I'll second your appreciation of editors and moderators, Gar.  That's why I keep coming back to Gristmill (and why I never read the Comments sections in online newspapers).

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

If only this were true...

from his his blog:I wish the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening had been handled differently in a variety of ways since just sticking it on the blog and then going to bed seems to have given people a lot of misleading notions about the site being somehow "hijacked." But when you get right down to it, all she was doing was reiterating what's always been the case -- I'm posting un-screened posts on an un-edited blog and covering every issue under the sun. Under the circumstances, it's better for me, better for CAP and CAPAF, and better for everyone to understand that I'm writing as an individual not as the voice of the institution. Pointing that fact out isn't contrary to me having an independent voice, it's integral to having one. Nobody has deleted my post criticizing Third Way, or forced me to retract those criticisms, or prevented me from following up with a more substantive critique of something they wrote. And most of all, contrary to some of the crazier stuff I've read in comments, it's not as if the senior management is leaning over my shoulder censoring every posts...

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.

... blog under their own names -- no oblique handles like "ids" -- and wear their affiliations on their sleeves. The positions they promote are subjected to withering critique. Other Gristmill bloggers, including Gar, engage in intense debate with them. When Stein and Gar are sparring over offsets, there is no more robust discussion of that issue anywhere on the Internets, imo. Their presence is an asset to Grist even if you disagree with them, as I usually do.

Victual Reality

Yes, Gristian editing is good. I've had more blog posts vetoed than this 'journalist' cares to throw his shoes at, but I'm not complaining. Really. I mean, I guess the world doesn't need to know that Miley Cyrus hates alligators.

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

I also greatly appreciate the way Grist editors manage to make my ramblings look almost coherent.

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

Review the comments to his numerous posts again. They were for the most part exemplary. Odo, Steenblik, Philpott, Alphort and a whole host of others contributed articulate well-informed crituque of his ideas. He responded only once, and twice referred to the comments as rants.

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

I guess you still stand behind this, then:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/28/12156/403

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

for giving me this opportunity.

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