There is a kerfuffle in the blogosphere because Matt Yglesias’ employer forced a post into the blog Matt writes that disclaims something Matt said about a group called Third Way. And there are good reasons for raised eyebrows. It’s the wrong way to make such a disclaimer. The Center for American Progress could have asked Matt to quote it. They could have put it on the front page. They could have replied in comments. Regardless, it is pretty clear that the disclaimer was a response to whining from Third Way rather than the editors’ independent best judgment.
Many commentators, though, seem most troubled by the doubt cast on Matt’s ability to post uncensored and unfiltered. Uncensored? Fine. But unfiltered? Every post you see by me or most of us on Gristmill is “filtered.” It is called editing.
I can’t speak for other posters, but the privilege of having an editor is a major benefit of Grist’s blog over the hundreds of blogs out there where the contents of my brain could be poured directly on the web. Yes I’ll get grumpy sometimes when we have conflicts over what and what is not civil content, or when I don’t like a headline. But that is the rare downside. In every post of mine, at the very minimum, typos are corrected and word choice is improved. Someone always does basic copy editing. On occasions I’ve seen major structural changes and better documentation of points. Once in a while a post is returned unpublished with feedback on how to improve it.
Editing is one reason that most published magazines are better than most blogs. Editing is one reason the best books published by commercial or academic publishers are still better than the best self-published stuff. The blogosphere has many advantages over most old media, but a lack of filters or editors is not one of them. I don’t think Grist gets enough credit for trying to save the role of editors in the “new media” that often tries to do without them.
Bloggers of all stripes grab a piece of the climate pie for Blog Action Day 2009
Comments
View as Flat
ids Posted 2:55 pm
23 Dec 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:08 pm
23 Dec 2008
About the Matt Yglesias kerfluffle, I don't think it's a real issue. I'm glad to see all the concern about censorship, etc. but it's misplaced.
The REAL problems in the media are the ones that you don't see. The stories that aren't run. The framing that is taken for granted in the mainstream media.
The major problem now is the disappearance of the newspapers, and the cutting of science/environment reporters. Only when they are gone, will we realize how much we needed them.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
mihan Posted 12:46 am
24 Dec 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:03 am
24 Dec 2008
And I do appreciate having editors: Nice!
By the way, I'm glad Yglesias is doing thing like criticizing Third Way -- and I remember him doing it in a not nasty way -- because I think it's OK to have some good intramural criticism going on.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:28 am
24 Dec 2008
Now can I have an edit function when I post here? Puleeze?
There's always that moment when you look at what you wrote and say "OMG, what will they think of that brain fart!" At least you don't have editors that change the meaning of things, like the time I was talking about RSD (remote sensing device) that was translated by some editor as "random sample deviation." That blooper was in an official agency letter to the EPA Administrator and Air Deputy! Lotsa laughs at my expense ...
Merry Christmas, Grist. Thanks for all you do.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:16 am
24 Dec 2008
But all that says is that having an editor is not pure upside. An editor will exercise editorial judgment. That is one of the things she is there for. And that will probably include choices authors disagree with. But I still think on balance having an editor is far superior to not having one.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 am
24 Dec 2008
Yep, fine job Grist editors!
I am my own worst editor. That's as it should be in the comment section. But let's hear it for the moderation here!
Hardly a boot, and still a civil, thoughtfull dialoge continues. The New York Times couldn't do it, they gave up on open forum format years ago.
That reminds me, I didn't send in a contribution yet. There's a good New Year's resolution. Send Grist some money!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:22 am
24 Dec 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:24 am
24 Dec 2008
About Khosla, he was the recipient of some pretty unsavory attacks and name calling here which, while being unusual for Grist and its good moderation, would turn anyone off and I don't blame him for not engaging much with what he probably deems as a pretty hostile community.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:47 am
24 Dec 2008
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 10:08 am
24 Dec 2008
Blog editors can (and should) be much more "hands off" than newspaper editors who, because of the limited space on a piece of paper, have to keep things short.
Newspaper editors also have to try give the impression of impartiality (the "balanced" canard) and make sure it does not say anything that may significantly impact the income stream.
It is not uncommon in newspapers to find articles that have been hacked and hewed into nonsensical gibberish by some editor. I wouldn't be surprised to find that most of them have.
They also sometimes pick attention-grabbing headlines that may have little or nothing to do with the article and I've seen several recent examples where they even contradict the findings of said article! This model is obsolete and that is why newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur. A blog that wants to act like a newspaper will follow them there.
Blogs, for the most part, are less impacted by those constraints but not entirely, particularly those that depend on ads and personal contributions where a blogger might tick off a potential patron. Length is not really a concern. It costs nothing to put words behind the lead-in. One of the main strengths of the Gristmill has been the low level of editor censoring even though it depends on ads and patronage.
A recent personal example was my review of the movie Fuel (and this isn't a critique of the editor or the editing, just a recent example that comes to mind). The post was in part to demonstrate the power of peaceful protests, as the original title suggested. Even though the title was "The power of Peaceful Protest" all other references to protest were removed. This caused some confusion in the comments when Erik wondered where I got the hubris to take partial credit for the editing of this film. Missing from the post, among many other things, was the fact that I am actually shown in the movie holding a protest banner and that my hybrid bike was stowed in the Veggie Van parked outside the theatre.
I cringe when I think about how many agrofuel ads my posts may have chased away. Grist would have been a good place to advertise that movie but not with a blogger tearing it a new one.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 4:44 am
27 Dec 2008
Grist generously gave him free access to the blog (which he used to promote government subsidization of corn ethanol) and it wasn't because he is an environmentalist. The title of his three part series titled "Pragmatists Vs Environmentalists" makes that pretty clear.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:05 am
29 Dec 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/28/12156/403
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 2:18 pm
29 Dec 2008
I needed you to lift that thin veil for me so I could not be accused of false accusation. You have also provided the lead-in I needed to expand on this thread. I wrote most of this and put it aside when I saw your trap in anticipation of your taking my bait.
You have a long history of circling over my posts and landing when you see an opportunity to peck at a potential wound site, or in this case, at a partially healed one. Scheming and vindictiveness are purely human traits--two of the many ugly sides of our nature.
The OP above is about editor's making things better (when they are not making things worse). It is often a fine line and a job I don't envy.
My post that you link to had kicked off a small feeding frenzy as sometimes happens in the blogoshere. Accusations of xenophobia and racism were mistaken, as was explained in the comments by me and by another commenter. An editor might have made some changes to the post prior to publication to minimize the risk of a frenzy starting but frenzies are not that easy to predict. In any case, it was the Grist editorial ...whatever, that dropped the ball and let the potential for misunderstanding through. One can only speculate in hindsight what, if any changes would have been made had the regular editor been on duty. Even with the initial rough start, the debate continued in the comments with the occasional shark or buzzard smelling blood and dropping in once in a while. Had an editor made a few minor corrections in the start of the piece the frenzy might not have got started.
I remember the time Dave used a Nuremberg analogy and spent a week or so fending off sharks of the conservative talking head variety.
There was also another recent example on the blog where a self-righteous feeding frenzy threatened to light off over a Hussein analogy but got snuffed thanks to a little teamwork from other commenters
Dave most recently got into a little hot water when he called another journalist stupid. No big deal in my book but apparently it was in some books and it kicked off a small feeding frenzy. His editor stood by him, shared the blame and begrudgingly, they both conceded that calling a cub reporter stupid maybe wasn't such a good idea but... The cub reporter's editor also stood by her, come to think of it. I think that is the appropriate response for editor's to take--much better than abandoning a writer to the sharks. If a blog is going to edit posts, it should take at least some of the responsibility when it drops the editing ball.
This isn't quite how it happened in the link you provided. Vinod is not a powerless cub reporter or a pathetic conservative talking head. He's a billionaire and the level of revenge he could extract is not to be taken lightly. Maybe the disclaimer at the bottom of the blog did not provide a wide enough margin of safety and a sacrifice had to be made to the Gods! Either that or David over reacted.
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?
I know this may come as a shock, but Grist is not what you would call a well-oiled machine. Remarks that might be misconstrued by some readers will slip through because there isn't always a Grist editor on hand willing or able to edit a few remarks that might be misconstrued, or of sharing any responsibility for those remarks when they do.
When this happened to my post, Grist abandoned me to hang, even giving me a few kicks to make sure Khosla knew who's side it was on /: ( Not the best policy IMHO. Not only did the update I was asked to write get stepped on it was insinuated that the entire post was not worthy of being published. A private apology (for the misconstrued remarks) was backed up with a public one and that night a guy with a Grist tee shirt showed up at my door threatening to organically fertilize my lawn--that last part didn't really happen. In hindsight I can see some humor it. Good God almighty. Hard to imagine what might have transpired had someone really made racist comments, called Vinod stupid, or used a Nazi analogy.
The threat of revenge has a significant impact on human social behaviors. We are the only primates capable of seeing far into the future and why would evolutionary selective pressure let that stone remain unturned? How much of this is instinctive, social, or a combination of both doesn't matter much. It's real enough. People who ignore it do so at their own peril. Hobnobbing with people able to crush you if you piss them off may not be a smart idea.
I see that Vinod's Grist profile has expanded to include more of his many philanthropist activities. Critique stings, even if you're a billionaire.
Life is less a matter of right and wrong than it is a matter of power over others. Choosing to wield that power or not is a measure of one's level of morality. Few of us will ever reach the highest plane of morality because we already think we are on it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink