By exercising virtually no editorial control over the web log, Channel 2 and Young Broadcasting are tacitly endorsing the editorial stance of the person(s) in charge of the site.

Posted by: "John Galt" at December 22, 2005 2:38 PM

My obligation is to my employer who decided that a site featuring what other local bloggers are talking about would be good for his station. In planning that site, he decided that having a blogger appear unbiased would result in a boring blog. Not only that, but pretending not to have biases is often ridiculously transparent. People can see right through that.

The idea was to hire a blogger who let her prejudices show--and that people could then debate the facts with all the various biases out in the open.

Non-"MSM" bloggers shine when they are partisan and opinionated. That is what we wanted for Nashville Is Talking as well.

Posted by: brittney at December 22, 2005 2:50 PM

NashvilleisTalking is basically a corporate in-kind contribution to the DNC. That's why I rarely read it these days. I'd rather read a substantive blog dedicated to all things Nashville (which is what the NIT name implies but in no way delivers). NIT is boring precisely b/c you can get that hard left perspective on national issues at a thousand other places.

Posted by: Lance at December 22, 2005 10:31 PM

I don't belong in a Nashville micturation match, but the topic itself is worthy of thought.

Earlier, I would likely have thought that an unbalanced partisan department in a news organization was a dangerous business move; but then FoxNews and O'Reilly came along and are doing quite well enough to survive, due to our divided electorate, whether cause or effect - likely both. So advertiser pressure might not be as large a factor now as it has sometimes been.

I RSS a variety of sources for leads to breaking news and at least news of opinions across the spectrum. What I'm really looking for is facts, real reportage; and those can be found in some form even in some partisan posts, although links to original sources are most appreciated. There are many sources of opinion I mostly just note as signs of what the natives are restless about. There are a few I respect, like George Will, who have shown me they are truly intelligent and fair-minded enough for me to read more fully.

A most important difference between TV and radio stations and main newspapers, and blogging, is that the former are generally much less judgment-proof and a lot more worth suing for libel than bloggers; so were I an agent of the former, I would make it my business to do enough fact-checking of what I published to avoid successfully being charged with reckless disregard for the truth.

I've lost a lot of respect for MSM personnel the last few years, both for their personally undeserved conceit and their corrupting self-interest. Any rare pangs of jealousy that they are being paid quite a bit for doing such crappy jobs is mitigated by the facts that I love my own profession and that I can never be fired from my own blog.

Oh, and excessive partisanship is an instant turn-off. A skillful writer should strive to hold every reader until the end of a piece with his intelligence, fair-mindedness, and craft.

Posted by: Wintermute at December 23, 2005 2:14 AM

Bill,
It seems to me that Brittney's boss is an amateur, and the fault lies with him/her and not with Brittney. If her boss told her to do this, then she's just doing her job.

If her boss told her to be biased, then he/she is an absolute fool for not putting a disclaimer that reads "The views expressed on this blog are not necessarily the opinions of WKRN." Without that, not only are they responsible for what Brittney says, but may be legally culpable for what is said in the "comments" area. And as you pointed out, there could be a backlash with advertisers.

It's such a stupid mistake on the part of the boss that it makes me wonder how competent he/she is in managing a newsroom.

Posted by: Sharon Cobb at December 23, 2005 4:18 AM

"The idea was to hire a blogger who let her prejudices show..."

Congratulations. You have succeeded.

Posted by: "John Galt" at December 23, 2005 8:42 AM

"You are free, obviously, to critique what happens here at NIT. It is the nature of blogging."

That's an excerpt from Brittney's last comment on the thread Bill linked to - then she closed comments on the thread!

Is that WKRN's idea of allowing people to "debate the facts with all the various biases out in the open?"

Posted by: JB at December 23, 2005 10:06 AM

Brittney, you really should have done some investigation. When you posted a story about Tommy Bradley et al trying to close down taquerias, you went so far as to go dig up some of the scores from both taquerias and other restaurants as a comparison. That's the way it should be done.

I agree that Bill Hobbs is all over it just because it paints a republican in a bad light, but his point is still valid.

Posted by: Michael Chaney at December 23, 2005 2:12 PM

"You are free, obviously, to critique what happens here at NIT. It is the nature of blogging."

That's an excerpt from Brittney's last comment on the thread Bill linked to - then she closed comments on the thread!

Is that WKRN's idea of allowing people to "debate the facts with all the various biases out in the open?"

Bill is free to continue to criticize on his own blog (crap! online magazine).

Posted by: brittney at December 23, 2005 3:45 PM

Should an MSM-run blog publish press releases from political parties verbatim as if they are news articles?

I did not reprint it as if it was a news article. That is incredibly misleading, typical of what you do here. I posted it as a press release--as is.

Publishing private email correspondicies without permission is bad form in my opinion. But nothing I have written to you privately would shame me in any way, so go for it.

Posted by: brittney at December 23, 2005 5:20 PM

"Should an MSM-run blog publish press releases from political parties verbatim as if they are news articles?"

That's not what happened at Nashvilleistalking, and anyone who can read knows that. It might be a topic that is interesting to you, but it isn't one that applies to this situation.

Posted by: Kevin Newman at December 23, 2005 5:21 PM

In it's infancy, I visited NiT often and commented often but I've been more concerned about leaving opinions at hostile Left sites and even moreso after The Scene blacklisted my IP address (for what I'm still not sure). Then when Sharon decided to go after Hitman, it just confirmed my suspicions. And the similar instance that Hobbs had noted where a leftie culled the e-mail address of an attorney and wrote a snotty letter to his work to try and get him fired. My work is more important to me than my need to express myself.

As an unpaid blogger you are free to say almost anything you want. As soon as you start accepting a paycheck from an organization that can be damaged by public opinion (and especially a news organization) you have to be cognizant that the company that is underwriting such commentary bears a degree of responsibility.

Liberals like to complain about Mark Hyman who does a little "my POV" thing for Sinclair Broadcasting at the local Fox affiliate but NiT is tantamount to the same thing in web form. Perhaps they could insulate themselves from such criticism by having two bloggers - one coming from the right and one coming from the left.

How expensive could that be when you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a right-leaning blogger doing it for free anyway?

Posted by: smantix at December 23, 2005 5:22 PM

Bill Hobbs - Why must you be a cockfaced asshole mother fucker son of a bitch piece of shit!

Just saying that for Brittney because I know she can't and I know she so wants to and you so deserve it. I know you won't post this, and that isn't my intentions. I just wanted you to read it.

Posted by: Amy at December 23, 2005 6:37 PM

Seems to me that a blog that under the aegis of a so-called "mainstream media" outlet would be considered, by definition, as an op-ed column. Op-ed columns don't have to be unbiased. Brittney's only journalistic obligation is to not publish libel (well, and to be entertaining so that people will read it, but that's necessarily subjective - I enjoy reading her, anyway). Her obligations do not include putting up with your bullying bloviations or giving you a forum to publish Republican talking points under the guise of comments. The fact that the newspaper she works for does allow comments is as a courtesy to you, not an obligation. You've got your own blog here, so please, spare the rest of us.

Posted by: Ryland at December 23, 2005 7:29 PM

In the interests of fairness, this blog has not mentioned anything about my belief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You discuss evolution but not a mention of this religion which has a lot of believers. Please rectify this by posting, in equal fairness, a description of the history of our religion and how it has been prosecuted for it's alternative beliefs.

Posted by: ortsed at December 23, 2005 7:44 PM

I find it curious that someone criticizing the comment policy of NIT would have a policy of 'approving' all comments that appear on his own blog.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that NIT is basically an online op-ed space. As such, I don't see why Brittney should have any obligation to provide unbiased news. As far as I can tell, NIT was never set up to report straight news, never pretended to be straight news, and therefore Brittney doesn't owe her readers any certain degree of objectivity. So she gets paid to voice her opinions and occasionally recite liberal talking points. How is that any different than what Maureen Dowd gets paid to do, or what Peggy Noonan did? That she gets paid by a media outlet hardly makes her a reflection of the 'mainstream media.'

Posted by: Ryan at December 23, 2005 8:12 PM

I gotta agree that Brittney giving herself the last word, and taking advantage of that to make all sorts of unrefutable points, is pretty immature. Not a positive way to blog either.

BUT... a clever lawyer can make a case here, I think. WKRN is a broadcast television station, which operates via a license issued by the FCC to the station's owners. The Communications Acts require certain kinds of behavior from broadcasters in what they put out.

The WKRN website is very definitely an extension of the WKRN license, I think it could be argued. And NiT is very definitely an extension of the website, I think it cna be further argued.

In a way, Brittney can become a poster girl for the return of the Fairness Doctrine and its extension to broadcasters' websites. I'd hate to see it, but I think a case can at least be made.

A person with a mean streak can go down to the station and make a formal complaint which would be added to the station's file, which will be examined when the station's license renewal comes up. Lots of complaints will draw notice. Not sure what would result, but I imagine that some folks upstairs at the FCC will consider making a "ruling" of some kind to "clear things up."

Posted by: mike hollihan at December 23, 2005 8:31 PM

Of course he is. But what use is your blog if you're going to close comments when you're being pummeled. Bill Hobbs has never, to my knowledge, done anything like that. He just walks away if he doesn't have time to deal with it. For you to say "I don't have time for this, I'm taking my ball and going home" is, at best, immature.

Posted by: Michael Chaney at December 23, 2005 8:51 PM

A reader above writes, "I find it curious that someone criticizing the comment policy of NIT would have a policy of 'approving' all comments that appear on his own blog."

Actually, I was criticizing the posting policy at NIT more than the comments policy there. As for my own site's comments policy, it is clearly written that that the only reason comments here are subject to deletion is if they are off-topic or contain foul language or personal attack.

I do not delete comments from people who disagree with me unless they also violate those rules.

I sometimes allow comments to post even if they violate those rules if the violation is minor, or if it is so egregious (see Amy's comment above) that it reveals volumes about the person who posted it. (Amy, if Brittney is your friend, I'm sure she appreciates the class with which you represented her here via your comment.)

The reason comments do not post immediately is because MovableType 3.2 has a spam filter that holds comments in draft until I verify that they are not spam.

Brittney - you absolutely did post it as if it was a news article. You said Tuke sent Harwell a letter, called it "quite the slap," and then printed it, verbatim.

You did nothing to question its contents, or the motivation of its writer - in short, basic journalism. That leaves the reader no context and no basis on which to evaluate the letter's contents, leaving them the impression that you - a journalist for WKRN - thinks the letter is a factual rendering of the truth and an accurate analysis if its importance.

You could have least dug up that old AP article in which Tuke's predecessor said the thinks Tuke accuses Harwell of doing were simple bookkeeping mistakes and not a big deal.

Or you would have invited comments from readers and bloggers who knew more about the charges in the Tuke letter. You did neither.

And, by posting the full text of the letter, you gave your readers no reason to click the link to Sharon Cobb's blog, from which you got the blog post idea and content in the first place.

Given the pronounced leftward tilt of NIT, a big chunk of NIT's potential audience is right to assume that you neither wanted to know the whole truth nor wanted readers to know it.

Does WKRN really want to alienate half the potential audience for NIT?

If another big media outlet in town wants to compete with NIT, the opening is there.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at December 23, 2005 10:19 PM

I don't get why you're so upset about this, Bill, other than the fact that your oxe has been gored and you're upset about it. You come along and criticize her for not being a reporter or not doing basic journalism or whatever you're on about; well, news flash, she's not a reporter, she's a blogger. If they wanted a reporter, they would have hired a reporter. They wanted a blogger, so they hired one. Quoting an article and adding one's own comment is pretty much classic blog posting style. Brittney gets paid to point at stuff and have opinions about it. She's doing the job they pay her to do. Although...

If another big media outlet in town wants to compete with NIT, the opening is there.

...could it be that we're a wee bit envious? Courting the competition for paid blogging gig, are we? Why not just post your resume in Brittney's comments next time?

Posted by: Ryland at December 23, 2005 11:00 PM

I'm not upset and my ox wasn't gored. Initially, all I criticized was the lazy nature of the post - just reprinting a press release. I later criticized her for taking the full content of another bloggers' post, giving readers no reason to go to the other bloggers' site, which, at least it seems to me, is rather rude etiquette.

The next layer of criticism is the partisanship.

As one commenter on NIT put it, rather succinctly and accurately, "I'm sure Bob Tuke appreciates having his press releases run at News 2's blog unedited. Not even the Tennessean or any credible newspaper will do that."

Nor, in the opinion of this former journalist, should an MSM-salaried blogger whose role is supposed to be one of traffic director in the local blogosphere.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at December 24, 2005 12:16 AM

Bill,

I noticed no one has answered your question. Should MSM bloggers be fair.

Yes.

You have to remember that you and I come from MSM and understand journalistic integrity in representing the media outlets we've worked for/with.

Since Brittney stated this is what her boss is telling her to do, then I hold him/her culpable for not upholding that integrity.

As you stated, no one bothers to click on the links to a blog when she copies and pastes the story to her site, thus driving the hits to her site/WKRN's site instead of the bloggers she is linking.

On the other hand, looking at your question it almost looks like an oxymoron: MSM blogger.

Either way, WKRN is making a potentially huge mistake by not running a disclaimer on the blog that her views are not those of WKRN, its affiliates or advertisers.

Smantix had a reasonable alternative, which is to hire another blogger with a right wing slant.

So, yes, MSM bloggers should be fair, or, the station needs to run a disclaimer and seperate itself from the posts of its blogger.

Bill. One more thing to remember. We're in our 40s and Murrow was our mentor. Unfortunately, there are no Murrow's mentoring people right out of journalism school.
I find it more upsetting that in Brittneys' first paid media job she is being told that her job discription is to start off by throwing out the fundamentals of journalism.

It's disturbing WKRN holds that position and its disturbing because they aren't properly mentoring a very bright young talent.

Posted by: Sharon at December 24, 2005 12:47 AM

Good analysis, Sharon.

However, my mentor was Frank Reynolds of ABC World News Tonight. And, believe it or not, pre-insanity Dan Rather thanks to his first book, "The Camera Never Blinks."

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at December 24, 2005 1:59 AM

First, this is exactly the kind of navel gazing that all too often makes the blogosphere an exercise in onanism.

Second, the implications here are that there is some difference between MSM bloggers and those fierce, independent pioneers of the blogging frontier. What a sack of bovine fecal material. None of you pretend to be fair or balanced. None of you achieve that goal even if you pretend to be. There is no difference between bloggers. This is worse than an argument between sprinkling Baptists and full immersion Baptists.

Admit you are all driven by your own agendas and give Brittney a break.

Posted by: Idoru at December 24, 2005 8:43 AM

Brittany says: "The idea was to hire a blogger who let her prejudices show..."

As Sharon notes, a disclaimer on the site telling readers that the viewpoints expressed on the NiT blog do not reflect those of the news2 TV station, would have been a smart legal maneuver.

But, it seems far too late to do that now. As Brittany's own words above tell everyone that she was specifically hired to be "partisan".

The cat is out of the bag now. Can't put up a disclaimer and think that would undo all the damage, because the damage has already been done by Brittany's own words in this thread and the NiT thread.

So, what happens now? Anyone got Beth Harwell's phone number?

Posted by: dsmith at December 24, 2005 10:33 AM

The station should just run a disclaimer with the blog. I believe I've seen some newspapers do that with blogs run by their reporters/columnists.

A blog as commentary would lose something if the blogger had to rein in his or her personality and opinions and do just straight journalism on the blog, although there's a place for real journalism in blogdom -- would love to see more of it. As it is, the comment sections are there for balance if people care to weigh in.

It's best to seek comment from folks named in a damning item that's published, but blogging is a different, almost instantaneous animal. As for me, if both Bobs -- Tuke and Davis -- cringe when they see my byline anywhere, I've done my job!

Posted by: Donna Locke at December 24, 2005 1:07 PM

Here is some of the disclaimer we've had at NashvillesNews.net since inception.

--"OPINIONS: This is an amalgamation of lots of things -- blog posts, mp3s, video, whatever -- and it’s a representation of no person's opinion other than that of the writer or creator and they may change their minds without consulting us first. It’s a blog-like application designed to show a wide range of ideas and thoughts not a showcase for any particular viewpoint. If a blog post shows up here it doesn't mean the other contributors are necessarily in harmony with the views expressed."--

I would agree that WKRN should post a disclaimer that covers everyone. Our disclaimer is designed to provide cover to the bloggers as well as ourselves. They can copy ours.

Their problem and ours is that some of the posts that show up often stray from the reservation of conservative and liberal and wander into some bizarre territory. It’s just a matter of time before someone posts something that slips through our admittedly loose filter and washes up a trial lawyer or three. Personally I think Sharon is right. Britney is doing what she was told. The management can take really simple steps to show they’re just providing a forum and don’t much know and certainly don’t endorse its contents. I assume they don’t. Do they?

Posted by: John Bransford at December 24, 2005 6:57 PM

Idora,
Personally, I am not driven by a "personal agenda" in this discussion.

I'm a liberal and I like Brittney. I didn't jump in this discussion until Brittney posted her boss is telling her to be partial. That is against every ethical rule of journalism, unless you state that you are coming from a partisan place to begin with...which is why a disclaimer now wouldn't work...it would seem most disingenuous on the part of WKRN.

As far as the rest of us being fair and balanced, why should we be (if we choose not to be) when we are working for ourselves for no money to boot? I guarantee you that when I worked in MSM I was completely fair and balanced.

Bill is a conservative. I am a liberal. But we both come from MSM and find it stunning that WKRN told Brittney to be partisan and never ran a disclaimer. I'm not going against Brittney, I am going against one stupid mistake after another from a network affiliate.

Posted by: Sharon at December 24, 2005 7:28 PM

I just have a few general questions.

1. Is every heated discussion about blogging in Nashville going to lead to veiled threats against someone's job (Mike Hollihan)?

2. Who actually believes that "real" journalists are fair and impartial? News is by definition stuff that sticks out in the minds of the reporter. At its core it's inherently biased because different people are going to have different ideas about what even constitutes news.

3. Let's even say that I believe that the mainstream media is inherently biased towards a liberal point of view. Why is this a problem? If Bill Hobbs can tell that there's such a bias, can't all conservatives? Or is there some underlying assumption that most conservatives are morons and so, if they are faced with unmediated liberalness, they will convert? Because that seems like a pretty patronizing attitude to have towards your fellow conservatives.

4. If the past was so great and journalism so awesome when you guys were younger--"Fairness Doctrine," Murrow, etc.--why did things change? Oh, that's right, because there are 500 channels now instead of three and there are three twenty-four hour news networks instead of none.

Local news is watched by fewer and fewer people. Local newspapers continue to see their circulations decline. There is no such thing anymore as a monolythic media--liberal or not. People are going to all kinds of different sources for their news.

Doing things the way you guys used to do it doesn't take into account that the marketplace has changed. Continuing to do things the old way means losing audience.

Why would you insist that WKRN force Brittney to subscribe to a model they already know all too well doesn't work?

5. And again, to get at the patronization of this position from another angle, I have to say, I resent the implication that I and other NiT readers are too stupid to recognize and take into account Brittney's "biases."

If y'all want to mock those biases or disagree with her for having them, more power to you. But this taking her to task for having them? It stinks to me of you thinking that NiT readers need you (Hobbs and Cobb) to protect us from her opinions. I resent that implication.

Posted by: Aunt B. at December 25, 2005 11:00 AM

Aunt B, you completely misread what I'm all about on this issue.

I don't care if Brittney is biased one way or the other, and I don't think anyone needs "protecting" from liberal viewpoints, and I'm not trying to force WKRN to operate its blog in any specific way.

I merely raised a question and gave my opinion about what would be a more effective approach for the blog that would lead it to be more successful.

If WKRN wants NIT to be a leftwing blog that's hostile to conservatives, so be it.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at December 25, 2005 11:52 AM

Oh, please. Bill, you simply pick up the mask of independence and objective criticism when it suits you. Amen to Aunt B.

Posted by: Idoru at December 25, 2005 12:59 PM

Aunt B,

What I am simply saying it violates every rule of journalistic integrity. I am not blaming Brittney. I think she is new meat her boss has thrown in to do this because no credible journalist would listen to a boss telling her to be biased and then not run a disclaimer that the site is such. WKRN may even be exploiting her--even if it will hurt her for future employment. I don't think you should jump on me or Bill. You don't know about ethics in journalism.

To my knowledge, you didn't go to journalism school and haven't worked in major news. There are certain standards that apply, and when Brittney posted her boss is telling her to be biased and didn't post a disclaimer stating the site would be so, he violated two very big rules of ethical journalism.

Like I posted earlier, I am concerned about how it will affect Brittney in the future. I doubt her boss is thinking about that; certainly not one who has demonstrated journalistic integrity doesn't mean anything to him/her.

Posted by: Sharon at December 25, 2005 2:53 PM

I do not know Brittney, however I do know how it feels to be bullied by someone. I will be the first to admit that my language towards you was out of line and totally not necessary.

To your comment about my comment speaking volumes about me, you are absolutely right! I know what it is like to be personally attacked by someone at my work and to know that I was/am doing my absolute best. It's o.k. to have personal opinions but it's not o.k. to put someone down and call someone's work "lazy". You don't know how hard that person works.

I used the language that I used, not towards you, but towards every person who thinks they can thrive off of making someone else feel bad. Shame on you!

Posted by: Amy at December 25, 2005 7:16 PM

Yeah, Aunt B, you're not a *journalist*. Sharon and Bill were *journalists*. They know how it is!!!

Posted by: Chris Wage at December 25, 2005 9:09 PM

This points up a small beef I've had about NIT for a long time--well, pretty much since its inception. This may well be a matter of personal taste, but I think NIT would be a more effective blog if it were what I guess I thought it would be when I first heard about it--a sort of Nashville blogger "Talk Soup" of sorts brought to us by WKRN and moderated by a person who more or less just culls interesting stuff and puts it on the board for all to see with maybe a little commentary sprinkled here and there. Instead, it's really just one person's blog that happens to be hosted by WKRN.

That's why I've always run hot and cold on it. It's good for a decent overview of what's going on in the Nashville blogosphere but beyond that, to me anyway, it's a mixed bag.

I don't so much mind Brittney's commentary being present. That's OK. I do mind when she tries to pass off things like "Oh, Burn," "Oh vomit" and such as actual commentary. I would expect that from a regular Joe (or Jane) blog. I guess I expect more from a media blog.

This reminds me of that weird occasion a few months back when she passed off as "fact" that the president flipped off the White House press corps when any reasonable person could tell that wasn't the case under the circumstances at the time she posted it. I said then and I'll say now that that was irresponsible for a blogger working under the auspices of a media outlet. Posting about it at all was a questiobale choice, but it would have least been defensible if she had hedged a bit or presented it tongue-in-cheek (as Jay Leno had done the night before).

But no, she said it had happened, so any naif checking WKRN.com for news who happened to stumble upon NIT that day would have come away with blatantly false "news" with the WKRN imprimatur. As I recall, Brittney called me "patronizing" for my criticism. But I don't think she killed the comments on that one as she did here.

Posted by: Roger Abramson at December 25, 2005 9:17 PM

Bill, while you're calling people lazy, why don't you answer this question honestly: how much time do you spend at your job, on your employer's watch, doing something related to this blog, which is for your personal financial gain? Or any of your other freelance clients and projects?

Lazy is as lazy does.

Posted by: e at December 25, 2005 10:55 PM

This may well be a matter of personal taste, but I think NIT would be a more effective blog if it were what I guess I thought it would be when I first heard about it--a sort of Nashville blogger "Talk Soup" of sorts brought to us by WKRN and moderated by a person who more or less just culls interesting stuff and puts it on the board for all to see with maybe a little commentary sprinkled here and there. Instead, it's really just one person's blog that happens to be hosted by WKRN.

I disagree -- I think your characterization of what it ought to be is precisely what it is. Just about everything she posts is culled from Nashville bloggers. Perhaps it has more commentary than you'd desire, but otherwise I think you described it pretty well. Posted by: Chris Wage at December 25, 2005 11:11 PM

Chris --

No, that's not precisely what it is. It's only an element of what it is. Needs to have more of that element in my view.

Anyway, I am unclear how you get the impression that I don't care for the high level of commentary at NIT since I said I was OK with the commentary element. If anything, I indicated that I would like more in-depth stuff (which, to her credit, she sometimes does do) rather than the little meaningless things she also does that she sometimes tries to pass off as commentary. The "oh vomit"s and all of that are things more befitting a personal blog than a media blog, even a media blog with a personal slant. That's what I was saying.

In any case, I wrote the above post before I checked out her comments on your site that she pretty much ended comments on that NIT post because they hurt her feelings. I was rather inclined to gove her the benefit of the doubt until I read that. I think that just helps to prove my point that NIT is more or less a peronal blog than a media blog. That's something a personal blogger would do. That's not something someone acting in a sort of moderator/host capacity for a media blog would (or anyway, should) do, especially when she's the only one with the "keys"
to the blog. What does this mean--you can comment at NIT so long as you don't criticize Brittney? That doesn't bode well for the future of that blog.

But everybody screws up now and then, and maybe she won't do it again. In fact, from the vaguely apologetic tone in her comment on your site, she may not. So maybe it's all to the good.

Posted by: Roger Abramson at December 27, 2005 9:42 AM

Great job dividing those who write opinions and share information into smaller and smaller groups, Bill.
There's the Evil MSM and now we have MSM bloggers, left bloggers, conservative bloggers, this side and that side and it all sounds like li'l kids squalling about choosing sides for a game of dodgeball.

Journalistic integrity??? I suppose we are so lucky now to live in a nation where someone can "inform" a reader or a television viewer if the stories presented have a leftist meaning or a conservative meaning -- takes all the responsibility away from making personal decisions. It's what I call the Limbaugh/McCarthy Law - nothing is understood until explained by a third, biased party or group seeking to obfuscate issues with personality.

If you don't agree or care for another writer or blogger's opinion or style, that's really all you need to say, isn't it? Then allow for others to view and compare and decide for themselves. Who knows, such an approach might even encourage more thought and consideration from all. But if labels help you remember who's on your team and who your enemy might be, then label away. I'm sure that will be a handy way to get the attention of campaign contributors for the next farce.

Posted by: Joe P. at December 27, 2005 4:00 PM

I just read the Moveable Type manual section of comment security. Bill, you could ask for TypeKey verification. You could dispense with embargoing comments from "trusted commenters" or all authenticated commenters, for example. You could even use a word verification plugin if it's spam you're concerned about.

I don't care about the delay in posting my rare comments; but I am into knowing the various technologies of this medium.

Let's gear up for the important job of separating the wheat from the chaff in the 2006 election year. Maybe in the service of truth, our blogrolls could be a bit less partisan, what say?

Posted by: Wintermute at December 27, 2005 4:12 PM

Just for clarification: wouldn't your wife's father-in-law be ... your father?

Posted by: "Ragnar" at December 29, 2005 12:34 AM

Well, that's one of the funnier errors I've committed - I meant to write either "her father" or "my father in law" and jumbled them together. Correct info is, her father was head of the TN GOP a long time ago.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at December 29, 2005 7:43 AM

Hey Bill, just a little jibe here. Being that you are a Christian, I was wondering what part of Do Not Judge do you not understand?

Sure, I sometimes have a problem with it too. But really, the attempt of discrediting an unfavorable source of information is such a tired mechanism, worn out plenty by the rightwingers. Give it a break and show Brittney some of that ol' time Christian love, eh?

Posted by: Barbieux at December 30, 2005 8:21 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):