Open Thread: GGD, VPB…VSOB? Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Posted by Conaway B. Haskins III in Uncategorized.trackback
Updated at 8:30pm on December 26, 2006
For the past month or so, I’ve had a page up on the blog simply titled “Virginia Society of Bloggers” in order to generate positive discussion about the idea of an association of some form and a common ethical code. In light of the sad, but not unexpected brouhaha over the VPB, I’m taking this page down and instead posting the comments contained therein and in the initial Bacon’s Rebellion piece (sans hyperlinks…sorry, I’m still a little slow on the techie end) that started the SOB discussion as a separate post in hopes of generating some discussion.
For those who aren’t already familiar, several “codes” exist that various bloggers adhere to, some of which have been mentioned before. Check them out for yourselves.
Notable Blogger Responses
Adam Sharp: “I’m in.”
Bruce Roemmelt: “…reporting for duty sir.”
Liberal Pi: “I’m in too.”
Greg Bouchillon: “Did someone order a whackjob? Right behind you Conaway.”
F.T. Rea: “Would this supposedly responsible bloggers society’s members be able to hide their identities? Or, should those onboard be obliged to be accountable for their posts by making their verifiable identity known?”
Greg Bouchillon: “I think that’s an important point. Can someone agree anonymously to a code of ethics? I like how Bacon does it.”
Badrose: “I have no problem with legally changing my name to Badrose. I’m down. Also, I hope we can use this society as a conduit for networking as most of us also have “real” jobs!”
Josh Chernila: “You know I’m an SOB.”
Waldo Jaquith: “Sign me up for the information superhighway. But with a different name, I hope.”
Bryan J. Scrafford: “I’m not ambivalent about this — it’s a GREAT IDEA!!! I most definitely would like my mumblings to be part.”
Alton Foley: “Of course. I’ve been on board since Conaway first mentioned the idea.”
Kevin (Tom Joad’s Place): “You down with SOB…yeah you know me!”
Norm Leahy: “I think this idea is worth pursuing — and the ‘SOBs’ does have a nice ring to it. It does seem to me that I’ve seen something along these lines elsewhere — a code of conduct that any blogger could agree to, link to and, it’s assumed, abide by. There also is the possibility of adapting the Media Bloggers Association code of conduct for our own uses, or a version of the code which would suit our particular needs. A simple page with a code, an icon and perhaps a list of signatory blogs would be a good first step.”
Jim Bacon: “…all in favor of establishing a confederacy of bloggers to look after blogger interests…After the first (Sorensen) blogger conference, I started agitating for a statement of basic standards as a way to establish the blogosphere as a credible alternative to the Mainstream Media — don’t libel people, don’t repeat unverified rumors, that sort of thing…At a minimum, an association of bloggers could continue to put on blogger summits and allow for the continued interaction of the bloggers face to face.”
Shaun Kenney: “If anyone is interested or inclined to help, I have reserved a URL — www.blogcodeofethics.com/org/net for precisely this purpose - a voluntary code of ethics with a button of some sort one could post on their website… self-imposed.”
Vivian Paige: “…sounds good…It’s going to be hard to get the diehards on both sides (of the partisan divide) to come together.”
Ben Tribbett: “…sounds like an awesome idea. Let me know how I can help!”
Claire Gastanaga: “Conaway, Count me in.”
Greg Letiecq: “I’m going to keep an eye on this and lend some input from time to time. I’ll make a decision about participating when the particulars become a little more developed. In general the idea has great merit, but as always it’s the actual implementation which will determine the worthiness of an S.O.B. Regardless of my level of participation, it should be interesting to see some of the commentors in this thread attempt to comply with a code of ethics. If they do however, this exercise would have been well worth it.”
Conaway Haskins: As one who beats the drums in the blogosphere for the “Society of Bloggers” idea, I am well aware that I have fallen short and will continue to fall short of the very notions of ethics that I an others are promoting. As one who laments some of the seedier elements of media & political activism, I am also guilty of countenancing and sometimes participating in the very actions that I criticize. While it may make me a hypocrite on occasion, it also makes me quite human.
Conaway:
Just read thru this, and how does it relate to GGD being ’silenced’ by VPB?
STD:
It’s GGD’s ‘actions’ that warrant everyone to ’seriously’ look at a blogging ‘ethical’ code. Face facts: he’s a shock jock with little contribution, and the least he can do is put photos like that below the fold. Dem and Rep blogs do this, Whackjob is just as guilty of this act. As blogs become a source of news, we need some code that ensures the blog doesn’t report on rumor and speculation, show gratuitous photos for shock value, and sticks with factual reporting.
If you consider banning pseudonymous bloggers, consider whom you would have banned over the past two years: John Behan at Commonwealth Conservative, The Jaded JD, all 3 contributors from Sic Semper Tyrannis, and Bwana at Renaissance Ruminations, just to name a few. And, face it, after what happened to Will Vehrs, it’s not as though reluctance to disclose one’s name is a symptom of baseless paranoia. Most Virginia political bloggers are blogging from Virginia, which is an at-will employment state so, while Mr. Vehrs was reprimanded only for blogging at work and was ultimately reimbursed for his suspension, there’s no guarantee that his case is the worst-case scenario. Rather, I think we can judge a blog by its content, if we’re to judge any at all.
As I opined at length on Waldo’s thread about the aggregator, we have blogged in a state of nature and we may simply have too many bloggers to carry on. So, while I support the idea of the Society, I prefer the idea of a code of conduct to that of a code of ethics: a list of actions that a blogger ought not to do, without any moral overtones. There is a difference between morality and gentility. And conduct is so much easier to judge than propriety–the only question is whether an act was done, not the gray area of whether it ought to have been done. And just because a blogger strays from the Society’s code–or declines to comport with it to begin with–doesn’t make a blogger bad or evil.
So if the discussion has three prongs (the first being, “Who can play?” and dealing with pseudonymous bloggers, and the second being, “What are the rules?”), the third must be who enforces them. If every member of the Society is free to act or decline to act on his own, the Society is itself poor substitute for chaos. I suspect that there has to be some enforcement power, and the only form I can plausibly imagine is that of ostracism. Membership in the Society must be voluntary ab initio, but there must be an agreement that a decision by the Society collectively to expel a member is honored by them all. And expulsion should be a big deal, and above partisan claims, so presumably a supermajority vote would be needed. I don’t envision Amish-style shunning, so that no Society member can ever read, reproduce, or link to an ostracized former member (or a blogger who never was a member at all, for that matter); rather, I see a blogroll-style certification, not unlike the ODBA blogroll, listing all the members of the Society. And once the Society expels a member, all remaining members (whether they dissented or not) must remove that member from the blogrolls on their sites.
But that’s just the way I’m thinking this through at 7:00 on a Tuesday. The devil is in the details, and there seem to be a good number of them to be dealt with. Is there really enough interest in creating what I imagine to be a bi-partisan stamp of quality assurance to justify the effort? It’s only worthwhile if there’s critical mass.
[...] I guess Shaun Kenney has decided to drop the matter of blogger dosiers out of the Webb campaign. Unsubstantiated rumors in order to slander campaigns ie exactly why there should be a code of ethics. [...]
By way of clarification, by “remove [the expelled member] from the blogrolls on their sites” I mean only that the expelled member must be removed from the ODBA-style Society blogroll, not from a blogger’s own personal blogroll maintained independently from the Society blogroll.
Cory has a good point and I think he’s right. I change my stance and think that the blog reputation instead of the person is a better categorization and we should allow anonymous bloggers. The making of the rules will be interesting, but Cory appears to be right there, in that morality should be avoided.
However, seeing the partisan actions over the VPB, I wonder if we won’t see the same tantrums when a Dem or a Rep blog gets booted. I would assume that everyone would agree to the rules governing booting a blog, but then we face the actions that some may revolt if they were in the minority. But that goes to character also.
Greg, or can I just call you DWJ?
Your writing style is humorous, but it would make a ‘blue haired lady’ feint, and that is before she finds out exactly what “Daily Whack Job” really means… (that’s when you get hit by the pocket book).
That said.. Look VPB was all of ‘ours’ until Waldo banned GGD. Now Alton hit this on the head when he said, Waldo should have pulled the post and admonished GGD in his comments section.
He didn’t and that is why STD is suggesting that there is more to this ‘than meets the eye’.
Plus, it is not shock to see what the enemy really has in store for us.. I disagree with the MSM brow beating everyone into not showing 9-11 photos… I feel it is for there political gain, and low and behold, who now holds control of Congress?
Waldo is no idiot, and he is using that exact same tactic here, and using the ‘fig leaf’ of calling it political pornography!
Conoway, can you put a preview on your comments section? Thanks,
Chris
Spanker, I agree, and Whackjob will be doing some changes in the new year on how we post. However, if you feel that Waldo has silenced GGD, that’s basically saying he doesn’t have any other readers than on VPB. How would the Republican blogs feel if I put a picture of two guys have man-on-man sex and everyone on VPB had to see it. I would be making a point that homosexuality isn’t wrong and it’s just a gratuitous as what GGD post.
Waldo has said several times that his site doesn’t allow cleaning just one post. Why do you object to putting pictures like that below the fold so everyone doesn’t have to look at them. I see that you feel that it should be forced down everyone’s throat so they don’t forget what militant islamic terrorist do, but what if I felt that way about showing two men having sex to make to point? How would you feel about that? Would you support my rights just as strongly?
Didn’t Josh post a gay sex picture on RK earlier this year and create a huge controversy then?
Did he? I remember the dolce and gabana ad, but gay sex?
DWJ says:
“I put a picture of two guys have man-on-man sex and everyone on VPB had to see it. I would be making a point that homosexuality isn’t wrong and it’s just a gratuitous as what GGD post.”
That is apples and oranges..
I would hope you agree that beheading people who oppose you politically is wrong.. and that is pretty universal..
Whereas two men having sex is quite debatable as to being wrong.
Personally I feel that homosexuality is also a threat to the ‘Moral Fabric’ of our nation, just as allowing Muslims to import their Sharia Laws to the US…
which, and I am sure you have been over to Republitarian and have seen that homosexuals are being hunted down and killed in the streets of Iraq….
The point being here, Homosexuals should be supporting the fight against these Islamofascists… instead you are supporting the party that is wanting to look the other way….
Therefore, it shows the short sightedness of the homosexual agenda.. You might first being trying to ‘act global’, then press your agenda here in the US…
I would hope that makes sense to you… otherwise, The Darwinian Theory will be visiting you soon enough
I’ve got enough problems with Christianists in this country, who directly affect me, and yes, Christianists in this country kill homosexuals. But you failed to answer my question.
I like the SOB idea, especially as that would legitimize what I have already been called so many times over the years.
As I will explore in a posting-in draft, we have had numerous actions over the last year or so in the Va political Blogosphere that indicate a benefit to having ethical standards for bloggers to repair to and at least focus on-even if they are not always followed.
DWJ Says:
“But you failed to answer my question and/or ignore it.”
You failed to comprehend my answer…
Go for it!! Let er Rip… Let the Blogosphere and public decide which is more relevent to the discussion, and my reasoning above.
Go Darwin, Go Darwin!!
Referring to Mr. Vehrs’ version of the Standard of Ethics and the comments made therein, I’m one of the bloggers who feels that my integrity shall and will stand on its own. I freely admit that I am a partisan hack, no shame in my game. However, as Will pointed out, the first person who is not a Virginia blogging regular will not know me from Adam (who by the way, runs a really great blog at http://www.smythcounty.net.)
In other words, I submit my name and blog for inclusion in any such discussion about a potential Virginia Society of Bloggers.
Cory,
“I see a blogroll-style certification, not unlike the ODBA blogroll, listing all the members of the Society”
What do you know of the ODBA, you who accused us recently of ostracizing a member.
Mr. Foley,
I did not accuse the ODBA of ostracizing a member. I asked whether or not you had. The fact that you accidentally omitted Mr. Minor from your lists of ODBA members at the time is hardly my fault. As for what I know of the ODBA, while I was never a member, I was certainly in the blogopshere at the time the ODBA was ordained by Mr. Dotson (on January 8, 2005), and I knew Mr. Minor was a member from at least June 12, 2005. I was presented with the following facts: (1) Mr. Minor had been a long-time member; (2) by your list, Mr. Minor was no longer a member; (3) Mr. Minor had not commented publicly on withdrawing from membership. In view of those facts, my question, “Did they really expel Mr. Minor?” was not unreasonable. I asked; you answered. Indeed, you admitted accidental error. I’m satisfied. So should you be. I don’t expect you to apologize for an understandable mistake; I’m certainly not going to apologize for posing an understandable question based on that mistake.
Mr. Bouchillon,
I don’t want to see that kind of picture in the Virginia blogosphere, and I’d support banning anyone who posted it, too.
Spank That Donkey,
Whether the image from the blog banned from the aggregator is more or less politically relevant than the image Mr. Bouchillon hypothetically referred to is a subjective evaluation. To you, an image of gay sex (which I, too, would find disturbing in this community) has no political relevance; I could conceive of a context where it might be politically relevant–even to the War on Terror–if used in conjunction with a post dealing with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” for example. (And since you brought up the issue, don’t assume that all gay people support “the party that is wanting to look the other way.” And if you want us to be supportive of of the War on Terror, when are you going to be supportive of us actually fighting in it?) But as I responded to Mr. Bouchillon, I think that the image he referred to would be inappropriate for this environment, no matter how politically relevant–just like the image the banned blog posted.
Mr. Fugate,
Thanks for staying on-topic. I hope I can now, too. I think Mr. Vehrs’s original draft was a thoughtful one and it generated a lot of feedback on that thread. I remain here as opposed to excluding pseudonymous bloggers as I was when I posted on that thread. Likewise, I have the same concerns about enforceability. But I have certainly been persuaded over the past few weeks, after watching Virginia blogs during the Senate election and returning to the blogosphere myself after it ended, that some sort of self-policing is necessary. I just can’t figure out what.
If we begin with Mr. Vehrs’s draft and have some sort of drafting committee to refine it, and then attract enough support to generate critical mass, I believe the Society could be viable. But someone has to actually strike the match to get this fire lit.
Most of you on the left are missing my point entirely. DWJ, I really don’t care what you post on VPB, I seldom read it. I am defending the blogger, not his action of posting a photo.
What I object to, and what all of you really should be objecting to, is Waldo’s double standard. During the Allen/Webb campaign a new photoblogger, similar in style to GGD but much more active, posted a picture with equal shock value in order to attack George Allen.
Where was the outrage from the right at that time? You don’t remember any because there wasn’t any. We realized that, even though it was distasteful, it was within that bloggers rights to post the photo. Waldo apparently felt it was OK as well. Now he has seen this issue from the other side and decided that he must retaliate.
That’s just wrong, I don’t care which side politically you feel aligned with.
Not Emeril,
Can someone provide a link to the photo to help in the debate for those of us who don’t remember the picture?
Mr. Foley,
I agree with you that the response to delist the banned blog was completely subjective. I agree that such subjectivity is a dangerous thing in the hands of a single individual. My response from the beginning has been, “I wish Mr. Jaquith had had a bipartisan group to help him decide how to respond.” I think that’s what bothers him most–that he had to decide on his own.
I don’t think you and I are that far apart on this. You’re not saying that it was wrong for Mr. Jaquith to have been offended by the picture, as he clearly was. You’re only saying that his response was unfair and politically motivated, because you and other conservatives have been offended by other images posted by liberals. I agree that the only difference in the response to the image in question now and those images earlier on is who actually got offended this time.
My proposal was about as objective as one can get: no images in the aggregator at all. You can’t get more viewpoint-neutral. It doesn’t interfere with the prerogative of any blogger to post an image on his site; bloggers can still post images but they won’t be on the aggregated page.
The broader issue, and the one Mr. Haskins seems to be attempting to address here with the idea of the Society, is whether or not individual bloggers should be accountable for pictures or words on their sites. Should there be a standard of conduct and, if there should, who should create it, what should it be, and how should it be enforced? I find those questions valuable, and they transcend the specific issue of Mr. Jaquith’s aggregator and his decision to delist a blog.
Cory:
STD tries to be a gentleman on line.. Sometimes I can get a little heated in an exchange with another blogger… My exchange with DWJ is a good example…. When I get to the point, it can be sharp, but hopefully always civil and logical.
In relation to DWJ’s proposal, I am not his boss… he can do as he likes, and let others be the judge.
As far as Gays in the military, the “don’t ask, Don’t tell” is about as good as it gets. Now as for supporting the Republican Party, Conservative Views or the War in general, I appreciate you picking two out of three maybe
But I do not know how to be any clearer to someone with a personality such as DWJ… if common sense is lost upon him, and emotions rule his life… I can only offer up what I feel is logical.
Sadly, STD, your ability to be logical, as I’ve pointed out several times in the past, is substandard. Your idea of common sense is that gays should be all for the war in Iraq because Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality, yet in your opinion, I should accept the Christian view, which is exactly the same.
Islamic Terrorists are killing gays in the Middle East, and Christian Terrorists are doing the same thing in America (yes, I consider a redneck who beats up/kills gays and lesbians a terrorist, since your party likes to broadly throw that term around).
I support the Democratic party for other reasons than wanting to pull out of Iraq, just as I’m sure you support the Republican party for other reasons than its lack of fiscal responsibility and it’s blatant violations of separation of powers.
I do support pulling out of Iraq because, well frankly, Bush can’t fight his way out of a paper bag, which isn’t surprising considering all that military experience he gained in Alabama with the Texas National Guard. The real question is, why do you support staying there? The ISG says get out, the generals say get out, only Bush refuses to listen to the people who he appoints to give him advice.
So, continue to wave the Islamic Terrorist flag while ignoring the other forms of terrorism that exist here in the United States, but at least have the decency to recognize your inability to be logical when you do and say exactly what a failed president tells you.
Just for the record Greg, within the last year, gays in Iran have been executed by the government just for being gay. I agree with you that the Chrsistian right is, uh, wrong on homosexuality (for the most part). However, to argue that America’s religious right is at all in the same league as the Islamists is as nuts as F.T. Rea’s claim that posting a picture on your blog is akin to terrorism.
I understand that gays are being executed, Nigerian preachers are advocating arrests, and typically, gays have it better here than in many other countries. My point being that it’s not just Africa and the Middle East where gays are persecuted, it’s in America too. If we want to get into degrees of persecution, that’s fine also, and once again, the Middle East and Africa wins out. But I won’t agree that Islam is the only religion that advocates homosexuality is a sin. Simply because there are more radical Islamics preaching death to homosexuals than there are radical Christians preaching the same thing doesn’t mean Christianity’s hands are clean.
Lets not forget, Christianity has a much longer history of killing people (Islamics, homosexuals, jews, atheists) than today’s Radical Islamics. And that was mainstream Christianity, not fringe groups.
If we’re going to use terminology, lets use the correct terms, and make sure that people don’t speak of Islam as a religion of violence, but the ones who pervert the religion. The exact same can be said for the people who pervert Christianity, but I’m sure the right-of-center bloggers don’t see Christianity as a religion of violence, despite its violent past and the preachings of the visible Christians who advocate murder.
So, just because there are more Islamic crazies in the news today than Christian crazies, and they are more violent does not mean Christianity gets a pass on its intolerance towards anyone who isn’t white, straight, and male.
It’s very convenient to forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and to forget that our presence in Iraq has escalated the violence. Terrorism, like communism, is a red herring so a majority can retain power while basically doing nothing about the problem. Terrorism isn’t new. The methods employed are newER, but the use of fear for political means is as old as religion itself.
As for myself, I despise any country that murders people, whether it is radical Islamics in the Middle East or the state of Texas. Being gay doesn’t mean I support a war in which half a million innocent people have died to avenge the death of 3,000 innocent people.
Now I’ve gone and gotten off topic. Lets think about the fact that we should identify people correctly. Radical Islamics are the terrorists, not Islamics or Muslims. Islam is a peaceful religion, just like Christianity. Both have been perverted and more people in the history of the world have been killed in the name of God. When I see bloggers saying things like “Muslims are terrorists” it’s a credibility-killer for me. That’s a backwards, uneducated view.
So, I think one thing we should explore is the proper use of identifying cultures and groups. I know this won’t keep James Young from calling all gays perverts, and that shouldn’t be the focus, but I think ethically, denouncing an entire religion as violent is ignorant.
DWJ says:
“So, I think one thing we should explore is the proper use of identifying cultures and groups.”
That’s right DWJ, we need to accept all the terms that Liberals come up with… Let’s see if you support Bush you are a War Mongering Nazi… Oppose Same Sex Marriage, homophobic bigot.. etc. etc.
I have asked Waldo to remove me from VPB because I am not going to submit posts to his blog, and let him be the editor of what is ‘poper & good’for the blogosphere’s consumption. It is time that Conservatives quit playing by all the rules, and yes bi-lines created by Liberals.
For instance, I have never seen the point in someone being labeled and ‘African American’. If someone is born in America, whether his lineage is from Ireland or Nigeria, a more accurate term is American with African Heritage, or more specifically Nigerian Heritage….
Currently there are children in America with both bloodlines of heritage… But the Liberals would have us Choose, to separate us, rather than the logical American with Nigerian and Irish Heritage. Ask some one white, what is your heritage?, oh German, Irish, Scot, whatever else got under the fence, in the last few centuries…
That shouldn’t be different, white, black, brown, red, yellow….. We’re Americans if ‘We are proud of Our Country’!
Holy Christ. For once I agree with you. And I don’t consider Bush supporters war mongering Nazi’s, just people who can’t give a good reason to be in war other than 9/11.
But, that is exactly the point. I think the calling of names should stop (and I’m just as guilty), lets stop the homophobe, bigot, unpatriotic, cut-and-run phrases and instead focus on the debate. I think it’s fair (and strangely enough, I’ve been working on some ethics for whackjob that has this exact point in it) that you can call someone on homophobic behavior, but I think we should refrain from labeling them a homophobe, in most cases.
If we agree to something like this, I’ll be the first to smack liberals down that use the labels instead of pointing out behavior. Will that work for you, STD?
And btw, it’s good to finally see someone who disagrees with Waldo doing something other than complaining. It’s nice to see it isn’t all rhetoric with no action.
Now I think you should suck it up and join back to show solidarity.
Hot damn. I’m finally one of the “notable bloggers.”
[...] STD and I agree on something. Universe doesn’t collapse on itself. More on this later. [...]
The assumption that I have seen every single blog entry ever posted on a Virginia political blog is facially ludicrous. Nobody has done so. In fact, I even wrote in June that I would be reading them even less:
Since then, weeks have gone by in which I have not looked at the aggregator. If it breaks, I usually only find out if somebody e-mails me. Since October, when the election got heated, I’ve probably looked at the aggregator somewhere between once daily and once weekly. Prior to that, perhaps once weekly.
Again — and I can’t say this clearly enough — the odds are good that I did not see any given entry on a Virginia political blog. Consequently, no endorsement is given to any content posted on them because I failed to protest.
[...] Mr. Tribbett, while complimenting Mr. Wilmore on his investigative work, is concerned about potential lawsuits in the blogosphere. I have to echo this concern and also believe that the precedent set in Chapman v. Letiecq is dangerous. The blogosphere should police their own, but as blogs gain credibility and the ability to influence elections (which has yet to be conclusive), the actions by a sixteen year old blogger points to the need for some sort of ethical code among bloggers to assist in the self-regulation of blogs. [...]
I think every gay blogger should post as many pictures of gay men kissing, performing oral and anal sex, and whatever else they can think of to show their lifestyle.
I imagine they realise that showing gays doing what gays do would hardly be helpful to their cause.
Waldo:
We are to believe that weeks go by and you do not look at the aggregator? Who do you use to keep up on the blogosphere BNN?