January 19, 2006


Waaaah!

The WaPo:

As of 4:15pm ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com.

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Waaaaah! You meanies, your hurted their widdle feewings.

Thin Skin? Why yes.

Note: to all meanie commenters, this might not have happened if you had used this. Deborah said so.

posted by Jo Fish on 01.19.06 at 04:49 PM





Comments:

Hi Jo,

I wrote Mr. Brady a very nice, sarcastic letter with researched sources (ha!) and links to the facts on this little matter. I read the artful (not to anyone whose actually literate, but good enough for the knuckle-draggers) dodge that Ms. Howell did, highlighting that Abramoff's 'clients' gave money to Democrats, while attempting to tar Democrats with Abramoff, the "professional Republican" associating with those clients (but Abramoff giving money only to Republicans). (Dang. Loonngg sentence ). I'm constantly correcting individuals who think Abramoff gave to both. I'm also very strident about the Miserable Failure breaking the law, and being a common felon. Makes lots of people I associate now scurry away when I approach .

posted by: smaug on 01.19.06 at 05:58 PM [permalink]



Ms. Howell is the ombudsman for a major newspaper. Ms. Howell can't take criticism. Think about that.
Very sad to see the Post go down the way it is. Very sad. I've been a steady reader for 40 years, and can't stand what it has become in the past few years. You just can't offer two versions of fact, no matter how hard you try, or want to.

posted by: badgervan on 01.19.06 at 08:23 PM [permalink]



I'd be willing to replace every Democrat found to have taken money from Jack 'off with a Republican IF the Republicans would be willing to reciprocate with a Democrat replacing every Republican found to have taken money. Deal?

posted by: Ray Robinson on 01.19.06 at 09:47 PM [permalink]



Jo,
Who is your ombusdman? Who takes the heat for you and protects you from the insinutations, challenges and ad hominem attacks that must sometimes come your way? I mean, you've been blogging for a while now and we all know that sometimes a few republican malcontents will do something called "trolling" or "spamming" (look these terms up since I'm sure your ombudsman protects you from such maliciousness)...Oh right, you decided you could take the heat.
Maybe WaPo should have looked at the serious issues raised by readers about the so-called readers' representative and addressed the issues themselves, so that word "transparency" would actually mean what it's supposed to mean.

posted by: Nina on 01.20.06 at 10:23 AM [permalink]



I'm constantly correcting individuals who think Abramoff gave to both.

Hmm. The WaPo says it has lists in which Abramoff directed his Indian clients to give money specifically to this politician or that, mostly Republicans but many Dems, too. Sounds like Abramoff gave money to Dems too, and anything else is just a silly semantical game.

And Howell states explicitly that she did not ask for the blog to be taken down, which is corroborated by her boss. He took it down because the moonbats resorted to they usual tactics: name-calling and foaming at the mouth.

posted by: bean on 01.22.06 at 07:05 PM [permalink]



She lied.

posted by: PC on 01.22.06 at 11:42 PM [permalink]



Bean...let's just wait and see, how many Democrats get charged....we have what, three members of your congress who have gone down for taking bribes thus far...INCLUDING YOUR MAJORITY LEADER.
She lied on a major news publication, and sold partisan talking points as fact. Period.

posted by: PC on 01.22.06 at 11:44 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?



















usdemvet -at- hotmail.com
or
usndemvet -at- usdemvet.com (coming soon)






All the original material © 2002-2003 Jo Fish
steal what you want, all I ask is an attribution of some sort
Thanks