She took the time to write a post explaining CAP’s view of Third Way.

By “she”, do you mean her assistant? And by “time”, do you mean between 10-15 minutes?

I mean, there was a typo for chrissake.

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.

We did not do that. Instead, we offered a contrasting view so readers could decide.

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.

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.

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.

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.

After Matt’s post calling them “bullshit,” Third Way requested a clarification regarding CAP’s institutional view of their group

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”?

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?

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.

This would be true had Jennifer Palmieri stopped at:

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.

But she didn’t. Instead she got down on her knees and blew the entire board of Third Way with:

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

#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.

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.