Showing the true colors of the worst sort of new media type, the comment below, which I’m reproducing in full (aside fro the name to spare him the embarrassent of his effusion), is evidence that some–not all–new media advocates’ response to views they disagree with is to call for censorship of said views.
I never was told that Pajamas Media had some kind of stalinoid line that every blogger must adhere to at the risk of being “informed on to the authorities”. Nor have I suffered any censorship. Instead the person who posted the comment below must think that it’s time to impose discipline and uniformity. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what the blogsohere is supposed to be about?
In fact I’ve found that PJM has been, thus far, quite tolerant of my sometimes divergent views. I’ve posted a dozen or so impassioned pro-Obama posts over the past year and although I know Roger Simon has disagreed with them, to his credit, he’s never tried to censor me. One would think a new media blogospheric type would be in favor of lively argument. When PJM asked me to blog for them they said they wanted me to be myself, not toe some line. After all, Roger’s the author of a forthcoing book about what he’s suffered from dissenting from the Hollywood line (Blacklisting Myself) and I’ve assumed that PJM is not some grim monolithic propoganda outfit. I’ve shared some of Roger’s views of the sad inability of the sclerotic Left to accept the truth about its past, but I’ve remained consistently liberal on domestic issues.
Now here comes a guy who, like crybaby Jeff Jarvis, can’t handle the contradiction that free speech involves disagreement with his views (the only ones that should be free I guess), who apparently is frightened by views that differ from his own, and like Jarvis, goes running to dada and says “the bad man is deviating from the line, dada,” we must adhere to the One True Truth around here.
Anyway here’s his comment:
Author : Brian O’XXXX (IP: XXXX , localhost)
E-mail : XXXX@gmail.com
Whois : XXXX
“What an odd use of Pajamas Media: a rousing defense of traditional journalism, and in case that’s not enough, a call to pity those poor reporters and their families (at Christmastime!). I half feel that Charles or Roger need to come in here and pull a Palmieri. And the part where Rosenbaum goes all Glen Greenwald with his resume was extra special.”
It’s hardly worth pointing out the inaccuracy of just about every sentence of his comment. My post was not a “rousing defense of traditional journalism” but a further critique of second rate new media consulltant bloviators (with whom the commenter must identify; I wonder whose payroll he’s on}. I’ve never been a traditional journalist, my column is online, and have quite often, in posts here–see the recent one on Adam Walsh– criticized traditonal journalists for their lack of skepticism among other flaws.
And in sneering at empathy for people who are out of work at Christmastime, I assume the commenter’s either parodying the heartlessness of Jeff Jarvis or can’t see how ugly he makes himself look. (I vote for the latter)
But for those blessedly unfamiliar with blogospheric inside baseball, when he calls for someone to “pull a Palmieri” he’s advocating the kind of soft censorship that was imposed on blogger Matthew Yglesias by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, whose acting CEO, Jennifer Palmieri “convinced” Yglesias that it was necessary for her to intrude on his blog and dissociate herself and the think tank from Yglesias’s crticism of one of her think tank’s partners. This is what the commenter wants for PJM. Momma and Dada to police it for incorrect views. The liberal version of censorship.
Yes he actually calls for PJM to adopt the censorship methods of liberal foundations. While he may not share their policy views he obviously favors their methods of intimidating dissent, and I think he’s an embarrassment to those at PJM he believes would want to exercise such methods. I guess the censorship minded are the same across the political spectrum. And just as repellant.
By the way the other inside (insnide?) baseball snark, the one about Glenn Greenwald, again misrepresents what I wrote. I was responding to some commenter who thought I was criticizing Jarvis because I was envious of his “accomplishments”. Does the commenter want to take that up with dada too? I’m sure he has many, many accomlishments that should have leapt out at me, which I should have mentioned. Or could it be he’s the one who’s envious?
He certainly thinks he deserves recognition as a big shot , judging from his preening, I’m-on-a-first-name-basis-with-the-boss way of throwing his weight around.
I think, to keep things in perspective I’ll spotlight another commenter who tells us a lot more about Jarvis and Jarvisites like Mr. O.:
“Jarvis makes his living being a well-compensated consultant to old-line MSM newspapers like the Newark Star-Ledger, which has taken the route of destroying its own franchise while terrorizing its employees. This charlatan even has the chutzpah to nod knowingly while his online idiots go on at length about how lousy the Ledger’s website (NJ.com) is, while never copping to the fact that he was the consultant who designed it in the first place. He is beneath contempt, no matter what anyone may believe about the cosmic merit (or lack of it) of journalists.”
Just another opinion. You know, free speech, Mr. O. Scary isn’t it?