ponzi scheme in which Wall Street engaged precipitated a recession that has, as I speak to you right now, left eight million people without jobs, 8.4 million people without jobs, three million homes foreclosed on, and as of 2008 at least a million more people living in poverty. And just today scared consumers are raising more worries of a double-dip recession.

The folks that number among those millions don't think this recession is just an ant or a bump in the road. For them, it is an existential crisis, the death of life dreams. For John Boehner and so many of his colleagues this doesn't amount to that big a deal because it's not their ox being gored. I live in Washington which has one of the strongest regional economies in the country, and I can tell you the boom times are back.

The only way to wake the American elite establishment out of its complacency about the slow motion disaster of the great recession is for the people getting hammered by it to organize and to interrupt this ruling class idol, to remind the people in power that the crisis isn't over and the real danger isn't overreaction, it is the sin of forgetting, the threat of failing to use this moment to fix a dangerously broken economy.

off topic? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Women posting anonymously (0.00 / 0)
A friend of mine, who's old and lives alone, has very progressive views.  She's afraid to write a letter to the editor here in Dillon, though, because she fears reprisals from right-wing extremist neighbors.

I wonder if a female poster on a blog might be in a similar situation.  Anomymity offers her some sort of protection from bullies willing to express their views physically.

 

Actually, with the coming of the TeaWankers, (0.00 / 0)
anyone who writes a letter to the ed now days is subjected to all kinds of nasty phone calls.  Didn't used to be that way.  The rightwing is indeed a scary group now.  Hell, they don't even like my Obama stickers on my truck.  Too bad I guess.
[ Parent ]
again... (0.00 / 0)
...anonymous bloggers are not being banned from posting, just that they won't be featured writers. Any post that's well written and supported by evidence will be promoted, even if anonymously written.
[ Parent ]
Women posting anonymously (0.00 / 0)
I am like your friend in Dillon, only I live in Anaconda.  I, too, am fearful of the far, far right zealots who are striving to take over our country and will resort to any means to achieve that end, including violence.  I would hope that the powers that be on this blog decide to allow posters like myself and your friend and your friend to remain anonymous lest we experience violent or otherwise nasty reprisals from the far right.
[ Parent ]
Maybe a little clarity on the following: (0.00 / 0)
"this change would help restore the frontpage as a credible location."

would shed some light on why any proposed changes are needed. You guys think that LitW is no longer a "credible location" because of your anonymous front page writers? By what do you base that opinion on? Who's pushing your buttons here? Worried about some liability issues? Political insiders (not "elected officials") getting to you? Worried about future political aspirations? Whose credibility do you aspire to win?

As to my (anonymous) opinion, I don't think anyone here has the right to know another's identity. I think Matt and Jay should be handing out front page posting privileges based on the quality of the material, and the dialog it provokes. It's their blog, though, and they can set the rules however they want, of course--anonymous or not. And if front page auto-posting privileges are only handed out to those willing to lay their identities on the line, well then they'll just have to live with the consequences. Blogs raise and fall on the quality of their posts, not the sigs attached to them.

And to Matt and Jay, how do we know that your real names are Matt Singer and Jay Stevens?

Show me your birf certifcut.

I'm actually a brain in a vat (0.00 / 0)
Metaphysics? Really?
[ Parent ]
did i forget the winky eye? (0.00 / 0)
Sorry. But how about that first paragraph of questions, Matt?
[ Parent ]
Crickets... (0.00 / 0)
chirp, chirp
[ Parent ]
I guess we'll never hear the real reason (0.00 / 0)
this whole anonymous posting issue came up. Too bad. It lends an atmosphere of caving in to some untold, unheard powers-that-be. And puts the credibility of this blog as an independent entity in question. I guess if the puppeteers behind this maneuver get away with it, we can see a continual whittling away of independent thought here until this blog becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece for mainstream democratic party thought.
[ Parent ]
Wouldn't it ... (0.00 / 0)
be more accurate to say that you will never know the 'real' reason' this issue came up, or at least not a reason you'll accept?  You've followed this blog for some time.  The only "puppeteers" that one needs to even consider are those who have derailed conversation after conversation with suspicion and derision concerning the person who writes something disagreeable as opposed to disagreeing with what was written.  I shouldn't have to point out that those derails and annoyances are simply Ad Hominem arguments fueled by the anonymity of the poster.

Considering that most of this issue is backlash against Montana Cowgirl, whom everybody and their mother has postulated is a Montana Democratic Party/McDonald plant, it doesn't make sense, at all, that this proposed policy change is being driven by "mainstream democratic party thought".  This blog has lost credibility; you, JC, are a perfect example of that.  For you that has little or nothing to do with the anonymity of posters here.  But for others it does.  It should seem obvious that that is the issue that Matt and Jay are attempting to cope with.

[ Parent ]
Been several questions raised here (0.00 / 0)
by folks I like and respect. Ed Kemmick's questions about it hit both Jay and I since he's always been someone we've thought highly of. I'm not going to "out" the off-blog questions since I do value non-public feedback.

Jay and I talked about it. We thought that removing front-page status for anonymous folks struck a nice balance between still allowing for anonymity and pseudonymity and maintaining some protections on the site.

Sorry for slow response. I took Friday off to take care of some old chores and then enjoyed my weekend. I hope you enjoyed yours as well.

[ Parent ]
So you're kowtowing to Lee Enterprises reporters now? (0.00 / 0)
"I finally went to the trouble of registering so I could comment on the cowgirl's latest offering."

You're non-answer to my questions just confirms my suspicions. You can let off-blog people control your content all you want, Matt. But it doesn't speak very highly of your editorial independence. What you gain in credibility from Lee Enterprises and your off-blog buddies and critics, you'll lose in the blogosphere. But that's your choice.

As to slow responses, this diary kinda reminds me of a friday news dump--except it was thursday and you took a 4-dqy weekend. Dump and run. ;-)

As to my weekend, I did have a nice 4th BBQ and went to the Arlee Celebration Powwow, but other than that, I worked my butt off trying to whip my place into shape--it's a perpetual battle against entropy and rain/weeds out here in the Jocko these days.

[ Parent ]
I don't think Ed Kemmick was writing here as a voice of Lee (0.00 / 0)
My non-answers "confirm" your suspicions? That's actually not possible unless you're inferring information and taking your inference as confirmation.
[ Parent ]
Well, since you're not willing to reveal your "anonymous" sources (0.00 / 0)
"I'm not going to "out" the off-blog questions since I do value non-public feedback."

It just leaves some of us here wondering as to your true motivations. I find it amusing that you'd be willing to let anonymous (to us here at LitW) sources outside this blog influence decisions made on who gets to auto-post here, anonymous or not. Seems a bit hypocritical.

If you want to list those off-blog complaints that led to this proposal, I'm sure people here would love to hear them. And you can keep them anonymous, if those opinionators wish to keep their hands clean.

As to Kemmick, how could any of us think otherwise? He comes in here and posts a few comments dumping on cowgirl, and refers readers back to his City Lights blog? He only decides to comment when his fellow Lee IR editorial board gets attacked?

And for my suspicions, I think there's an interesting back story that you're not willing to tell. And I haven't just inferred it from what I read here. Others have said the same thing elsewhere. You've been carefully parsing your words and phrases. Maybe that's just because you've been hob-nobbing with too many politicians lately. Maybe not.

I think that when you say things like :

"It would be terrible if we made this decision on the basis of pressure from elected officials. The questions here that have triggered this actually haven't been from elected officials."

I hear: "But the pressure from staffers, party insiders, editorialists and donors was insufferable."

Am I incorrect in this assumption? Maybe in degree, but not substance?

I guess to me it's a matter of integrity. If you and Jay just want to say that you think MT Cowgirl went too far and pissed off a bunch of people on the outside, so you canned her, then say so. I think most of us here would find the honesty refreshing. If nothing else, it has spurred her to move on and do her own blog, which could be a good thing.

[ Parent ]
actually... (0.00 / 0)
LiTW and 4&20 b'birds have always been pretty independent voices in left politics. That's all the currency we have. We don't have money, and we don't have power. We have the integrity of the blog. That's it.

There was concern by some folks that anonymous bloggers had used their anonymity to pursue insider political agendas. So we thought that it would be best to require that our featured writers post under their own names so that that our integrity is maintained.

Kemmick is a good guy. He's not a knee-jerk defender of Lee Enterprises. He actually cares about stuff like integrity and openness and getting stuff right. Most reporters do.

I don't know about Matt, but I find it pretty funny that people accuse us of kow-towing to the Democratic party, when our relationship to elected officials, staffers, and other insiders can be stormy. I mean, doesn't anybody remember this?

Not everyone in progressive politics feels comfortable with Singer's dual role as progressive political organizer and left wing blogger. Tester spokesman Matt McKenna says it's hard to know how to deal with the likes of Singer, who wears many-and very different-hats from time to time.

"Left leaning bloggers in Montana are trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up," McKenna says. "Do they want to be journalists, activist, insiders, strategists, or critics? You can't be all of those things. Yet that's what a lot of these guys are trying to do."

McKenna says it can be frustrating dealing with Singer, who at times supports Tester publicly, at times criticizes Tester and other Democrats, and at times attempts to reach out as CEO of Forward Montana for support.

Not sure how this bug got up everybody's sses about LiTW "selling out" and all, but it's pretty fcking ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
Just curious Jay... (0.00 / 0)
but it strikes me as somewhat odd for you to be highlighting a quote from a 3-year old article. Hasn't quite a bit happened over the past three years in terms of the economy, politics, policy, etc?

While I don't believe I've personally ever accused anyone here at LiTW of "selling out, I do think a pretty solid case could be made that some LiTW posts over the past year on topics ranging from health care policy, financial reform and Tester's logging bill have a distinctly less progressive bent than they once did.  

[ Parent ]
Perhaps you haven't (0.00 / 0)
While I don't believe I've personally ever accused anyone here at LiTW of "selling out,

Maybe not, but very much like Ochenski, you have claimed that others have not the smarts to hold an opinion concerning something that you consider your own special bailiwick.  That is, if the opinion disagrees with you.  Yes, quotes can be provided.  Quite apparently there is an aberrant idea of personal authority at work here.  So, I'm certain that though you may not have used the exact words in question, you can see how accusations of 'not being progressive enough' are clearly the same as crying "sell out".  And it is pretty fricking ridiculous.
[ Parent ]
"Might"? (0.00 / 0)
Not likely, though.
[ Parent ]
I prefer anonymity for safety's sake. (0.00 / 0)
Because today's political arena has become so very contentious AND dangerous (I believe, anyway), I would never post my name for fear that a rabid zealot whose political/religious/cultural views are 180 degrees polar opposite from mine might end up on my doorstep and threaten me physically.  I am a 70+ year old widow with serious health problems, and I simply cannot risk zealots trying to keep me from speaking, writing or posting my opinions.

It is a tragedy that our country has become so very divisive that some of us have to live in fear of our neighbors.

How about a Daily Open Thread? (0.00 / 0)
They seem to draw some good discussions on other blogs I frequent.  Lots of times I don't really have anything to add to a specific diary or topic but I'd like to be able to share a link or a news item without having to compose a diary.
Comment and diary ratings could (4.00 / 1)
also get people more involved on this site.  Adding a plus or minus rating for casual users could keep people reading and participating without having to leave a comment.  Adding a 'recommend' button for people to click when they read a diary could also get people more involved.  

Most readers don't want to leave a comment, but if they can comment by rating diaries and other comments, they will probably do so.

[ Parent ]
So what's the upshot of all this? (0.00 / 0)
Are anonymous posters still allowed or not?  I hope they will be. The fact is that quite a few righties are violently inclined, and anonymity provides a small measure of safety to those they'd like to harm.  We don't need lefty martyrs.  We need the free exchange of ideas.
anonymous posters are still allowed (0.00 / 0)
and encouraged. We will promote good, quality posts by anonymous writers.
[ Parent ]
The view from the North (4.00 / 1)
May a writer from the Flathead offer a comment? I run Flathead Memo Dot Com, a one-man operation. I allow comments, but not automatic posting, and I do not allow anonymous comments. As I explained in a post last fall:

"A great many who post comments on blogs, especially those blogs that permit anonymous comments, that do not require posters to write under their real names, have been even less restrained, some to the point of being downright irresponsible and mean-spirited.

"That's why I don't permit automatic posting, let alone anonymous posting, on this blog. There is a long and honorable tradition of anonymous comment in this country, but it is not being practiced much on blogs. Instead, the overwhelming majority of those who post under nom de plumes are doing so to free themselves from accountability for remarks they would never make under their real names. If I did allow anonymous posting, it would generate a lot of traffic (and if I had advertisers, I might make more money), but it would not elevate the discourse. Instead, it would, if examples of what gets posted on the websites of newspapers are an indication, send the discussion into the sewer. On Flathead Memo, that's not going to happen."

My opinion, and policy have not changed. In fact, reading the awful comments in the InterLake and Missoulian concerning the airplane crash that killed four last week only reinforces my conclusion that anonymous blogging and posting generally works to the disadvantage of civility.

I'm troubled by some anonymous postings on LitW. I do not know who Cowgirl is (although I may know her), and I would want her at my side in a back-alley brawl, but I've often wondered whether she would be more restrained writing under her real name, whether she would be more effective writing under her real name, and whether her cloak of anonymity is really necessary or whether she's using it to get away with throwing stones she would otherwise not throw.

So, I favor posting under one's real name, with an occasional exception for situations in which anonymity is genuinely warranted. The same goes for comments.


Excellent comment (0.00 / 0)
Yet, there's the rub:

So, I favor posting under one's real name, with an occasional exception for situations in which anonymity is genuinely warranted. The same goes for comments.

To those who seek to harm another, or wish to indulge in conspiracy about that others motivations, then explanations of the reason behind anonymity can be as disruptive (or more so) than a community acceptance of the anonymity itself.  A total rejection of anonymity may lead to more civility, but effectively silences and/or censors those who do have good reason to remain anonymous.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but you're wrong. (0.00 / 0)
Cronner, I don't know what kind of job you have, but there are many, many folks who for reasons of employment choose to post anonymously for good reason.  And the reason being that they could have some real problems at their workplace if they post under their real names.  You strike me as someone who has never been under such constraints.  Therefore, you can afford  to be courageous in your idealism.  BTW, do you support a family?  Many folks do, and they MUST have that paycheck to survive.  When it comes down to telling the truth as one sees it and getting that regular paycheck, the paycheck takes top priority.

Unfortunately, I've been one of those people who writes what I think regardless of the consequences.  And buddy let me tell you that there were plenty.  I used to teach at a private Catholic high school.  School personnel would recive anonymous letters endlessly saying that I should be fired. Not only letters, but e-mails and phone calls too. The school board members were contacted.  The principal was  contacted.  The superintendent was contacted.  And finally the bishop himself was contacted all by "good, concerned Catholic" anonymous sources, and all demanding that I be fired. I finally left of my own accord without being fired, but the anonymous accusations played no roll in that.  It was just time to move on.  

My sin was that I had angered some people who thought they were  very important, one of them being a former female member of Marc Ratco's staff.

But my point is this, Cronner.  Courage of conviction is REAL easy if you've got nothing to lose!  But iff you're living hand to mouth, which many lefties are, it ain't quite so easy.  So, I would take what Wulfgar said one step further.  The lack of anonymity benefits ONLY the established powers that be.  Why would we want that?

p.s. Ever been threatened with a lawsuit by a corporation, Cronner?  I have.  It's scary stuff too, especially when you're on your own dime for legal fees.  Think about it.

[ Parent ]
To second Larry (0.00 / 0)
There have been 3 attempts to get me fired from my job.  Fortunately, all of them relied on the false assumption that I work for MSU.  I don't. All of them relied on the the idea that I post 'anonymously' but yet this wicked smart other person really knew who I really was!  They don't.  I go into the future knowing full well that these attempts could continue, and someday, might actually be successful.

I have been threatened with lawsuits 3 times.  One was laughably bullshit, right here at this website.  One was scary because the threatener has been shown to be kinda nuts and has enough money to pursue the crazy.  One was actually deserved, and I apologized.  I am not ashamed of that one.  But I am always acutely aware that stupid follows any scent of weakness on the Intertubes.  And all 6 of these stupid events have been based on the idea that I am not anonymous.  To those who can remain anonymous online, I salute you folks.  I never made that much effort, and I pay the price because of it, just like Larry.

Larry is right about this:

The lack of anonymity benefits ONLY the established powers that be.  Why would we want that?

I favor disclosure and lack of anonymity.  I realize that it fosters better discussion.  But I remain and will remain concerned that those who actually have something to lose might lose it for our benefit, and they will pay for our instruction.  

[ Parent ]
i have lost jobs by being politically active under my real name (0.00 / 0)
mostly forest service jobs when i was active in protecting wilderness on my own time during the Reagan years.

i learned my lesson then.

there is also this to consider: many organizations depend on donations to survive. even though i blog and comment on my own time, there are people evil enough in this world to target those organizations for retribution simply because one of their employees does not agree with their views. many of these people hold positions of power in their communities . indeed many are elected representatives.

i would like to think that they are american enough to allow a citizen to speak his/her mind without fear of retribution but i am not so naive. as for those who are so extreme in their views that their version of being real american means stifling opposition by any means necessary i would not want to give them an easy target. either for myself or for any organization that i may work for.

there have been many attempts to silence j-girl in this way by those cowards who purport to be americans. this is reality. not crazy talk. keeping the freedom to express oneself can be very dangerous.

extreme right wingers
extreme christians
extreme anti-wilderness

i am sure that there are good reasons to use your own name. maybe some day when i am retired i will be known once again to those who would . until then, my anonymity will remain intact.  

[ Parent ]
Posting with a real name` (0.00 / 0)
can easily be used against you. I can't be "fired" from my job as I work for myself but I have been jailed, harassed, and generally crapped upon because I angered the local mayor with my writing. While I am not a big fan of MTcowgirl, I understand why she would want to continue to write behind a fake name. Personally, I think she should start her own blog (which I understand, she has already done).

As far as LITW, I think that there are lots of factors contributing to a lower readership and this only addresses one of them.  

[ Parent ]
Kraljistic Civility (0.00 / 0)
The tenor of Krajl's comment is a good example of what ails the blogosphere.

As I noted, there is a place for anonymous comment -- in his opinion in McIntyre v. Ohio, Justice Stevens' said "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

Kralj and I do not disagree on whether anonymity can be justified. But I suspect we do disagree on whether some who seek the protection of anonymity employ that shield with wisdom. My concern is that far too many who write under nom de plumes take leave of their better judgment when doing so. Their rhetoric coarsens, their standards for sourcing and argument decline, and their contribution to public discourse is diminished. In short, once some people believe they cannot be identified, they set aside their thinking caps, pick up their cudgels, and set about clubbing near to death those with whom they disagree. This is to no one's benefit.

That is my concern with anonymity on the web. LitW asked for opinions and I provided one. I wish Jay and Matt the best of fortune in striking a workable balance between openness and anonymity, and in improving the state of civility on LitW.

[ Parent ]
Did I offend? (0.00 / 0)
How so?  You see, Cronner, I meant no offense to you personally.  Sorry that you took it that way.  I simply believe that if we're going to be honest with one another, let's be honest all the way.  That's why I related some details of my past.  That's all.  No offense intended, amigo.  I know that I don't pass the civility test all the time, but is that really a crime?  I try to be uncivil only to the bad guys, but sometimes I guess I slip up.
[ Parent ]
Ah, Larry (0.00 / 0)
I think if you were standing next to me, your form of argument would be a punch in the nose. That's why, deprived of that opportunity, you're behaving like Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men." Why not take a crack at providing a few good comments?
[ Parent ]
i think there is an easier way to accomplish civility (0.00 / 0)
rather than single out who is anonymous from those who are not, simply toss out any post or comment that personally and maliciously attacks another fellow commenter or poster. that way we are all spared the resulting back and forth which is of no interest to readers and only serves to detract from the blog's purpose.

that is- if increasing readership is the goal here.

if it is instead, as jc and others claim, an attempt to steer the blog toward a more center of the road - hurt no one type of blog then proceed. because you are on the road to failure of achieving more readership.

i attack all politicians who are public figures based on their votes and behavior just as matt and jay attack republican politicians. the only difference between my attacks and theirs is with mine, all are fair game if they deserve it.

A Potential Change in Policy | 75 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!
    		•
     
    Powered by: SoapBlox