Regarding ThinkProgress’s Editorial Independence
Regarding ThinkProgress’s Editorial Independence
Many throughout the blogosphere have been weighing in on the decision by our acting CEO, Jennifer Palmieri, to write a guest post on Matt Yglesias’ ThinkProgress blog in defense of the group Third Way.
Palmieri’s post was meant to clarify that ThinkProgress blogs don’t speak for the entire institution all the time — as has always been the policy. And that’s a good thing, because it means we are afforded great editorial independence to convey our honest views. Some of the criticisms of this incident are fair, but some are not.
The point that is getting lost in this debate is the fact that Palmieri’s post underscores our editorial independence, not diminishes it.
Suffice it to say that there was internal disagreement about the issue of Third Way’s effectiveness. At a different institution under different circumstances, Matt Yglesias would have had to submit his criticism of Third Way to be approved by higher-ups prior to publishing his post. Here at the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), however, he was given the opportunity to issue his criticism, and then allowed Palmieri an opportunity to issue a different opinion. That made for a transparent and open debate. And it’s something we’ve done a few times in the past.
The ThinkProgress blogs will oftentimes write items that are bolder, more strident, or more critical than what others here at the institution may be comfortable with. In my experience over the past four years here at CAPAF, that editorial freedom has allowed ThinkProgress to be on the leading edge of breaking news and analysis. And rest assured, we’ll continue to speak our mind freely.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And, rest assured, so will we. ;^)
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 pmWhat total nonsense. The point is not whether it’s OK for her to reiterate that bloggers speak for themselves. The point is that she actually hijacked his blog to deliver her little bit of groupspeak, thus compromising the very independence you’re claiming.
If you don’t get that, you’ve been breathing your own air way too long. You should just issue an apology, admit it was handled badly and leave it at that.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm#2, his blog was not “hijacked.” He agreed to post a guest submission by Jennifer. We could — and should — have done a better job of making it clear that Jennifer’s post was something he agreed to and that he in fact posted on her behalf. Read Matt here.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pmOkay. Did I miss something big or what?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pmThe appearance is that somebody powerful complained, and Think Progress had to placate that somebody.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pmI call bullshit.
YMMV.
Ms. Palmieri could have said something in comments or posted something at her own blog instead of bigfooting on Yglesias’.
But whatever. It’s all about the hoping and the changing.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pmI assume that the “Yglesias” blog is posted by Matt. That’s how it’s advertised, that’s what’s supposed to be there when I go there. So to suddenly find someone else throwing up a statement using virtual real estate that’s supposed to be for his opinion is extremely jarring and disturbing.
Editorial comments should have their own separate section.
I don’t think there’s any problem with editorial comments showing up to remind people of policies that are already in place. That’s fine. What’s not fine is inserting them into the page that’s supposed to be reserved for a specific blogger’s opinion. Let me make this clear – it looks to us like you logged in at Matt’s computer. Now it’s hard to have any idea where the ideas posted on that page are coming from. Could it be somebody else pretending to be him? We don’t know any more. Sure, the notion that the person is magically tied to the page and that editors wouldn’t be able to get in there anyways may have been an illusion all along, but it was an illusion that worked for us. There was no precedent to the contrary, before today And our core trust in sites and authors is built on exactly such illusions, here as well as anywhere on the Web.
If you think that what people are complaining about is the right of your editors to make their own comments, you’re missing the point entirely, and will continue to do so. Complaining that you have the right to do something that isn’t even the core of what people have a problem with… well, it sounds kind of Bush-ist.
You can’t have it both ways. If you have a page for a given blogger based on that blogger’s reputation, then nothing but their opinions should be on there. If you want to throw in your own two cents, then don’t name the page after that blogger.
What you should do is create a separate “meta” page just for editorial discussion of your other pages, if you really feel the need to snipe at your own bloggers.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pmDRxJ Says:
Okay. Did I miss something big or what?
I second that. I don’t know what the heck is going on, but I do admire that TP feels they always have their readers to answer to.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmPalmieri’s post was meant to clarify that ThinkProgress blogs don’t speak for the entire institution all the time
– - Clarify? Uhh, it was MATT’S blog so isn’t it implied that Matt’s blog speaks for Matt? (I’m pretty sure Matt doesn’t outsource his thoughts or writing.)
You can blog for all of the institution some of the time, or some of the institution all of the time, but don’t talk to us like we were deposited here against our will.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm#7, guest posts are quite common throughout the blogosphere. We (Matt Yglesias and I) agree to post Jennifer’s post. Moreover, Jennifer announced herself in the first line of her post — there was absolutely no confusion about whether she was speaking as Matt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pmDRxJ Says: Okay. Did I miss something big or what?
– - Read the kerfuffle:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/a_special_note_re_third_way.php
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pmDRxJ Says:
——————————————————————————–
Okay. Did I miss something big or what?
Not in my opinion. Much ado about nothing. Seems that a lot of commentators see it differently though. Whatever.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm…Palmieri’s post underscores our editorial independence, not diminishes it. Please don’t insult my intelligence.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmhey folks …
let me give you an example of why this post by jennifer was so bizarre, and why you are getting this backlash.
announcement: i want everyone to know that i never look at pornography while at work. thank you.
now, what would you think if i made such an announcement?
the point is … there was no need to clarify to any of the blogs regular readership that matt’s opinions are his own. the fact that /someone/ needed this to be clarified, prompts the question … why? your further avoidance of this only makes matters worse for you. your hiding from this by “explaining” how this is really not an issue at all will continue to make matters worse for you.
it was a mistake. own it. be truthful. just like john edwards … eventually … did … with the help of your acting CEO.
:)
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm#14, Third Way had requested a clarification and Jennifer agreed to their request. That’s why the specific post was put up.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmSo if Matt was all fine with this and everything, why didn’t he simply write and post a correction?
Instead, we’re treated to the booming voice of Oz from behind the curtain, and later Matt saying yessiree Bob, I approved the whole thing; really, really approved of it. Yep.
Palmieri could have had her say on the front page, linking to Matt’s post with a correction, and hardly anyone would have said boo (well, maybe a few more than hardly any, but still).
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmdear faiz,
if matt says something about the pistons that i don’t like can i post to his blog with a “clarification”?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm#16, Matt agreed to post Jennifer’s dissenting view, but he didn’t change his own views of Third Way. And no one would ask him to.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmi meant that seriously. or maybe i could ask matt’s boss to “clarify” his positions? what’s the process for that kind of thing? does it invlove money? or power? or sex?
isn’t this the stuff we’re “fighting” against?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmFaiz, as you and Matt both know, it was inappropriate for Jennifer to post a comment on his blog, in her name. If you and he made the mistake of agreeing to it because the CEO asked, it’s your mistake, but it’s still her fault. Please no more casuistry. The point is, if the subject of a blog post pulls rank with the organization’s CEO and requests a “clarification,” that clarification should be made in a neutral place. I mean really, this is a step backwards.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmThe left is never going to go lockstep with each other. We already KNOW this. We are not the rightwing. We dont DO groupthink. If we can avoid our predeliction for circular firing squads to ANY extent that will be a good thing. I am not sure we need an update to tell us that there are many disagreements about both policy and tactics on the left. They wont be disappearing anytime soon. We arent the ones that tunes into hateradio to find out what we think today
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pmFaiz Shakir, have you ever heard the advice “when in a hole, quit digging?”
You guys aren’t going to defend your way out of this. What Palmieri did was absolutely guaranteed to turn an ignored post that no one would have paid any attention to into a kerfuffle of several days all over the blogosphere, guaranteeing that hundreds of thousands of people would be talking about it, and making the CAP look completely clueless.
Anyone with the faintest experience or knowledge of the blogosphere could have told you that instantly.
That this is a fact is why Palmieri appears so clueless, and mockable.
There’s no way out now: best pr possibility now is to shut up, take your lumps, and wait a few days for the next Best Mockable Thing to come along.
You’ve got no other choices that will improve matters for you; you can only make it worse by talking more.
Anyone with any knowledge of the blogosphere could tell you that, too. Maybe you guys should hire some other longtime blogger besides Matt, so you have a second source to consult and prevent yourself from self-pieing.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmOh, and you’ve also turned a comment about Third Way that no one would have paid attention to, into the most known thing about Third Way being that they’re a bunch of cry-babies.
Excellent PR work, Jennifer Palmieri!
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmFaiz, that is awfully disingenuous, to the point of being insulting. The whole reason Kos, Atrios, Josh, and others have linked to it is because it was pretty much unprecedented. Imagine the CEO of the Atlantic appearing to jump onto Sullivan’s blog without Sullivan explicitly introducing him. The world would explode.
Matt has a Sully award named after him for his independence. Now his readers are faced with either: a) CAP put the screws to him to put that post up because Third Way whined, b) or Matt was just fine with letting CAP do it, because he’s fine with being a team player in exchange for access to policy making. Either way, his brand and yours are tarnished.
By the way, she made you look like an idiot too, because it would make sense for the editor to jump on to clarify the editorial policies of the blog. Having the CEO do it looks like a heavy handed corporate response to some other company’s complaints about content…which is what it is.
And Matt has gone from calling Third Way’s policies “hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit” to “pretty weak tea.” Do you really not see the difference?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pmGary Farber?! Good god.
Long time ago, Capitol Hill in Seattle. Gawd. Very long time.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pmFaiz, look at the responses on Matt’s blog. His original post got about 19 comments. Jennifer’s got more than 600.
If one person tells me that I have an angry face, I can ignore them. When three people tell me that, I need to look in the mirror and see if I’m somehow sending the wrong message.
You and Jennifer need to take a longer look in the mirror.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pmFaiz, I appreciate what you’re trying to do, and I do appreciate your clarifying how Palmieri’s post came to be on Matt’s blog. It was more than a little weird. Guests tend to be announced by the blog’s ‘owner.’ They tend not to appear out of the blue without preamble unless the blogger has died – or, something nearly as dire.
I would hope that Jay Rosen’s recommendation is now posted over Ms. Palmieri’s desk. Otherwise, absolutely nothing good has come out of this exercise for Third Way, Think Progress, CAP, Jennifer Palmieri, yourself, or Matt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm#24, Some of your argument has merit, but most of it does not. Let me explain the process. After Matt’s post calling them “bullshit,” Third Way requested a clarification regarding CAP’s institutional view of their group. Jennifer wrote a post and submitted it to Yglesias and I for consideration. We both agreed to post it. Matt Yglesias posted it on his blog because that is where the original comment about Third Way was made.
The first line of Jennifer’s post introduces who she is. It’s not as if she went into Matt’s blog and typed her own post and pressed publish. She submitted it through a process, and Matt published it on her behalf.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pmThe info here in the comments is much more useful than what’s in the main post.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pmThis is accountability?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pmThe first line of Jennifer’s post introduces who she is. It’s not as if she went into Matt’s blog and typed her own post and pressed publish. She submitted it through a process, and Matt published it on her behalf.
Yeah. How’s that working out for you?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pmGunmitch, I acknowledged we didn’t do a good job sending a clear message. Matt’s posting of Palmieri’s entry should have made clearer that he was agreeing to post it on his blog. Too many people have come away with the incorrect assumption that she had “hijacked” his blog. And that’s pure nonsense.
She took the time to write a post explaining CAP’s view of Third Way. We would have had to have a good reason to reject it, and we did not. So Matt decided to publish it as a guest post from Jennifer.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm#14, Third Way had requested a clarification and Jennifer agreed to their request. That’s why the specific post was put up.
This is honest, anyway. I can respect that.
I think the problem here is that many folks believed that Yglesias and CAP answer to a different standard of intellectual integrity than, say, CNN or the Heritage Foundation. I admit that I thought this, especially about Yglesias, whom I’ve read for some years now.
So I’ll adjust my expectations accordingly. We all will.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm>>Third Way requested a clarification regarding CAP’s institutional view of their group.
So is it to be inferred that the “P” in CAP no longer stands for Progress? Because the Third Way certainly has no relation to any kind of progress I’m familiar with.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmAs you say. Unfortunately, that is exactly the way it looked, especially since it just sat there piling up comments overnight. Then most of today goes by without clarification, while it piles up links like “Creepiest Blog Post Ever.”
To help you out, this is what you do next time. On Matt’s blog, Matt himself writes:
I’m with 22. You can’t defend it. You can apologize for it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmI must say, I am glad to hear that Matt agreed to the guest post before it was posted. However, I still think it’s inappropriate for the CEO to even ask him to add that guest post: it puts him in an awkward position that does threaten his independent voice.
I think it would be perfectly fine if CAPAF wanted to put up a general disclaimer on Matt’s blog emphasizing that his opinions didn’t necessarily reflect those of the organization. But to post that point in response to a specific post or opinion highlights the differences between the editorial stance and the blogger’s views, and I’d be concerned that this sort of thing might deter a blogger from addressing the issue in the future. You won’t produce very good blogs if the bloggers feel the need to tip-toe around issues.
The worst part about all of this is how trivial the underlying issue was. Had Matt posted “I think we should bomb Liechtenstein”, I could see why the editorial staff would be quick to distance the organization from Matt. But this was nothing more than ego-massaging for Third Way, and it makes both the Third Way and CAPAF look bad.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm#33, I don’t know what you mean by “different standard of intellectual integrity.” Matt’s criticism of Third Way is is still up on his site, he hasn’t changed his views, and he hasn’t apologized. If he loses integrity for posting someone else’s criticism of his views, I think that’s really unfair.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm#35, I agree with you. We could have done it better, and we do apologize for that.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:44 pmAs if Palmieri’s post appearance is any different in intent that posting a big, black block at the top of Matt’s blog with flashing white text that read:
“Opinions expressed here are NOT in any way ever, no matter how it might appear or what you might read into it, a reflection of CAP or CAP’s mgmt., or it’s sponsors and affiliates, no way, no how, in perpetuity, throughout the Universe.
Thanks, now enjoy the blog.”
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pmp.s. Faiz, this:
Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects – including a homeland security transition project – and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.
is NOT a criticism, it’s a declaration of policy, an advertisement if you will, from the chief.
Don’t read anything more into it the fact that it sounds like the higher-ups are doing nothing more than acting like spoiled children, living up to their lower-than-average expectations.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm#41, it is a disagreement. Matt Yglesias does not share the same views about Third Way’s significance.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pmFaiz, you’re missing my objection. CNN and the Heritage Foundation are perfectly fine organizations, given their stated purposes. They just behave a certain way, intellectual integrity-wise, that people with different priorities will object to.
By your account, Third Way voiced its objection to Yglesias’ boss, who then, ahem, suggested that some of Yglesias’ space be used for a rebuttal. Yglesias complied.
We know that many of the subjects of media coverage behave as Third Way did; that many media CEOs respond in the fashion that Palmieri did; and that many journalists behave as Yglesias did.
Third Way’s clear point in making their demand was to provide a disincentive to Yglesias – do you really doubt that? Palmieri abetted this, and Yglesias allowed it. His credibility in discussing Third Way and other CAP associates is compromised. I think there was a window in which this could have been fixed – say, with a public apology by Palmieri – but I can’t imagine how you’d fix it now.
But hey, CNN is the most trusted name in cable news, right? Having CNN’s level of credibility isn’t the worst possible thing. I still watch CNN, and I’ll still read Yglesias.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm“Gary Farber?! Good god.”
Write me at gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com; note also my (seven year old) blog linked under my name above.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm#43, I get your point, but I think you’re wrong. Matt’s integrity has not been compromised. He still holds his views on Third Way, has not apologized for them, and in fact, wrote another criticism of them today on his blog.
Other media organizations would have asked Matt to amend or clarify his own views, or changed his post. We did not do that. Instead, we offered a contrasting view so readers could decide. That’s transparency about an internal debate. What mainstream media organization does that?
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pmand in fact, wrote another criticism of them today on his blog.
Well, a much meeker criticism, but I guess it counts.
I suppose we’ll not soon see any substantive criticism of
Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Ken Salazar, or Jane Harman anywhere on TP. A shame, that.
Tip: not all of the obstacles to progressive policy in this country have (R) after their names.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm#46, you can bet you will continue to see those criticisms:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/17/lincoln-efca/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/07/lieberman-bayh/
You’re certainly entitled to believe what you wish, but nothing has changed.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pmThe Bayh piece seems uncritical in tone.
The real question is, if Third Way sees criticism of their legislative pawns on TP, will a correction be demanded/required?
In my mind that’s much more troubling than the specter of Yglesias losing editorial control over his blog.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmIt doesn’t much matter at this point – you’ve already forfeited any credibility you may have mustered by hiring Matt in the first place.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pmThat’s transparency about an internal debate. What mainstream media organization does that?
Certainly I appreciate your accounting of events. That’s helpful. And yeah, while I still think this is a bad circumstance for the reasons I describe, I guess I’m guilty of hyperbole when I characterize it as mainstream media-class bad.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 pmFollow the money.
and a shout out to #46 travisD, word.
ps: Mr Shakir, when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
BTW Are we The Judean’s People’s Front or The People’s Front of Judea?
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 pmCAP-itulation.
Sorry, Faiz, there is no other way to see it. Better not let Palin’s folks know TP/CAP management writes “clarifications” of criticism or Ms. Palmieri will be a very busy girl.
PEACE
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pmY’know, I might believe your currently approved timeline of events if her post had linked to the original post in question, as Matt would have done.
So I still think you’re lying.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 pmThis is not the way to admit you’ve screwed up. It only serves as a weak and pathetic attempt to cover Palmieri’s dumb ass-ness and makes you guys look like wieners.
You said Matt “was given the opportunity to issue his criticism, and then allowed Palmieri an opportunity to issue a different opinion.”
What different opinion? All I heard was a WTB.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pmIf you’re going to do something like this, Have Matt directly introduce the quote. “here’s a note from Ms. Palmieri,” post the note as a quote, and then make a note himself afterward. Or just have a back and forth interview/dialogue style post.
that the post was just creepy, in a “all your blog are belong to us” sort of way
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pmFaiz said “Other media organizations would have asked Matt to amend or clarify his own views, or changed his post. We did not do that. Instead, we offered a contrasting view so readers could decide. That’s transparency about an internal debate. What mainstream media organization does that?”
That’s just not true. Liberal newspapers (there are a few) print right-wing columnists all the time and never ask them to “amend or clarify” their views. Right-wing newspapers never ask their token liberal columnists to amend or clarify their views. What’s more, you did not offer “a contrasting view,” because Palmieri did not in the least engage Matt on the substance of his criticism, she just said nice things about Third Way.
I realize that when your CEO screws up as badly as this it’s tempting to come to her assistance, but, gee, we count on Think Progress and Matt for honesty, not for skirting around the issues.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm#56, it is a contrasting view. One that is not shared by some members of the TP team.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pmFaiz:
Look at the way you handled commentary on this post.
Dotted line: Steve Benen has more, wiv link.
You know how to do a comment on a blog post that you feel is more important than one of these down here.
But the BOSS gets to hijack the blog itself.
It’s less logical than cultural. The blogosphere is anarchic, relational as opposed to hierarchical,
The result is somewhere betweenBill O’Reilly cutting off the microphone and Graham Chapman walking on and stopping the sketch. Right,right, this started out as a halfway decent blog but now it’s got all silly.
But the other aspect is the weediness of it: to stroke some organization or other and say how valuable, respected, steamed and veneered they are. It’s contentless nicespeak that only–ONLY has relevance to one hierarchy kissyfacing another hierarchy.
a) Guests get introduced to each other. Form is important: politeness is important. In other blogs, guest bloggers post to talk about New Orleans, or Burma, or Western water-tables. They’re welcomed as new participants in the party, and things are enriched. A party which suddenly has the BOSS as a guest is not the same thing, and arguably not a party at all.
b) Is The Third Way cool? Show us! Run down the cool things they do; make substantial points as to their coolth and earnestitude. Being both vapid and impolite is not what we come here for. Or anywhere, for that matter.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm#58, on ThinkProgress, we always introduce our guest bloggers:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/18/arpaio-fox-how/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/14/nolan-unions/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/21/iraq-sofa-approval/
Jennifer’s post was a guest blog entry on Yglesias’ blog. But since it was the first guest blog he’s ever had on the TP site, we messed up the procedure for introducing it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pmFaiz said: “#56, it is a contrasting view. One that is not shared by some members of the TP team.”
That may be, but the point is, well-known liberal bloggers are expected to function with the same freedom of expression that well-known syndicated newspaper columnists enjoy. They are not supposed to be held on the same leash that newspaper editorial writers are accustomed to. We don’t read Matthew Yglesias in order to hear the official CAP house opinion stated in his lively if sometimes misspelled prose. We read him to hear what he thinks. If he thinks something different from Palmieri, the choice is to either let him be or let him go. Not to step in like Big Brother.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmWhy didn’t the CEO sign up as a blogger on Yglesias’ blog and comment away?
You know…follow the rules we follow???…..
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pmSo when I read the original post on Yglesias’ blog, my first thought was “This is absolutely creepy. This loony, power-obsessed boss has taken over Matt’s blog to make a trivial statement because Matt offended a donor.” Now I am to believe your (Faiz and Matt’s) explanation that Matt aided in writing the most tone-deaf post I’ve ever seen in the blogosphere. I remain skeptical, mainly because, while I do not know Jennifer Palmieri, and therefore do not know whether or not she is an idiot, I do know Matt Yglesias, and while he is not without fault, he is not “unaware of all internet traditions”. He would, therefore, not be ignorant of the unholy shitstorm he would unleash with this post. So unless Matt is secretly self-destructive or far dumber than I thought possible, he did not write/approve Palmieri’s post.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pmCrusty Dem,
The fact that the blog went unanswered for so long with so many posts indicates that Matt couldn’t give 2 sh|ts about his blog property at that time as well.
He was beat down.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pmFaiz Shakir Says:
#7, guest posts are quite common throughout the blogosphere. We (Matt Yglesias and I) agree to post Jennifer’s post. Moreover, Jennifer announced herself in the first line of her post — there was absolutely no confusion about whether she was speaking as Matt.
Indeed, but guest posts are usually identified outside of the body of the post, as in a “posted by X” tag. They’re also typically done on pages designed for guests, so we know what’s coming. I don’t expect every (or even most) (OK, or even a few these days) of the posts on dailykos to be from kos. But I’m used to that, and they are identified through a standardized system.
If you have to identify yourself in the post body, then there’s a problem: your database isn’t recognizing separate authors, and so neither are we.
I know, this can devolve more into a design issue than an ethical issue, but as I pointed out earlier there’s some gray area between the two when it comes to consumer expectations. That’s why appropriate netiquette is important for blog designers and hosts. We need to know that there’s at least some check to see that people aren’t misrepresenting themselves. Separate logins identified in the page output does that. Typing “Hi, this is so and so” as your first sentence does not. Instead, it freaks us all out.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:12 pmdixie,
The problem I have is, either Faiz and Matt are correct in their explanation, and Matt is an idiot, or us critical non-believers are right and Palmieri completely overstepped and Matt and Faiz are playing CYA. Either way, I’ve lost respect for Matt, my only question is whether it’s because he’s a wuss or a moron…
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pmElBruce, correct. Guest posts are common. Guest posts saying “hi, I’m the bloggers boss (or bosses’ boss) and I just want to clarify what he said and what (limited) authority he has to say it, with respect to our larger organization.” are NOT.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 pmElBruce,
I think a conversation with IT at CAP before this decision by the CEO could have helped CAP understand the point you are making in a very clear way. They would have avoided this embarrasment.
Sadly, as an IT pro with a non-profit background I understand the dynamics that leave IT people ignored if even present at a decision level in a non-profit that even matters or could make a big difference. They are considered to be the printing press and little more.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm#59, a few things:
1) I think this might be the first unannounced guest post since Matt started his eponymous blog back in 2003. Might even be the first guest post, but I’m not sure.
2) This wasn’t a typical guest post. Ms. Palmieri was not talking to Matt’s audience, whether the 10k+ folks who follow him on various RSS readers or the casual readers of the thinkprogress website. She was talking to a third party. It would be as if the NYTimes used a front page article to talk to one of its suppliers instead of to its readers.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pmIt’s not so much what she said, Faiz Shakir, it’s that she said it at the behest of Third Way. The illusion doesn’t work when we can so plainly see the strings.
My resentment comes from the attempt to “manipulate the media narrative,” paraphrasing McClellan’s bloodless phrase, regarding Third Way.
As a grad student of psychology (non-matriculating), I’m very well aware of the Jekyll & Hyde relationship of my science and “public relations” and advertising. Here’s the thing.
When our public servants deprive us of the truth of our time and place, as conditioned by what’s going on and what’s just been done, we are deprived of our sovereignty. This is a point lost on Bush/Cheney/Rove.
Truth is the essence of democratic action. If we’re acting upon impressions crafted to hijack our behavior, especially our spending, voting, and warring, our democracy is already lost. You just can’t do that here.
Palmieri was dancing like a marionette on the end of Third Way’s strings. That’s the problem, not that Yglesias somehow fumbled an intro.
We’re in a world of hurt today precisely because of decades of “manipulating the media narrative.” That’s like sending up jets to color the sunsets instead of addressing global climate disruption.
So then the electorate acts on this manipulated narrative, this false reality, crafted by the behind-the-scenes process revealed here, of phone calls and a CEO stepping in to say, ‘he’s not speaking for us, you know.’
It’s the pulling of strings and manipulating the media narrative, the connotation, of what she did, not the simple denotative content of what she said, that has blown this up all over the Web, IMO.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 pmPalmieri’s post was meant to clarify that ThinkProgress blogs don’t speak for the entire institution all the time — as has always been the policy.
And I think the points that many people have been trying to get across are:
1) that there was never anything that needed “clarifying.” No one seriously thinks that every word Yglesias writes represents the unanimous view of everyone at CAP.
and 2) that the unneeded “clarification” was done in a very inapt, inappropriate manner by Ms. Palmieri, and that even if she fails to understand the first point, she should apologize, without any hedging or reservation, for this.
After Matt’s post calling them “bullshit,” Third Way requested a clarification regarding CAP’s institutional view of their group.
Frankly, I don’t think Third Way or anyone else has any right to “request” that CAP/ThinkProgress say anything at all. Ms. Palmieri’s response to their request should have been an outright refusal.
guest posts are quite common throughout the blogosphere.
However, they are almost always 1) at the invitation of the blogger, not at the demand of the guest, and 2) introduced by a post from the blogger notifying readers that “X will be guest posting at my blog.” Neither of these was true in this case.
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 pmLOL, Faiz, you’re either not paying attention or simply playing the role of a spinning flack…
You guys screwed the pooch and you’re coming off like a jerk trying to defend it. Attempting to cover it up with editorial independence whines and your indefensible statements that neither this site nor the MY blog have lost some measure of credibility is simply laughable.
You got it right in 38 when you apologized for messing up and in 59 when you admitted you messed up a procedure. Everything else is simply whining “quit picking on us because we’re really ok and it’s not what you think” BS.
If you’ve been reading the comments and the posts in the rest of the blogsphere there’s no way you can not understand that your credibility has been affected.
It may be unfair (you certainly seem to think so), but because of your errors there was nothing transparent about the post, the reason for it etc. and at least some of your readership and ex-readership will view you differntly in the future.
Telling them they’re wrong about your screw up isn’t going to help with your credibility.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 amFolks, welcome to the future of what was once called journalism. It’s going back to the pre-Civil War era, when all journals were partisan and the idea of “independence” was unknown. The “objective” model was a creature of two developments: the Civil War-era demand for accurate battlefield information, and the invention of the modern printing press that made mass distribution possible.
That model thrived for much of the 20th Century, and reached the peak of its influence between 1940 and 1965, when its economic underpinning began to be eroded by the commbined forces of television, social fragmentation, changes in the composition and work patterns of the labor force, and corporate consolidation.
The death blow has bee the Internet, which put a printing press in everyone’s hands while sucking away much of the advertising (Craig’s List, anyone?) that had once been locked up by the dailies.
Today, there aren’t a dozen dailies in the U.S. that are consistently worth reading, and the agenda-setting power of the New York Times is gone. Soon enough, it might be gone as well. Other cities known for their independent and vigorous local newspapers could soon be without any.
This brings us back to a much earlier era of a highly fragmented, commercially corrupt, ideologially slanted press. There will soon be no common frame of reference, no source for undisputed fact. Nothing in the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of press requires or envisions an “objective” press, and the demands for Think Progress’s owners to grant “independence” to its editorial arm are, at best, quaint.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 amIncidentally, the idea that the Internet would be some sort of incubator of vigorous debate has proven to be something of a joke. There is a variety of websites, but each site is an ideologically pure megaphone where dissenting views are quickly labeled “trolls.”
Whether it’s the Daily Kos or Free Republic, and everything in between, the distinguishing features of the political Internet are mendacity, groupthink, and censorship. The more things change …
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 amFaiz Shakir writes:
This would be true had Jennifer Palmieri stopped at:
But she didn’t. Instead she got down on her knees and blew the entire board of Third Way with:
This was not only an insult to any reader of Matthew Yglesias’s blog – indeed to any Democrat – it was a demonstration of weakness by the “acting CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.” As Shakir is well aware, Jennifer Palmieri is acting CEO in place of the co-chair of Barack Obama’s transition team. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is not weak and it should certainly not be apologizing to Third Way for the writings of Matthew Yglesias. The Democratic Party needs a variety of opinions and must not be apologetic about them. I am left wondering, as I suspect are many others, that if Jennifer Palmieri and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are this cavalier and this weak about valid disagreement in the Democratic ranks how will they fair against forthcoming Republican opposition that will undoubtedly be both ferocious and persistent. And it is still one month until the inauguration.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 amFaiz said: Palmieri’s post was meant to clarify that ThinkProgress blogs don’t speak for the entire institution all the time — as has always been the policy…Suffice it to say that there was internal disagreement about the issue of Third Way’s effectiveness…Here at the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF)…he was given the opportunity to issue his criticism, and then allowed Palmieri an opportunity to issue a different opinion. That made for a transparent and open debate.
Putting aside the issue that Matt agreed to Palmieri’s post and therefore his blog wasn’t “hijacked”:
(1) Ms. Palmieri’s post was made in direct response to a request for a “clarification” from Third Way “regarding CAP’s institutional view of their group,” a crucial fact in assessing what happened here. That was not mentioned in Palmieri’s post. There is nothing open and transparent about that.
(2) “Clarifying” “CAP’s institutional view” of Third Way or that ThinkProgress’s blogs don’t speak for CAP all the time did not appear to be what was going on, even though those things were mentioned in Palmieri’s post. Nor was the issue purely about an “internal disagreement,” even though there is one. Palmieri’s post was clearly intended to distance CAP from (and, in doing so, undercut) Matt’s position, and stay in good graces with Third Way. Along with other commenters, I find your characterizations disingenuous, Faiz.
The issue here isn’t quite Matt’s “independence”—it’s about how the organization responds (the CEO, no less), especially to outside pressure, when he exerts his independence.
Faiz, you and Ms Palmieri seem awfully concerned that readers know that bloggers’ views might not reflect those of the organization. Given what’s transpired, what is the policy, if any, concerning how “requests for clarification” or complaints from third parties are handled? Specifically, I’d like to hear some response regarding Jay Rosen’s point that the better way to have handled this situation would be “for someone with a voice at ThirdWay to write a letter to Matt, objecting to his post. He’d run it, and there would be a debate.” How would you or Ms Palmieri handle this situation differently, if at all, in hindsight?
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 amFaiz
So imagine you’re watching a movie on TV and a character in the movie says that they prefer Pepsi to Coke. The movie is interrupted so that someone from the station can say “We’d just like to announce that we at the station don’t agree. We love our sponser Coca-cola and their fine products !!!”
Would you consider that an example of “open debate”?
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 amI think the part that Faiz Shakir and Jennifer Palmieri are failing to accept about this situation is that they, at the behest of another organization, responded to Matt Yglesias’s name-calling in a way that feels heavy-handed when a less heavy-handed solution was available: post your own comment (or have Third Way post its own comment) somewhere else, and link to the original.
It’s the blogosphere’s working model, and, except that your response might not get the attention you think it deserves and the audience Third Way wants it to have, it has the advantage of respecting Matt’s editorial independence without requiring these hours of explanation. Everyone can understand that you (and more importantly, Third Way) is bothered by the way Matt’s opinion was expressed. What none of your detractors here want to hear is that you get to ask Matt to post anything. Because then it starts to look like you don’t really respect the independence you claim exists. That you can’t, or won’t, see that simply reinforces that appearance.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 amMatt:
It was completely unnecessary for her to do that. Everyone with one brain cell knows that already; as you say, it has always been the policy. You don’t do something like that for “clarification,” you do it for EMPHASIS. As in, “I want to make DOUBLY sure everyone knows that what this joker just said is not our official position.” She disavowed you, and what makes it look even worse is she disavowed criticism- which implies that CAP-AF believes the OPPOSITE of what you said, and/or kowtowed to outside pressure.
Your apology is not accepted, because YOU did nothing wrong. Jennifer is the one who needs to be apologizing, on behalf of CAP-AF, for not standing behind you.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 amFaiz:
No, you didn’t offer a contrasting view, you DISAVOWED the criticism. You hung your guy out to twist in the wind, apparently at the request of a group he criticized. How’s that working out?
What you should have done, bluntly, is either fire Matt or do nothing. If you are so sensitive to what outside pressure groups like Third Way think about you, to the point you feel you have to expressly disavow criticism, then you are captive to those groups and have no independence. You might as well have fired Matt at that point because now everyone knows you (and he) are compromised when it comes to criticizing Third Way; what other pressure groups are you going to kowtow to, and disavow Matt or someone else if they were to write something critical, or even worse, spike the criticism entirely before we out here even know it existed?
There is no “third way” here. That’s why groups like Third Way and the DLC are reviled. Either leave commentators like Matt strictly alone, or fire them if they don’t toe the party line. Those are your choices.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pmI think what’s problematic is that you are saying “Hey we don’t censor, our writers can write whatever they want, go nuts guys!.. BUT if you happen to write something critical about an organization we’ve partnered with, well then, just one little caveat there.. you are going to have to post a followup notice up from the CEO reminding everyone that, hey it’s just you talking as an individual..” Now maybe Matt is vociferous and irrepressible enough not to be intimidated by that, but in general, that’s not the kind of policy that fosters unfettered expression of thought.
If I’m a writer and I’m thinking well, I could write about group x, and then have to hear about it from the CEO, or I could just write about group y, and avoid the hassle, some writers are going to avoid the hassle. The point is if you are lauding the editorial freedoms of your organization you shouldn’t be creating hassles for your writers when they write about something the executive suite doesn’t like.
December 24th, 2008 at 1:53 amBy “she”, do you mean her assistant? And by “time”, do you mean between 10-15 minutes?
I mean, there was a typo for chrissake.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am