Monday, January 23, 2006

WaPo Restores Comments....For the Moment...

Checking up on the Washington Post this a.m....I found that they acutally did restore comments to post.blog.

There is also a Q & A with Exec Editor Jim Brady (who is quite the babyfaced newspaperman....hmmm....how come such a young man...couldn'd find a competent, seasoned, older woman to do this job???)

The Q&A though is a fascinating bit of spin. I won't jump on the bandwagon that's excoriating the Post for its insufficient--yet rather quick--response (the Q&A took place at noon on friday and some comments were restored by 6pm-ish). Frankly, if the Post would just hire a few good blogging consultants--people who acutally blog for the personal edification, not as corporate shills--they might have been able to deal with the response adequately.

The best response *might* have been to do what newspaper-sponsored Forums and Newsgroups usually do: delete the seriously foul posts, get rid of any unrelated spam, and let everyone else hash the whole thing out amongst themselves. They can, if they want, dictate to the reporter or whomever started the sh*tstorm to not respond to the negativity. That would be their, or the sh*tstormee's, choice. Sometimes the best way to respond to sh*t is to not respond--it can be a no-win situation. But negative comments,even ones peppered with an obscenity or two, if making a coherent point and are not personal attacks, are a consequence of communication in our modern world.

Then again, there's always this attitude one could take: foul personal attacks more often than not reflect badly on the one making them, and don't necessarily reflect anything to the person being attacked. It's the old "I'm rubber, you're glue...whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" mentality.

Dan Gillmor has a great comment about it.

Think about it.
,

2 comments:

Jon Garfunkel said...

re:
"Frankly, if the Post would just hire a few good blogging consultants--people who acutally blog for the personal edification, not as corporate shills--they might have been able to deal with the response adequately."

Well, they appear to be engaging the protection services of Rosen, Jarvis, Reynolds, and some chick-I've-never-heard-of-excuse-me.

So, by your classification, are these folks: "people who blog for personal edification" .... or "corporate shills"?

Tish Grier said...

"corporate shills" wasn't necessarily the right term, but, hey, I'm not slaving over these blog posts (then again, maybe I should--never know who's reading)

Actually, it's the same old cast of characters, the same old folks who are considered the "blog pundits." I hate to say it, because I actually *like* both Jay and Jeff--but no matter how hard they try, they're really not "people." They really do give it their best shot though, I have to say that much for them.

Reynolds, however, who doesn't even allow comments, shouldn't have anything to say here, but they had to get a token right-winger, and he, apparenly, is considered the "civil" one.

I just Googled Jane Hamsher--she's a movie producer! I am truly steamed at this!