Sunday, August 05, 2007
In re "airbrushing"
Charles Johnson has caught the Kossacks "airbrushing," meaning that somebody over there has revised what he has written without owning up to the revision. For those of you who are new to the ethics of the blogosphere, airbrushing away substantive opinions or errors is uncool, subject to a couple of well-known exceptions that do not apply here. Charles asks his readers to "imagine, if you will, the reaction among LGF’s admirers on the left if I started deleting topics and comments wholesale." The invitation from Charles was entirely unnecessary, I'm sure.
In any case, I'm not sure it is fair to hold the Daily Kos to the same requirements for credibility that we impose on bloggers in general. The Kos community has increasingly rejected even a pretense to intellectual honesty in favor of overt partisanship. Unlike most independent blogs, Kos no longer exists for itself or even to provide entertainment for its readers. Kos exists to effect political change according to a particular agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that it is as silly to accuse Kos of "airbrushing" as it is to accuse, say, Hillary Clinton or John McCain of revising their own histories for political advantage. Of course Kossacks airbrush. They no longer operate in a "low trust" environment that demands fidelity to well-established norms of the blogosphere. Their credibility now comes from their ability to deliver cash, press coverage, and organizational influence for the candidates who are willing to carry their water, and that depends on keeping their story straight.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
9 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Aug 05, 07:11:00 PM:
"airbrushing away substantive opinions or errors is uncool"
I have always thought that was silly. Why take the most easily editable communications tool and treat it like a stone tablet? This isn't accounting. There is no need for an audit trail.
When newspapers had multiple printed editions in a single day, the editors constantly made changes without noting "update."
A person's blog is anything he wants it to be. That's the bottom line.
Quite frankly, many of the people in the blogosphere know very little about what is "cool." (Commenters on this blog are an exception.)
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Aug 05, 07:38:00 PM:
I can assure you, DEC, that we three bloggers are even more entertaining in real life...
The reason for the no-airbrushing norm is that bloggers operate in a "low trust" environment. How is anybody to know whether some corporate tool who goes by the goofy name of "TigerHawk" is worth relying on in any way, shape, or form? Well, when I began and had five readers a day I had no credibility at all. I got whatever credibility I have -- not claiming that it is a great deal -- by trying to be honest and owning up to my mistakes and trying to remember "out loud" when I have changed my mind on something.
Also, I'm kind of like the father in the movie "Dirty Dancing" -- when I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. Assuming that I can remember what I was wrong about, which is not that easy to do!
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Aug 05, 07:51:00 PM:
TH, you are judged by the quality of your daily work, not by your willingness to admit mistakes. Very few people are paying that close of attention. Those who are paying close attention probably don't have your best interests at heart.
In the end, journalism, like business, is theater. People will read you if you (or your commenters) are entertaining. They will ignore you if you are not.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Aug 05, 07:57:00 PM:
P.S. In the grand old days of newspapering, Walter Lippmann had the credibility. Walter Winchell had the readers.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Aug 05, 09:22:00 PM:
Why take the most easily editable communications tool and treat it like a stone tablet?
So people don't think you're trying to implement Soviet style tactics?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Aug 05, 09:43:00 PM:
"Their credibility now comes from their ability to deliver cash, press coverage, and organizational influence for the candidates who are willing to carry their water"
I sorta figured that they're ability to deliver cash, et al, sorta depended on their credibility.
But I guess that all depends on the variable: credibility with whom?
I suppose they can always count on financial donations from true believers so long as they continue to repeat the correct dogma, but if they ever want to be taken seriously as an intellectual institution (although I don't think they do, really) then they have to be intellectually honest. As they are now, I think Kos and their minions are just a monetary black hole.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Aug 06, 12:31:00 AM:
Or, of course, one could assume that this diary was written by an LGF troll.
It doesn't sound like a Kossack to me.
Not that LGF would ever stoop to that. They're very above board...right?
By 
, at
Mon Aug 06, 02:14:00 PM:
Nobody puts baby in the corner.
Chris
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Aug 06, 08:52:00 PM:
Screwy Hoolie - "It doesn't sound like a Kossack to me."
Well, that settles it, then.
