The Atlantic's Shoddy Blog Ethics

While many people may have taken exception to some of Andrew Sullivan's Palin's posting at The Atlantic in the past, I find it somewhat troubling that they would hire a blogger who seems to have a serious problem understanding blog ethics, if not journalistic ethics, as well. Frankly, this is unethical and lazy blogging at it's worst. So much so, one almost wonders if it isn't by design.

Their newbie blogger has spent the last two days presenting extremely small snippets of text to represent Mark Levin's broadcasts, almost to the point of obsession - see here and here. Along with being unethical, this makes no sense.

He links to Talk Radio authorities, David Frum and copiously back to himself. I thought blogging was about both documenting one's source material - and sharing same with your reader whenever possible?

Well, here's the source. There are over two months of audio archives available free on the Web for anyone who might care to listen to them. They might even be exposed to the breadth of Levin's show, with his many insightful monologues on politics the Supreme Court and too many other substantive issues to name. As a veteran blogger, it seems somewhat dubious to me that any blogger would so incessantly condemn someone for their work and never once link readily available source materials, inviting his readers to explore and make up their mind for themselves.

In fact, why would any objective and intelligent person allow another person to interpret, or perhaps misinterpret, that which they could experience for themselves? I'm not even sure one needs said blogger for anything, really - except to provide a link.

Yet, for all his complaints, his hand-wringing lamentations and pleas for his readers to acknowledge the alleged unsuitability of Levin's show this blogger imagines, a link seems to be the one thing he has decided to not supply.

It isn't simply unethical, it's poor blogging and bad etiquette, to boot. Assuming they are paying this guy money for his blogging, one would think an organization such as The Atlantic could do much better than that.

Comments

[Steven Den Beste]

But if he linked to his sources, his readers might (shudder) really go listen, and they might (OMG) come to a different conclusion.

They can't be trusted with the whole truth. They should only be shown the important parts.

Right?

[Ran]

What's that old joke about the Atlantic? Something along the lines of it's being rather wide in places but not very deep. Hey, one could say the same about the ocean.

I'll say what beats impudent rants for spreading ideas... The quality of ideas sufficient to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of a book, pushing a million. The Atlantic only dreams of having someone so influential on tap, rants notwithstanding.

[Rich K]

Funny you mention Marks archives. When I first started listening to his broadcasts last summer I went to his site and listened to almost every one of those shows to get a feel for his style and substance. If anyone doubts his cred on the things he talks about daily I say this: Go and listen and make up your own mind like I did.Dont rely on 2nd hand smoke,As it can be hazerdous to your health!

[Dan Riehl]

"Right?"

Sure would seem that way. And funny how their new "conservative" blogger elects to carry the Far Left's water for them in his first project. But let's not be mean to Conor, he's only trying to "halp" us in the end. What a seemingly worthless "conservaive". Seems the basis of his "conservative" ideology is that he wants to tell everyone else what to think, or hear. WHy, oh why is the movement rejecting someone young fool like that? Maybe we need to debate it ad infinitum.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

Up until now, I've done my best to assume that you are arguing in good faith. You are making that quite difficult. You neglect to mention that I link to both you and another critic's blog in my post. Why is that? It didn't seem relevant to a post whose entire purpose is to impugn my reputation on the absurd theory that I fail to link to my critics? Time and again I have addressed the substance of your arguments, while you've responded with little more than ad hominem attacks. I have unfailingly refrained from responding in kind, kept the confidence of private e-mails you've sent me, and otherwise excerpted far more material from the folks I'm criticizing than you do in a typical blog post on your own site. Were direct links available to Mr. Levin's show, I'd certainly include them in a post criticizing those excerpts. As it happens, the closest one can do is link to a page where a 3 hour audio file can be downloaded. You can posture and dissemble, but I think if you take a good, hard look at what you've done here, you'll conclude that you owe me an apology, whether or not you possess the courage to admit it.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor, for a "journalist," I'd think you would know the difference between "critics" and "source material". Evidently you do not, as I never once accused you of not linking to your "critics".

You wanted a fight, you got one. When you saddled up, I presumed you could ride. You're unraveling. Step away from the keyboard, you'll be eaten alive out here eventually at this rate.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

You accuse me of failing to document my source material -- but the fact of the matter is that I've meticulously transcribed every portion of Mr. Levin's show that I've criticized, I've presented the excerpts in fair context, and I've argued narrowly against those excerpts.

The link you provide above is to the entire archives of Mr. Levin's radio output.

You've criticized me many times on your blog. Yet you don't seem to feel as though you're required to provide links to everything that I've ever written as context.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

And a final point -- though I've been frustrated at times in our debates, I've never sought a fight. I've sought a discussion about substance. You are the one who repeatedly employs ad hominem attacks, a tactic I've not used. I understand that you take these metaphors about "saddling up" and "being eaten alive" as though they apply to what's going on here, but I truly think they make no sense.

We are arguing in the comments section of a blog. "Eaten alive"? I am rather certain that the worst fate that threatens me is carpel tunnel syndrome. Pretending that this is a big macho fight doens't make it so.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor, if you read the long comment threads, you will see that such serious discussion is taking and has taken place there. Evidently you've no interest as you never joined it - perhaps as it wasn't about "you". Whatever the case, you've ignored it. None of your statements or accusations hold water. The facts are what they are. Stop embarassing yourself. I've no desire to bring you harm or discomfort. I just tell and blog it like it is. Now, I'm done with this thread. I've much more to accomplish with my blogging than going on with you about your current confusions.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

I look forward to you linking to every single thing Conor has ever written when you edit this post criticizing him. He has written many, many blog entries for multiple blogs, many articles for newspapers and magazines both local and national. I assume you would want to give Conor the same courtesy you demand he shows to Levin.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

As for serious conversation. I managed to get one serious conversation since I have started posting comments at this blog, and you weren't even a participant. The vast majority of comments you receive amount to "Obama is a socialist monster out to destroy America" or "Conor/Jamie is a pinko-liberal-asshole whose real agenda is to watch as America is destroyed." If a good faith argument were ever proposed maybe discussion could take place. Instead all I've seen are witless ad hominem attacks you try to disguise as logical argument.

[Rob Crawford]

Conor's whole purpose at the Atlantic is to play the role of the "reasonable conservative" for their liberal audience. He may very well believe what he's writing, but that's immaterial.

What he's done is picked a few moments from hours and hours of broadcasting and writing in order to say to the left: "See! You can ignore that 12-week NYT #1 best-seller book, because a 'conservative' has found fault with its author!" While he complains about "imprudent rants imperil[ing] the spread of ideas", he apparently oh-so-carefully avoids discussing those ideas.

It's almost as if he's not interested in those ideas.

[PCP Smoker]

The country is rapidly going socialist and this creep Dorkandumb, a so called conservative, is using Levin as a meal ticket.
I think it's an interesting dilemma. Two weeks ago, I had no idea who this little piss ant was; today I do. The criticism is great, but i wonder whether we should let him and Frum and the rest of the Obama cons go back to their insignificant lives.

[Dan Riehl]

"go back to their insignificant"

Well, in conor's case I can't help but wonder if he didn't have a plan that's been foiled already. Frum made some nasty posts about Levin a week or so ago and Levin called him out here in a guest post. Keep in mind, conor actually started all this as Dreher used an alleged complaint from conor, as did Frum, to attack Mark. Anyway, Mark came from behind the mic to smack Frum around in a blog post. The flap drew much attention.

So, conor then gets a gig at the atlantic (probably due to his criticism of Levin)and what does he do with it? He immediately begins to attack Levin. Quite an interesting ploy for someone working as an intern who wants to become known over night, wouldn't you say?

Problem for conor is, Mark didn't bite. Why should he waste his time to fight with some unknown who can't cobble a sentence together without insulting someone due to his tone?

Nope, all it got conor was a heap of trouble and several butt kickings from a fairly large number of conservative bloggers who had seen enough. At this point, I think we're sitting back watching him like a ping pong ball as we smack him back and forth between us - him running from site to site to comment and fuel his infamy. He did tell you he is a paid blogger, i hope? Why, everytime he approaches, we yokels begin to tremble, I swear.

Ping-pong-conor. Perhaps he should start signing his PAID blogging posts by that name.

[Dan Riehl]

By the way, I want to add this, as while it can be great fun to mix it up out here in a game of wits, Conor should appreciate that this is not about him. And it's a shame it's gotten occasionally mean. But I've been me for years out here. Don't bring a knife, if you get my meaning.

And it isn't about Mark in the sense that he is what some would call a prominent figure. The fact is, Mark is one of our own. He's entitled to earn a living how he seems fit and his work and ideas are first rate.

We all may have differences on everything from policy to presentation. And as far as radio, I know of no synchophantic bloggers who follow this or that host like some mindless troop. Many of us listen to the talkers relatively little, or catch the stream for a bit here and there on line. But we do protect our own. I won't deny that.

Conor could have been one of us, if he had chosen to be. And he didn't have to agree with us, either. We can all debate policy and so forth in a civil tone. But let's face the facts.

As soon as he got his gig, he went straight after Levin - who is kind to most of us, using our stuff on occasion, giving links and hat tips, etc. What on earth would anyone think we would do in that case?

No. It should be stated and very clear: conor brought this on himself. He has no one else to blame. However long he's been blogging somewhere - and no one read culture whatever it was - he was mostly unknown to us. Were he one of us in that sense, we'd defend him,. too, if we could in some situation.

But when a blogger mostly new to us, especially one with an outlet a bit unfriendly to main stream conservatives like the Atlantic due to Sullivan, comes out and immediately goes after Mark, or any one of us - the troops are going to rally around. That's not a bad thing.

McArdle and others blog there, no one goes after them. But then, they don't come after any of us, now do they? That's a lesson that was apparently lost on conor. But I suspect and hope he has learned. He F'd up big time - it happens, sad to say.

[Dan Riehl]

"and you weren't even a participant"

You, Jamie, are a liar - flat-out.