What is Josh Marshall Trying to Create at TPM Cafe?
[Surgeon General's warning: the following post is blunt, rude and abrasive, and could be considered hurtful to those with tender feelings.]
Once again, an argument has been started in the TPM Cafe Reader Posts section over a post from a relatively unknown contributor shooting to the top of the Recommended Posts list. I don't know what is responsible for these strange leaps to the top of the list. Perhaps some of these writers have signed up with publicists or blog promoters who employ spamming and recommendation techniques that the authors themselves might not realize are being employed on their behalf. On the other hand, there are many, many users at TPM Cafe, and most of them don't post here frequently, if ever, or follow the dominant cliques around. So maybe they comprise a silent majority whose tastes, and occasional presses of the "recommend" button, diverge from those of the more prominent regulars.
Anyway, the relatively few cases of a random post here or there rising to the top of the Recommended Posts list through recommendations-gaming, if that's what it is, are <i>not at all</i> the most pressing problem with the Reader Posts section. Most of the posts that rise to the top at this site are instead from a relatively small clique of posters who are all apparently either unemployed or retired, who have formed a self-selected community of group huggers, and who appear to have mountains of time to spend hanging out here and recommending each other's posts reflexively, no matter how trivial, inconsequential, mawkish or self-indulgent the posts might be. The site is now cluttered with these soft, rambling and introspective finger-paintings and exercises in mutual flattery and banal sentimentality. And the recommendations system offers no way to discourage these kinds of posts in a gentle way, and that unfortunately necessitates a more overtly critical post such as this one.
TPM Cafe's reader post section is now very word-rich but information-poor. People whose chief concern is the exchange of information and informed debate on public policy questions, and who might hope to find serious contributions here from well-informed people, are now faced with a mountain of clutter. The level of policy discussion is even worse than what one finds on the cable news, and dramatically lower than what one finds in the other, hypocritically despised print and broadcast sources of the MSM.
In addition to the indiscriminate recommending of everything written by their friends, the members of the maudlin ruling clique stuff the comments sections with long stings of fatuous "way to go!"'s and "great jobs!"'s of the kind mothers typically hand out to their infant children when the latter make a nice poo-poo in the potty chair. They decline to engage in any serious critical examination of the content whatsoever. I guess critical thinking and vigorous intellectual challenge are considered too mean and threatening to be tolerated. When criticism does occur, it generally occasions little but hypersensitive temper-tantrums and flaming. I have personally sometimes refrained from posting things here because I can no longer stand to be treated like a child with silly little pats on the back.
The posts on political issues that prove most popular generally steer clear of informed discussion of policy debates, and are instead repetitive meta-discussions on such immortal themes as:
Why are Republicans so stupid and crazy when they talk about so-and-so?
Glenn Beck is crazy.
Michael Savage is crazy.
Republicans make me depressed.
Bernie Madoff is evil and still in jail.
Follow this link to read this crazy Republican saying stupid and scary things!
I watch FOX all the time and then come here to talk about how crazy they are.
Where have all the flowers gone?
Republicans are a minority but they dominate my life.
My daddy was a Republican but I still love him.
Simultaneously wallowing in and complaining about ignorant Republican rants helps me feel better about how little I know and how intellectually lazy I am.
Why do some of these other posters say so many things I disagree with? The trolls are harshing my buzz!
... and other topics of this exhausted and well-mined genre. They typically offer little to the substantive part of the national discussion of policy.
For many months this dumbing-down, sentimentalization and debasement of the discussion in the reader section has marginalized more serious discussion on the site, discouraged the vigorous exercise of critical thinking, and created a culture of indulgence and emotionalism that is something like a cross between a kindergarten class, a support group and a lonely hearts internet chat room. But these watery and moonstruck weepers stamp their little feet tyrannically and squawk the loudest when some interloper barges in on their territory and rises to the top of the recommended list without their permission.
It's not that there aren't many smart and interesting people contributing to the Cafe on occasion. But the reigning culture of sentiment, confession, raillery and subjectivity discourages them from producing their best stuff. Why do a few days worth of homework, get one's facts and numbers and arguments straight, and then post a sober, no-nonsense post on regulatory reform of the financial industry, or trade relations with China, or the structure of the defense budget, or tax policy as it relates to health care, or military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, only to see that kind of content sink quickly to the bottom? Since such posts are rarely rewarded by the people who rule the roost, and who are in love with the recommend button and each other, many of the best thinkers here probably ask, "Why bother?"
I am dismayed that the management has implemented neglectful policies that have allowed the site to degenerate in this embarrassing fashion, and have prevented it from achieving anything close to the public service potential it once appeared to have. TPM Cafe has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is filled with self-indulgent writers spinning their wheels without going anywhere, complaining about their enemies' ignorance without contributing anything of substance themselves, and getting lost in unproductive and hyper-reflexive navel gazing. TPM Cafe's readers section has lately contributed very little of substance to the advancement of progress and genuine understanding in health care policy, financial regulation policy, national security policy, education policy, budget policy, industrial policy, energy policy or other policy areas. If the substance is there, it is buried and hard to find, like a good book buried beneath a pile of tchotchkes and gee-gaws at a yard sale. There are a few writers on the left-hand side of the screen who are contributing real knowledge and advancing understanding of hard issues, but the right-hand side of the screen is a can't-do ghetto of mopey whiners and ill-informed ranters, and the two halves are working against each other: one half tries to smarten people up and empower them with knowledge, the other half works to dumb them down and cripple them with indulgent encouragement of weakness and self-preoccupation.
Now I know some people must think I am terribly mean and arrogant to say these things. Maybe I am mean and maybe I am arrogant, and maybe I am all alone in my perceptions. But I suspect not. I also suspect that many others who visit this site think the same things, but are reluctant to challenge the status quo of majority-approved bed-wetting and "I LOVE you man!" stroking and fondling. Since the writers in the back-patting clique present themselves as a bunch of sensitive and depressed sad sacks, maybe others are afraid to criticize them lest they send these writers off into a spiral of over-drinking, over-eating or binge blubbering. Yet I have a feeling that if management employed a different sort of system for recommending, discouraging and editorially approving posts, they might find that there is a large untapped audience of people craving knowledge and eager to discuss policy nuts and bolts at a higher level. The editorial tolerance for the ascendancy of bawling esteem-cravers and their self-indulgent antics is disempowering and enfeebling the "progressive" movement - at least the corner of it that appears here.
Frankly, I believe this reckless lack of editorial direction by the TPM management is a cynical attempt to attract eyeballs to the advertising on the site by permitting whatever forms of mutually titillating gibberish the readers want to distract each other with. The sell-out is apparent all over. Personally, I find TPM Café to have the slowest page-load of any site I visit on the internet, <i>bar none</i>, and I suspect that's mainly due to the barrage of flashing, popping and scrolling advertising crap one has to swim through to visit this site.
The upshot is an irresponsible failure of civic and public responsibility. Josh and company should be truly ashamed of what they have done here, whether the sad outcome is a result of sins of commission or omission. I understand that Josh actually has a PhD in history from Brown University. How can he associate himself with this rot? Like it or not, Josh is now Citizen Marshall, and he has a civic responsibility to use the influence he has acquired to raise the level of public discourse, not pimp for infotainment and mediocrity.
If I'm wrong, let me have it. But if you agree with me, please speak up in support.
Sounds like you need a hug! *Big warm fuzzy hugz*
August 30, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awwwww.
August 30, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is simpler than you suggest and was identified decades ago by the greatest intellectual of our time. I speak of course of Yogi Berra. When Yogi was asked why a previously hot restaurant was no longer talked about among the movers and shakers he explained:
"Nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded"
Atrios's comment threads stopped being a worthwhile visit a few years ago, I mean how many iterations of "Frist!" can you take? And despite valiant efforts in the way of Diary rescues and the like the same is true of dKos and increasingly Digby. Unless you are a sneaky cheating bastard who does things like replying to the first comment and so pre-empting a couple of hundred commenters below you your chances of having your insightful analysis of anything noticed goes steadily to zero.
I think all the factors you identify are certainly in play but it is not something specific to TPM or to its editorial policy, it is just the price of success. Every pair of eyeballs comes with a tongue that may or may not be connected to a brain with ideas worth hearing.
August 31, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't spent too much time reading the other readers, and I liked reading the original post criticizing the tendency for vapid sentimentality. Vapid sentimentality bad, I hate it!
Let's face it. We all thirst for knowledge, but at some point wonks make you want to break things. Once in a while I just feel relieved when a huge, stupid, musclebound pigeon cock sets down on the high wire and scares away a bunch of biddies.
As long as I'm not one of THOSE biddies!
The moral invalids also known as Republicans (but not all of them) do really piss me off.
And that theme is overplayed. It's sort of the liberal Freebird (yeaeaahh..... guitar solo). So let's try to keep that to a min, except when they are so disgusting we can't help it, and let's try to always remember that it's OK to have nothing to say (as long as you don't say it), and namecalling and troll tagging are just never good.
August 31, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh has split the reader blogs into TPMDC, TPMMuckraker, and TPMCafe. My understanding of his intent was to have the cafe section function much as any coffee house/cafe would. As such the room fills up and people move on, and the character of the room changes accordingly. I too, would like to read some more wonkish reports than are generally available, but I'm not sure the format is to blame. I suppose as a suggestion, perhaps a new room could be created, call it TPMWonk, or TPM Policy, where the posts you describe would be verboten so as to ensure the more policy centered blogs aren't dropped off the page so often. It would be interesting to see if such a feature would have an effect on how many of these types of reports would be filed here. As far as those other posts go, I confess to liking them as part of the background here. In truth if you were to subtract all of the posts you enumerate from the board, Josh would be a bit lacking in 'product' on the right side of the page. Everybody's different, and I actually appreciate that difference. There are plenty of wonkish sites to visit for economic, healthcare, and other policy blogs, and I get tired of reading them ad nauseum, so a little lighter fare here at TPMCAFE is appreciated from my perspective. Regarding the 'gaming', (or not), of the recommend system, the whole 'recommend' process is becoming a less useful tool than it ever was, and I say that because I've seen too many posts that I would move to the front of the class were I ranking them in importance languish with 5 or 6 recommends.
August 30, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting idea, miguelitoh2o: TPM Wonk. I wonder how it could be organized. Interesting posts on policy sometimes need to be around for several days or a week in order to generate the quality discussion that is needed for them to be critically evaluated in a thorough way, and to lead into other productive avenues of discussion. The speed at which posts come and go on this site assures that they most will tend to be more chatty, casually friendly, emotive or ephemeral.
Absent a whole new site, I do think some changes to the recommendation system at TPM Cafe might help. One suggestion that I think others have already proposed in one form or another: people have a weekly bank of points they can spend - maybe 10. If they vote on a post, they can vote in one of the following ways:
M: A little more of this kind of thing, please.
MM: A lot more of this kind of thing, please.
L: A little less of this kind of thing, please.
LL: A lot less of this kind of thing, please.
The four categories add 1 point, 2 points, -1 point and -2 points respectively to the collective rating of a post. But the voter's "bank" of points is debited with the absolute value of any rating they assign. So for example, if you vote on four posts, giving one an M, two an MM, two an L and one an LL, then you have spent 1+4+2+1 = 8 points altogether.
If people can only spend 10 points a week, they won't recommend each and every thing written by one of their friends that comes across the wire.
I would also recommend that people be given one or two "appeal" votes per week:
A: Editors, please take note of this post and consider overriding reader votes.
The idea behind the appeal vote would be that if you suspect a high quality post has been given a lot of negative votes solely on account of its political content, rather than its quality, you can ask the editors to take a look and advance it with an override over the readers' objections. Posts that pick up a fair number of appeal votes will be pushed to the editors' attention. This can help prevent a tyranny of majority political orthodoxy. But by significantly limiting the number of appeal votes that can be cast per week, one can avoid bombarding the editors with frivolous requests for an override.
August 30, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The multiple +/- system would have some merits imo. As Don Key points out below, the minus feature would allow some correction of some self-inflating posts. If someone is going to put in the time on a serious policy piece, I think these posts should stay up for a while. Along that vein, it might be worth having a section like: The Weeks 10 Best Blogs which could be selected by management rather than the recommend system.
August 30, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think a separate Reader Posts page (or subtopic pages like the old site) would help in that more posts could be highlighted for longer periods (days). Separate columns or even separate pages for policy analyses of various subject areas and more personal human interest blogs would not necessarily create a rift.
I agree that it's mostly about eyeballs, but wouldn't more choices would bring more reader eyeballs (eyeball if you're a pirate)? Someone mentioned a "negative or a minus recommendation" button, which I've thought about, too. It would facilitate self-correcting any gaming or freeping and pure popularity contests.
I'm not sure how the different TPM subsidiaries would (or even shoould) combine posts from their sites (DC, MuckRaker, Cafe). One of the problems here is that TPM has grown exponentially and the question is whether to feature more blogs for shorter periods or better quality ones for longer (Then, who decides? How?).
Technologically, there are infinite combinations to play with, but whatever the format and interface, it plays a big role in what is recommended. Again, great post, Dan. Way to go!
August 30, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that a separate page might help. It is not always easy to find a recently demoted post in the archives. And once they go to the archives, people stop commenting on them. People might write more in-depth posts if they knew they would be around longer for in-depth discussion.
August 31, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of separate pages and even subpages within tpmcafe, that as you say, would provide more readily available content for more eyeballs => more revenue, (are you listening Josh?). As it is now, if a post reaches the rec list, it automatically disappears in 24 hours, and unless you're a registered user, and following the poster, or have commented in the thread, it's kind of gone forever. So maybe do a couple of things.
1. Provide a link at the bottom of the 'recent reader posts' section that allows you to access a complete history of what has preceded what's up on the board.
2. Provide some sub-pages in cafe, such as 'healthcare Reform', 'The Economy', Legislation', etc. that would allow posts on specific topics to be accessed beyond the 24 hour window.
August 31, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A seperate list for long term / serious policy or kndepth discussions is a great idea Miguelito. I happen to think there's space at TPM for the rants and the cheerleaders, the day to day horse race and the longer term indepth analysis. And there's room for the personal and coffee latching convo too.
I'm more of a long-form commenter myself so I appreciate the effort that goes into creating a space for discussion. For the more day to day posts, the 24 hrs and then off the list works well. But for the folks who take the time to really delve into a topic, that's deserving of longer term discussion.
And on the topic of personal posts, I tended to agree with barefooted who would host her own late night conversations on TPM and didn't want them rec'd. With the arrival of the dashboard and decline in number of posts each day, it's easy to find those discussions and participate without rec'ing which promotes posts which have a limited appeal to the front page. I guess the main question for me when to rec or not to rec is should this post be more broadly discussed(whether I agree or not).
August 31, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if the Washington elite would come to TPM and read some of the writngs of the unlettered. Read the comments by the uneducated, the riff raff of society. They might get the sense of the old adage: if you always do what you have always done, you'll always get whay you've always gotten. The country is in a mess and I warned you of my discontent.
Someday I hope the simmering discontent will eventually come to a boil.
Those of us at TPM, we're the proverbial Canary; that the elite MSM and the rest of the hoity-toity or maybe just plain haughty, ignored as irrelevant.
"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.
So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what others may say, or think, or do, as long as I am sure that I am right with myself and the cause. There are so many who seek refuge in the popular side of a great question. As a Socialist, I have long since learned how to stand alone." Eugene Debbs
The moment TPM becomes just like the rest, there's no need to participate. All the koolaid will be distributed by one supplier.
Maybe you'd prefer posting to the jet set pages, slapping each other on the back of how your riches make you special and uniquely qualified to run the country?
If TPM wants to be another pawn in the Capitalist system, another proponent of the same old pablum, dished out to keep the masses ignorant, then it will not remain. I suppose it is already under pressure to conform just as "Air America" was diminished in my area
Spoils to be divided by Rupert and who else?
August 30, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the quote from Debbs. I don't think the problem is the balance of posts from lettered as opposed to unlettered readers. I think the problem is the balance between serious and frivolous posts; that is, posts that make a challenging point that it is important for many others readers to see and respond to, and posts that use a very limited public space just reach out and touch a handful friends with light messages that are better left to private communication.
August 30, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debs.
August 30, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
August 30, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thans.
August 30, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
See! Now that's the kind of one word comment that makes it worth coming her! ere! I mean here.
August 30, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arp!
August 30, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my fault
I mis.spelled Debbs
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
August 31, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I misspelled Miguelito is a luser.
August 31, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quwak ... no no no ... Qrack... oops... QUACK!
I better get paddling back into the tall reeds before you know who shows up with his blunderbuss blasting blustery blusterings all over the blasted place...
I'm a bad duck... a bad bad duck . . .
Padding' along . . .
~OGD~
August 31, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the sort of commentary this blog is talking about. Totally unnecessary sophomoric asides that are designed to do nothing except garner an emotional reaction. The more I resist the prodding, the more bold and irrational your actions become.
You think you are being funny and clever, but what you are actually doing is making the substantive contributions you have to offer have much less credibility to the lurking readers that Dan didn't really mention but are what keeps the lights on around here.
As long as the Internet is anonymous, we will never get rid of this sort of rank, partisan hackery from the left and right fringes.
August 31, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Old Golden, this is not the place for humor or lite hearted posts intertwined with the
in-depth analysis offerings, we must all post like PhDs and weed out the frivolous commentary.
August 31, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would need to understand the subtext of the original comment to understand my reply. The duck was not being light-hearted or humorous. He was continuing his cross-thread partisan warfare.
August 31, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn . . . John . . .
There goes all that dinero the folks stuck in my edumication fund ... And what did their little duckie do with it? Laarned ta' mak a livin' in da' six figer bracket in da entertatainerment bidness.
Now maybe if my daddy hadn't whooped me like a redheaded step-child I coulda really been somebody.
Life's a bitch and then ya' die . . .
Quack! Quack!
~OGD~
September 1, 2009 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the problem is the balance between serious and frivolous posts"
And therein lies the rub. According to who? You? Me? The chicken?
What counts as serious or frivolous in your mind or mine is not a universal or easily discerned standard. The more I read in this thread and the other one about this alleged subject, the more I'm inclined to think there's a great deal of petty carping from many, I don't intend to single you out by any means, about what boils down to personal preferences more than any real, substantive issue. People's preferences differ. We don't have to share the same viewpoint, likes or dislikes. Yet, the point I've made elsewhere remains: it is what it is. If one so dislikes it, the remedy is simple, quick and easy to accomplish without the aid of anyone else.
The more pissing and moaning I hear about this all around, the more petty all of it appears to me, not to mention pointless and unproductive.
August 31, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe if the Washington elite would come to TPM and read..."
Won't tell you how I know, (friends in low places) but I DO know that this blog gets read religiously in the beltway.
By "both sides."
And everyone in the middle.
A few of our intrepid "leaders" actually have someone on their staff assigned to just such functions, and TPM, KOS and FDL are always on those lists, both right and left.
August 31, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that case: Dear Senate Staffer, please inform Senator Grassly that he can bite me.
Yours truly,
Another sucker for the Senator's insurance friends.
God Bless America
August 31, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oddly, (if the generation of some sort of hierarchical output is really desired) the previous system permitting "scoring" of each and every bit of reader generated output was far more satisfying, provided greater granularity (you really could figure out who your friends were on a real-tine basis), and took the whole sideshow off to the side where it belongs.
August 30, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, jollyroger, although the old system allowed for the rating of each and every comment, which I don't think is necessary since comments don't hog limited space. If a post is in the recommended list for 24 hours, the amount of space and time it is allotted is the same, whether it generates 10 comments or 200 comments. And a large number of comments doesn't take any space or time away from the other posts in the recommended list.
I had a very laissez faire attitude about the old ratings system, since I didn't think it was that important to rate comments. And I thought comments sections, being more or less unified, single discussions, where self-policing in a way the current system isn't.
August 30, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
comments sections, being more or less unified, single discussions, where self-policing in a way the current system isn't.
Well, that, of course, cuts to the nub of the chase (as they say...)
People's opionion (whether distilled to recs or deconstructed in tedious detail into a 1-5 ration (Christ, why not 1-10?!) is more or less besides the point What matters is content, whether lauditory or condemnatory is irrelevant (We can all figure out that part)
August 30, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reposting this comment as a stand-alone blog...I rec'd it because I think it is worth discussing, not because I agree with what you are saying.
If TPM had been nothing but what you suggest it should be, I would not be here and would probably still be a pissed off republican who voted for Obama, and nothing more. Through my interactions on this board, I have learned a lot, questioned nearly everything I ever thought I knew, and have become not only a better person, but a THINKING person, as a result.
No, I am not as smart as you are. I do not think as deeply as you do. I do not have as much of a grasp of the issues as you do. But being here has at least made me a semi-informed voter, and that's a lot better than what I was.
August 30, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you and I would be even better-informed voters, stillidealistic, if we were able to benefit from more posts from people with real expertise, and more substantive posts from ordinary folks who just have an interesting idea worth discussing.
By the way, I have no personal expertise at all in public policy. In expressing my frustrations, I am mainly thinking of posts by other writers that have been given short shrift and pushed quickly off the list of posts in favor of posts that are, in my opinion, less substantial.
The great thing about blogs, although even the authors of blogs don't always seem to realize this, is that they are participatory by virtue of their comments sections. Although I have criticized the current "culture" of TPM Cafe, which is partly reflected in the comments sections, I would never want the comments sections to be edited in any substantial way, and we are all free to interact with our friends in those comments sections in all kinds of ways.
What I don't think is so constructive is devoting as much space as is currently the case to using blog posts themselves to engage in small-group friendly banter. Each such post takes limited space from another post that could be there instead, and I don't think the current recommendation system provides readers with the tools that would allow them to make more reasonable collective choices about the best use of Cafe space, choices that reflect their best and most considered judgment.
August 30, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already have that, with TPMCafe and the Readers' Posts section.
Seems to me you should be writing your complaint to Josh and giving him your suggestions instead, no?
August 30, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used Josh's name in the title of the post. So I was kinda hoping he might just wander by and read it, and offer his response.
August 30, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
hehe.
August 30, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, here's the sad truth.
I am a professional writer, accustomed to doing a great deal of research before writing ANYTHING.
Sometimes I will spend three days on a post, complete with dozens of links. (And yes, I am, in a sense, retired.)
And I'll get less than ten rec'ds and fewer comments, especially if it is a topic that is of a fairly serious nature.
Or, I will write something of a more confessional nature with fewer links. Toss it off in a couple hours.
It'll rocket to the top of the list and have a hundred comments.
Both pieces will be well-written--I'm not saying that they will not be both well-written; and both will have something substantive to say; at least, I will try to make them so. I see no reason to waste my time otherwise.
But I do think that sometimes, depending upon a person's mood, perhaps they've been buried in professional publications of one type or another all day long and at the end of it they want some sort of bubble gum for the brain. They don't want something such as what you describe or I spend three days writing.
IOW, they don't want to read about financial policy or the Afghanistan war, which, BTW, I did write a very lengthy and well-documented piece on, and was accused in commentary of writing "war porn."
Granted, they do come to a website such as this for intellectual stimulation. But sometimes they just want a glance-over.
Your judgements are harsh and not always fair.
You behave as if people who do not want to read, say, a post I spent three days on, packed with dozens of links on a serious topic--are therefore stupid or uneducated.
Perhaps they're just tired, Dan.
I think Stillidealistic makes an excellent point. She comes at this from an entirely different point of view. She used to be a conservative Republican and now she supports Obama. What she reads here is, in many ways, new to her. She's EXPLORING these alternative points of view, trying them on for size. In-depth policy discussions may, from time to time, be more than she can handle.
But she does stay, doesn't she?
And, in the staying, she has made some friends, as have we all, I think, in many ways. We often banter in our comments, which gives us a smile in our day. Or maybe, just maybe, when someone HAS spent three days on a blogpost, it feels kinda good for someone TO ACTUALLY NOTICE AND SAY, HEY, THANKS, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
And if you don't have the patience for that, or for Josh Marshall, well then, go start your own damn blog.
August 31, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for sharing your point of view, Deanie. I might add, that just because someone doesn't participate in a discussion, doesn't mean they aren't paying attention. Being on the west coast and taking care of children all day 5 days a week, doesn't allow me a lot of time here at peak hours of conversation. I can't tell you how many times I have clicked on an in-depth article (many times, yours!) and ended up spending hours following links and googling terms I'm unfamiliar with. Often the post has already timed out (even from the most rec'd list) so there is no point in reccing or commenting, but I've still read it thoroughly and learned a lot from it.
And, contrary to CT's opinion, my post on this subject was not as a result of the "rec" issue, but as a result of Dan's initial comment that made me feel like those of us who post more from the emotional side of things than from the intellectual side are not making worthwhile contributions. Nor was it a "Rovian" attempt to turn the argument upside down, but rather to offer a different viewpoint for consideration.
August 31, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once again:
I know your post wasn't about the rec's... and unfortunately you keep bringing me up in your discussion.
My primary issue with your blog is that so many here talk about liking diversity... until they actually experience it.
And the people most intent on talking about how reasonable they are, are the same ones suspiciously eyeing the recommendations garnered by posts.
Now, you, in particular, weren't doing this, stilli. However, many of the posters on your thread are guilty as charged.
I suggest reading the original blog and see how the very people crying diversity were suspicious and were part of a hangin' party, ready to meter out a little vigilante justice. And why? Because the poster hadn't blogged incessantly.
Oh, and by the way, I didn't note one single apology to the blogger. Only a few notes rationalizing the behavior.
As always, something to think about.
August 31, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You behave as if people who do not want to read, say, a post I spent three days on, packed with dozens of links on a serious topic--are therefore stupid or uneducated.
Well, I think your posts are great Deanie. I don't think people who want to read the lighter and more confessional posts are either stupid or uneducated. But I am interested in what can be done to get more of the serious posts on TPM Cafe, and prevent those that appear from being thrown overboard so quickly to make room on the decks for the lighter posts, the sentimental entertainment and the repetitive, blunt force emotional rants.
August 31, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
Please see my post to Alan Shaw on his blog. If you support my idea of TPM editorially picking which "spec blogs" they wish to put on the homesite, please let them know there. Right now too many people confuse portions of TPM with Facebook and don't see Josh Marshall as a sort of Ben Bradlee for the new age of media distribution.
August 31, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sophomoric, spiteful spleen is hardly an improvement.
I'm wondering about all the recs this piece of whiney woe-be-gone waste is getting. Not brave enough to comment? I don't blame you on wanting to distance yerselves from this.... rant.
It's disgusting. Everyone pat poor DanK, he needs a lil LOOOOVE.
(gag)
August 30, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go, Dan. You are gaming the system to get this many recommendations.
The same thing must have happened when my ill-informed republican troll drivel happens to rise to the top. Or I am accused of being an industry plant sent to subvert to conversation for my employers nefarious ends.
It would be funny if it wasn't so damaging to our long-term prospects as a nation. If liberals can't be counted on to be adults who can?
August 31, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"whiney woe-be-gone waste"
Does this mean DanK is a Republican?
August 31, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worse yet, it means he's a Democrat!
August 31, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, DanK. I don't comment here often, though I do read the TPM news sections. I have found the cafe to be populated by about 10-12 bloggers, over and over and over. They tend to recommend each other no matter how lame or useless the blog. Some seem to get auto-responses from family and friends (e.g. great blog, you put my thoughts into words, couldn't have said it better). For that reason, I don't find it a very enlightening place to read anymore. I do stop in from time to time because there are 2-3 bloggers who say very interesting things that make me think. My guess is that the management pays no attention to the chatter in the cafe, unless it criticizes them. There is a sideshow here of poetry, melancholic musings, and theatrical ramblings, which are wholly predictable. You get what you pay for.
August 30, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to your improvements.
August 30, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Donal, that's not my job. I'm a reader. I cannot control the quality here. It has devolved into poetic pablum, which might be fine for another place, but one would hope for morecfrom TPM.
August 30, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can improve the quality by writing better posts, which should quite easy for you.
August 30, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should it be easier for me? Explain.
August 30, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Donal's point is that you as a reader can affect the tenor of the debate by blogging and commenting more. It's one thing to complain that the 'important' posts get pushed off the page if you're actually contributing to that collection of important posts. It's another thing if you're expecting the wonk-faeries to come in and write those posts while we're all sleeping, content that the faeries will have more content for us to digest tomorrow.
August 30, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yuppers . . .
Does that short answer make me one of those... "bed-wetting and 'I LOVE you man!'" -- "...members of the maudlin ruling clique..." mindlessly recommending?
What a bunch of bullshit! If someone doesn't like the table they're sitting at in the Cafe, try a different table.
But whoever it was up thread that recommended a TPM WONK room is one genius in my book.
Ooops ... There I go patting someone on the back!
QUACK! QUACK!
~OGD~
August 31, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I took Donal to mean the same thing, miguel, and I agree with his point. DanK has contributed some extremely thoughtful content in the past. It would be helpful in evaluating his post if he were to provide links to, say, 3 or 4 blog entries he would like to have seen get more attention so others (or at least me) could get a better sense of what he would like to see more of at the site.
August 31, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, I agree that the rampant fetidness of the advertising on this site makes it very unpleasant to use, wagging nasal hairs and wiggling women's asses strutting their wight loss eating up bandwidth and slowing loading. Joshua has sold out, BIG time, and that's too bad, but why should it surprise us? We are capitalists, n'est pas?
August 30, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Lowly Worm, in addition to the fact that there is just too damn much advertising, a lot of it is foul and offensive. It is also blended into the content in such a way that it detracts from the overall impression given by the site. When people live in a debased and ugly neighborhood, they don't treat their neighborhood or themselves with the respect that they might otherwise show.
August 30, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point. And like a community of like-minded people, when you keep coming here and it's the same 5-8 people on the recommend list week after week after week, I might as well read People magazine. It's not that these people actually deserve all the print they are getting, it's that the groupthink has decided that they do. So, we all must read, and read, and read. Try catching the substantive posts--they fly away within hours.
August 30, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get too much off-topic here, but I just want to rub this in a little:
I live so far in the boonies that I get NO advertising on TPM! In fact, I didn't even know there WAS advertising on here until I went to my daughter's house in the city and saw it on her computer. It is chaotic and distracting and often offensive.
(So nobody tell on me, please, because I really, really like the white space!)
August 30, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhh, they will find us.
From, a fellow boonie dweller
August 31, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Johnnie, somebody has already burst my bubble here, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst yours.
It seems it's not our wilderness-dwelling that is keeping us from the odious ads, it's actually Firefox and AdBlock. (in my case, that is.) And sure enough, I tried this on IE and the ads are there!
August 31, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hooray for firefox
August 31, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way the advertising works, (at least this is my experience with a client of mine who does this type of work), is that an intermediary links publishers (TPM for instance) with advertisers. Normally, the publisher does not choose the advertisers. However, the intermediary uses certain formulas to ensure that certain types of advertisers are not posting on certain types of sites. For example, you wouldn't want to see your competitor posting on your site all day long, and so on. Another component is the number of clicks and/or actual sales an advertiser receives while on a publisher's site. In other words, if you don't like certain ads, make sure you don't click on them. I realize that I am oversimplifying this process, as there are many other criteria and formulas that link publishers and advertisers, but I did want to share a flavor of that process. To summarize, the publisher only has so much input into what ads are being placed on his/her site.
August 31, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an undestandable, but silly complaint in my view. It would be lovely if we didn't have to be bombarded with advertising generally, not just here. But get a reality check. This site is free to any and all who wish to come here. Many thousands do so daily. The ads make that possible.
Frankly, I just don't pay much attention to them. I recommend that practice to one and all. I really don't pay them enough attention to remember much if anything that gets advertised and don't care about them, but I know they enable the work of this site so I have no complaint at all. My habit of overlooking ads isn't just here it is in general whether online, on TV, radio or print. I dont' see this as a complaint with much gravitas unless it is alleged that the advertising is having an impact upon what is on the site and I don't think that is going on even a little.
August 31, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey... don't take this the wrong way, but, this is a great post! And, uh, Red'd. That said, I see this site as a kind of town square, sometimes a mosh pit, where we all get our say, and we have a chance to sound off. And, no, Glenn Beck isn't crazy. He's stoopid!
August 30, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Curt.
August 30, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just talking to someone about how much I like your posts.
Oh hes too angry.
I said just sometimes. BUT I LIKE ANGRY SOMETIMES.
HAHAHAHAHAH
August 30, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, I agree with much of what you said, but I also disagree somewhat. Some of the blogposts (you didn't list them, and so I am guessing) that you dismiss as too personal are very meaningful to me, and make me think about issues in ways I had not previously. I am struck often by the stunning writing that comes from people who may be retired or unemployed, and who take the time to think and contribute their thoughts and ideas.
Some blogs are more substantive than others, but even that doesn't always separate the wheat from the chaf IMHO. I do agree with you that some of the "You go girl!" responses could just as well be left out unless there is something more to say.
I also agree with you that attacking people simply because they haven't posted before yet they get an unexplained number of "rec's" is childish and insular. There was one earlier today about a "One Term Presidency," that got really jumped on, unjustifiably from my point of view. I thought it was an intelligent and well-thought-out blog, and I rec'd it myself. But that isn't the point, really. Jumping on someone because they are new is not what this is about.
Finally there is a bit of "clubbiness" that you have identified that doesn't do the site any favors. I actually think it is a little better now, but it is not fatal, and is a result of loyal TPMers who have gotten familiar with each other, and so it has a positive side as well.
I've been coming here for about 6 years (I think - if not longer), and I've seen trends come and go. I still think this is the best site for sharing thoughts and comments. Have you tried making a comment at Huffington Post and then check back later to see if you have gotten a response? Half the time my comment is never posted and the other half I can't find it -- so maybe it is NEVER posted. But here we can have real conversations -- sometimes arguments, and sometimes a brick bat or two gets thrown.
Yeah, there are plenty of high-fives too, but you can just skim over them if they grate at you.
To sum it up, I would just say that I really do appreciate this site, and Josh's contributions to it. Your criticisms are reasonable, and I would only ask that you hang on and note specific examples to those of us who do what bugs you at the time. I would appreciate that kind of feedback, personally.
I also would like to take this time to compliment the TPMDC contributors, Eric Kleefeld and Brian Beutler in particular for their excellent coverage of issues.
August 30, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
August 30, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you make a lot of reasonable points CVille Dem. I hate having felt compelled to offer up all my harsh, scrooge-like thoughts in the post I wrote. I don't like playing the mean, nasty bastard. But lately, when I come to TPM Cafe and other similar sites, I am overwhelmed by an impression of managerial neglect, commercialized degradation and squandered potential, and as someone who feels loyal to the site, I can't just watch it go on.
Some people have suggested that I want to bring back the vaunted Old Days of TPM Cafe. Well, the old days weren't so awesome either, although I do feel the quality of the posts on the front page was a bit higher, and that since the reader input was mainly channeled into discussion of those posts, that helped keep the reader contributions on point, on topic and on a serious plane. But the comments sections were also filled with a lot of raving, paranoia and hysterics - not much different from what we see on the other side of the spectrum these days. I did my own share of that kind of thing, since I was furious all the time about the murderous and criminal Iraq War. I can also be a big baby. I feel I've grown and changed since then - not in my opinions about the war, but in my control of my temperament and understanding of political reality. And I suspect other readers feel the same way, so I'm not trying to bring back the bad old good old days.
One of the reasons some of the better and more prominent posters left the old TPM Cafe, as I think artappraiser has pointed out several times, is that those writers were treated not just to blunt and forceful criticism - and to condemnation of their writings and official decisions if they occupied positions of influence - but to levels of fierce and frightening verbal violence, insults and rudeness that no one in their right mind could put up with. We commenters were sometimes a silly gang of spiteful and envious ranters and hooligans, eager to toss our pitchforks wildly and knock the elites off their pedestals. We also used to complain a lot about why many of the front page posters did not engage more with the commenters. But some of the things written in the comment sections were so outlandish, fanatical and scandalously extreme, and were expressed so tactlessly and obnoxiously, that no one with a professional reputation to protect could possibly afford to associate themselves with those comments in any way, much less engage with them.
The financial meltdown last fall was a major turning point for me in my understanding and attitude toward what was going on in blogs. Some of the things I read in the lefty blogosphere struck me as so ignorant, unbalanced and even frightening, that I began to take a much dimmer view of the effects of unhinged populist ranting and rabble-rousing; crudely partisan team-sport hooligan politics; and the sheer hatred, aggression and atmosphere of threat that are sometimes unleashed by the blog format - along with other formats such as talk radio and cable news talking head shows - when the operators of these media formats do not manage their sites with an eye to elevating public discourse, and to avoiding mobocratic frenzies and ferociously partisan groupthink. That is one reason why I am now so insistent on the idea that people like Josh have an obligation to educate people, and to raise both the intellectual and temperamental standards of political thought in this country. Otherwise we are surely doomed.
I can't recall if I have ever posted a comment on Huffington Post. I can't imagine wanting to. Huffington Post is a tabloid newspaper whose articles are followed by gratuitous comments sections that are usually filled with little more than hundreds upon hundreds of one-line verbal farts.
I may be a snob, but I used to be an educator too. I refuse to believe in a permanent distinction between the "hoi-polloi", or ignorant masses, and the "lettered". I want people to aim higher. I am just as conscious as ever of the wide gap between the ideal world of what could be and the very unsatisfactory and imperfect world in which we actually live. But I am more inclined now to think that if people are really serious about change, then they have to be willing to engage as a unified community in hard intellectual activity and thoughtful strategic planning about the way to get from there to hear. Mere emoting and ranting about how bad things are is not much help. Nor is wound-licking and obsession with one's personal travails and problems.
If we want to defeat the forces of backwardness, complacency and corruption in the health care battle, to take the present example, we need good and deeply well-informed arguments. We have to be able to overpower our opponents with the stronger case, and with answers to their challenges - not all of them idiotic - about the sources of revenues, about budgetary implications, and about broader economic impacts of proposed reforms. Right now, I don't see TPM Cafe equipping people with much of that information or many of those arguments. I instead see a lot of uninformed people congratulating themselves on how much smarter they must be than the crazy Republicans, without doing much to display that they actually are much smarter. The cocky but unfounded self-assurance is mixed in with its opposite: despairing bawling about the Republicans and their noise machine.
So as I see it, TPM Cafe is dropping the ball and letting down the cause.
I know I have been harsh about what I have been calling the culture of indulgence and easy praise at TPM Cafe. "What does that matter?", one might think. But this is an important point. I'm sure many of you heard the moving funeral remarks by Ted Kennedy Jr. yesterday about losing his leg, and the response of his father:
But today I'm simply compelled to remember Ted Kennedy as my father and my best friend. When I was 12 years old I was diagnosed with bone cancer and a few months after I lost my leg, there was a heavy snowfall over my childhood home outside of Washington D.C. My father went to the garage to get the old Flexible Flyer and asked me if I wanted to go sledding down the steep driveway. And I was trying to get used to my new artificial leg and the hill was covered with ice and snow and it wasn't easy for me to walk. And the hill was very slick and as I struggled to walk, I slipped and I fell on the ice and I started to cry and I said "I can't do this." I said, "I'll never be able to climb that hill." And he lifted me in his strong, gentle arms and said something I'll never forget. He said "I know you'll do it, there is nothing you can't do. We're going to climb that hill together, even if it takes us all day."
I have a feeling that if young Ted Kennedy came to TPM Cafe and complained about his leg, and the hill, and the snow, the response would be, "Oh, that's OK Teddy! You can climb that hill next year, or next decade or next lifetime. Anyway, you're OK just the way you are! And thank you for sharing your pain, and for crying so exquisitely and touchingly! What a good, brave boy you are! Your post is a masterpiece of eloquent pain! Well done!"
When I write something here, I expect all the stuff in what I say that is ignorance and crap, or shoddy reasoning, or baby-talk and self-indulgent foolishness, to be attacked, challenged and ruthlessly cut away. We should all expect the same thing in response to our words, rather than, "Oh what a good boy you are for sharing!" If I come here blubbering about how badly things are going in the political wars, and how scary those Republicans are with all their mean words and recently registered guns, I would rather have somebody say, "Man up, you gutless whiner!" instead of "Oh yes, you are so right. I feel the same way. Let us cry and drink hot e-cocoa together." Making our weak ideas and flagging spirits stronger, and pushing each other along, is the only way we can move forward in addressing the daunting challenges ahead.
August 30, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yum! Hot e-cocoa!
August 31, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Count me in too, Dan!
Mmmmmmm... Chocolatey!
August 31, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a more activist and focused purpose than Josh seems to have in mind as a vision for this sight. This would probably require another site.
Quite a few here--but by no means all--would, I think, be interested.
The difficulty of implementing the vision you are I think setting out (which is a terrific one, I think, and one that could add a lot to the current political discussion in our country) can be summarized, I think, in a basic tension around when to act versus when to continue discussion and efforts at mutual education. Almost be definition--mine, anyway--there can never be an end to the educational process, to the attempt to keep learning, because none of us can know everything and become dangerous in a sense if and when we think we do. An unwillingness to continue engaging and listening to others is just dogmatism and is counter-productive to the entire theory of what democracy as education is supposed to be about.
On the other hand, there is the need to act, with commitment and discipline and a sense of purpose.
I'm not sure how to marry those two tendencies. Maybe the point is that they can't ever be married but must always remain in tension.
This site is simply not about developing a disciplined plan for political action. That is what movements and sometimes political parties might be and sometimes, on some issues, are. There the premium is on action, and thought about how to make the action effective, rather than further, deeper thought about what the precise nature of the focus for the action should be.
August 31, 2009 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. The only thing standing in the way of the democratic party yanking this country back to the left (bring the GOP along with it) and a much more progressive future are democrats themselves.
When all liberal "moderates" are castigated as traitors, it won't be long before the democratic party resembles the republican party and even more people call themselves independent. When neither party solves the problems we have but instead seek to implement new ones on top of the old over the objections of anyone who disagrees for whatever reason, we just might see two new parties rise to replace the two that no longer work.
Either way, the fluid nature of our common narrative requires us to be self-policing in our own time. Hindsight may be twenty-twenty but only if we understand the lessons those experiences taught us.
August 31, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think TPM Cafe needs three things:
1) More prominence on the home page for top posts (will attract better bloggers)
2) Log in required to recommend (defeat spamming, build community)
3) More self-policing posts like Dan K. (intentional community building)
Internecine pissing is actually a very healthy thing for an online community. No one complains unless they care.
Daily Kos went through huge intra-community pie fights regularly while it was gaining momentum.
I don't want TPM to become like dKos, though. It needs to be different, more thoughtful and policy oriented. Just as posters at dKos stood up for productive activism, posters like Dan K (and me, I guess) need to stand up for substantive discussion.
August 30, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S.
I agree with Dan K that folks should refrain from writing or pimping substance-free diaries.
I disagree that Josh or TPM are guilty of anything beyond some second-rate site design.
Also disagree with the blanket condemnation of Cafe diarists. Many diaries are quite good and thought provoking.
August 30, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We used to call this Meta...
When we were older:)
August 30, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly... I don't usually have time to read the material that is more oriented towards the people that read and write as a matter of recreation. But I understand that it is a large part of what this community has become.
The problem with whatever someone who "creates" or "owns" a community is not in defining that community. They can try but it doesn't really work that way.
They, in this case TPM media, can make a space available to others and they can set the tone of and direction of that place by controlling whom can or can not comment or occasionally laying out rules...
But it is always the community itself that defines what the place actually becomes.
August 30, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much wisdom in this comment, Connecticut Man1, although I disagree in some respects.
What the site "is" in the end is the result of, mainly: 1) the tone initially set by its operator(s) and, later on, its reputation; 2) the extent and manner in which the site is actively policed by its operators, if at all; 3) its structure--what it permits its users to do on a technical level; and 4) how its users choose to use it within these parameters, norms, and constraints.
Regarding what the architecture--the design of the site--permits and doesn't permit its users to do, there was considerable discussion awhile back, when Josh attempted to explain the path dependency of decisions made relating to its architecture. I don't know if that situation has changed in any way. To the extent that the current software and architecture are seen by management as excluding changes to the site's features (at least any time soon), that makes it difficult for people who want it to be able to do what DanK wants it to be able to do to make it do that.
I am, I suppose, more of the view that the limiting factor is less the architecture than there either are not enough people at this particular site who want it to try to do what DanK wants it to do, or there is insufficient clarity from DanK as to what that might look like, so people can decide for themselves whether they are interested or not.
August 31, 2009 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I understand your reasoning for why you are frustrated, I am not sure agree. I have not been here long, but it seems like there is a pretty wide ranging mix of free wheeling thought happening here. Any given post might not please someone. Some may not consider it a worthwhile topic or some may criticize the quality. That is ok...have at it.
It does not seem like there is an intentional cabal looking to force out good writing or provocative thought. It does seem like most of of people here are open to listening to others thoughts on a variety of subjects.
If someone wants to influence the course of the discussion all they need to do is make the effort. It can be good bad or indifferent, they are free to post and let the chips fall. If you prefer your own blog writing ....recommend yourself and the others you find similar. Even if those writers do not always receive a predominant number of recs...at least then you will have identified the people you prefer to read and can stick with those while avoiding the rest.
August 30, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Beck is crazed and hateful.
There is a straight line that runs from him and Sarah to the birthers to the assassin's bullet. Unbroken line.
Too little is said about this, not too much.
August 30, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
As stated elsewhere in comments here, TPM has other pages that are all political where anyone can rec, comment and rant/rave politico all they want or feel the need.
I believe the vast majority are well satisfied with the variety of blog posts and the coffee cafe environment.
Anyone so desiring can also go to the off site chat that is regularly noted by regulars here and all are warmly welcomed.
And just a side note: Josh Marshall didn't regulate nor dictate this site's content - the participants, every day, make the choices.
It's evolved into a site where friendships are made; funds raised to send reps to HCR and other important events; those ill or in other need are supported financially and emotionally; some recruited to join in campaign events and/or communications for legislation encouraged with contact list and on..........People here have come together from near and afar - quite a few have congregated together to meet personally!
I'm not aware of any other site that has enabled so many to engage in all things important to them.
Thus, it's relatively simple...
For those who don't enjoy the experience and environment here, they simply do not have to visit. It's a choice we all make. There are plenty of wonkish, politics only blogs for their viewing, posting pleasure.
And Don, since you stated you are not a fan of random acts of kindness - Warning: There seem to be many here every day and they are oft up close and personal on this site.
August 30, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rec this comment!
August 30, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
me toooooooo, also
August 30, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
me too,
What color sweater are we supposed to wear today,I accidentally deleted the memo?
August 31, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Red, White and Blue!
August 31, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The criticism Dan offered wasn't about these acts of kindness generated by the community.
I have been (and continue to be) attacked myself whenever I offer up an opinion that is counter to the prevailing group think of a small group of dedicated posters.
If I didn't have such thick skin and a stubborn demeanor, I would have been run off a long time ago.
August 31, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be fair, I guess I did complain a bit about the random acts of kindness - at least insofar as they are totally random at not part of any substantive discussion.
August 31, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, I just didn't see that as being the meat of your critique of the clique. I don't consider myself a part of any group here, yet was quite involved in the effort to get Ripper and gumbun out here.
August 31, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the complaint, to a limited degree. It can be difficult to wade through all sorts of things to find the wisdom which is all over this site, but that's the way it goes in a free country. Everyone cannot be as well read as everyone else, or have the same level of wisdom.
Unlike talk radio, though, where one either listens to the next caller or changes the station, a reader is free to simply move to the next item. I don't think that is too much to ask.
This post passed my test, so I read it. Many others do not, so I don't. We call that freedom where I come from.
That many people know nothing, say nothing and simply post what one would expect to see in a place such as this, is too bad, but not the end of the world. This is a great site, and the advertising makes it possible.
August 31, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
barth,
I like to think that TPM is akin to our goal and intent in achieving an evolving democracy - free speech, ability to choose your level of participation, opposing venues, freedom to go somewhere else, protests, acclimations...........
There is no perfect place whether it be country, home or site. If I may paraphrase, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others....'
After perusing all statements posted so far here and elsewhere on this topic, it is evident that the majority are, overall, satisfied and appreciate TPM Cafe.
Thanks barth.
August 31, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You (as so many do) sadly confuse free speech with a business place.
The TPM website is not free speech any more than the NY Times Op-Ed page is. No one is required to air your views. The first amendment specifically applies to the federal government and talks about how the federal government can't restrict your free speech -- but no one has to promote it. Or to even provide an avenue for it.
Sadly, too many on the left are just as bereft of an understanding of the constitution as on the right and talking about posting on TPM Cafe as your exercise of "free speech" is akin to some of the remarks from teabaggers, though in a much kindlier and gentler tone.
August 31, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times Op-Ed page will not publish my views. TPM Cafe will.
Obviously, the First Amendment does not require the Times or anyone else to publish what I think. TPM has agreed to do so, though, and for that I am nothing but grateful.
If you do not care about what I have to say, don't read what I post. If you find my points muddled or based on ignorance, skip them. If, on the other hand, you think I have something to contribute, don't look for me in the Times (much as I would like to appear there). Look here.
September 1, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are experiencing the repurcussions from the August recess. The health industry is dispensing cash and flak and the result is a general cheapening of discourse. The rec-gaming is standard-issue information warfare. Astroturf and boilerplate from concerned leftists that cleaves their opinions suspiciously close to conventional wisdom is another angle.
A lot of this will chill after Labor Day. In the midst of the flotsam is the continued work of the Cafe regulars... Which makes that work an obvious target for criticism.
My reccomendation is twofold. First, posts should only go in one area. Take your pick and tailor your work for the audience. Second, work on your own material and compete. Tie your work into your own blog and set yourself apart from your peers.
I don't think this post is too abrasive. It's a hell of a lot more cogent than most of what I've read here during August. I have been too busy training to blog, but even then I don't care if my work is embraced, rejected, or ignored. The fact that your work exists should suffice.
August 30, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipperupus, I have to agree with your thought about tailoring posts for one area. When I first started blogging here, I would consider which area would best fit what I wrote and post only to that one--such as Muckraker if it was political, or Cafe if it was more personal and didn't fit in any other.
Now I post in all three--Cafe, Muckraker and DC--so as to be seen, since posts stay on top for such a short time. I do it, but I'm not comfortable with it. I know that most of my posts probably belong in Muckraker and not in Cafe but I think more people read Cafe than the others.
If someone were to force me to make a choice I would do it without a problem. But I work hard on my posts and want them to be seen and commented on as much as possible. What can I say? I'm weak. I have an ego. I like being here--in all the rooms.
But I'm thinking. I'm really thinking. And for that reason I've rec'd this post.
August 30, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one posts a blog, there is a filter option that directs to which sites within TPM the blog will appear. As an example, today I posted a YABAN and published it only to the Cafe because it was non political, something that might be talked about by patrons of a coffeehouse on a Sunday afternoon. When I posted my series on the possible transfer of Guantanamo detainees to Michigan, I posted to all sites because I deemed it of wider interest politically.
You are focusing your bitch on one side of one site...the unpaid side.
The sites within TPM are what they are and they work how they work and the only control I have is the checkpoints on the 'My Blog' page.
The only control a reader has is the rec'd button, the abuse button, and their own judgment whether or not to read any of the Reader's Posts.
All the other baggage is yours to carry.
August 30, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My comments were solely directed to TPM Cafe, ~flowerchild~. I don't know a lot about the other parts of the TPM universe, and I'm not much interested in what goes on there. I'm not terribly interested in either muckraking or DC inside baseball, since this information is available almost everywhere in the media, generally to the exclusion of substantive policy discussion. I am mainly interested in raising the level of discussion in the part of TPM that is explicitly devoted to discussion.
August 31, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, shit. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Raise the level of discussion. Okay. That clear things up a little....I was a little distracted by the tangents of your blog, but I understand your beef now.
A point I would like to make is this: This is a very diverse group....way more diverse than one would think on a political site....we do not all think alike and we all give and take here with different agendas lurking in our backgrounds. Not everyone needs or wants to discuss a topic to the nth degree. Some prefer action to discussion. Maybe they are better at doing than they are at talking. Others are better at fact finding. Still others are best at organizing things or thoughts or both. Some can put it down on paper better than others. We are not all complete. We undulate.
Maybe I should be less murky and just tell you what I tell Mr. Flowerchild when he starts getting on my last nerve, "Ya know, sometimes it's not about you and what you want. Sometimes it's about everybody but you."
I do take your point, Dan, and I shall endeavor to raise my level of discussion on important topics. But, I ain't giving up cussing.
Oddly, I am glad you blogged today. This was cathartic.
August 31, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cathartic AND undulating.
I've missed that word. Time it was taken out for a trot, eh?
undulate undulate undulate.
Yep. Still works fine.
August 31, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I tend to wander back and forth across the policy/personal divide, I'm kinda leaning Dan's way in recent months. i.e. I think the Cafe could probably use a rebalancing. I don't worry too much about the clique business, nor do I feel that any and all emotional/friendly/personal/social stuff is bad, but I do think the site has gotten off-balance/weak in areas --
1. TOO MANY CRAPPY RANTS AGAINST THE RIGHT. I understand that people find it hard living with Rush/Billo/etc., but I can't stand yet another, the 5 millionth, scream back at them. It's like being caught in-between contestants in a belching contest. Yes, I understand the feeling - but for God's sake, can we have some self-restraint on this front? RUSH IS AN ASSHOLE. WE ALL GET THAT. Don't embarrass yourself by trying to make this sound like news. It stops being interesting or funny and in fact makes it more difficult to track any interesting CHANGES in what he's doing when it is literally a daily set of top volume rants about him. I know some people view this as "talking about politics" but it's not helpful to scream about him daily.
2. PROBABLY TOO MUCH SOCIAL/PERSONAL CHAT. It's just a fact that the amount of purely social/personal chat on the site has soared. Now, this is tricky for me, because I like some of the social/personal stuff, I sometimes contribute to it, and even find it politically useful. I spent too many years with "eggheads" who only discussed policy issues within certain narrow parameters. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with people talking about their work lives and health insurance bills and raising kids and their folks and relationships and religious experiences and sex and the whole damn thing.
BUT. I think it's worth people asking themselves if they've done this as well as they could; and does it connect into any larger story people might be interested in? If it's not quite ready, then.... maybe sit on it for a while. Let it ripen. I don't blog a lot, and part of it is because an awful lot of what I start to write I end up feeling isn't ready yet. Another thing people might ask themselves is whether the piece might be better just shared with friends or in chat or on Facebook. I donno. Sometimes I write stuff and TPM isn't the ideal fit for it.
3. PUT SOME EFFORT IN. I am someone who will brawl for the right to use unique spellings, to make up words, etc. So I'm no proper spelling freak. But I swear it happens 5 times a day here that someone cannot even be bothered to spell the TITLE of their blog right. And that is just a flag for really frigging lazy research. People are just slapping stuff up, because researching facts is too hard, and they don't even feel they have the time/energy to spellcheck.
4. WRITE AT TANGENTS TO THE USUAL POLICY/POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. This is what I'm actually most interested in. If I want big policy wonk discussions, there's 1001 specialized sites that do any particular topic better than TPM Readers pages, right? What I really LIKE is the zone where someone's personal world hits an issue they know, or where our social/group here discusses X and then the world does Y, or where someone has an at-a-tangent, different "take" on how to frame up a policy or political issue, or even a smart new catchphrase or silver bullet fact on something. Those're what I'm after.
That, and laughs, and more Arthur stories and more brain research.
Plus the occasional fight with a Crank Caller.
And those ads. Don't tell Josh, but I come here sometimes and just loiter for hours, watching the ads. I never click on them, I wouldn't want the feeling to be tainted by the exchange of money. But "Colon Cleanse With Dr.Oz" makes me feel holy, and looking at that chick in the "One rule to a flat stomach?" Wow.
Oh yeah, I also come here for the music. Except most of you have shit taste. Except that new dj guy. He's hip.
August 30, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am currently listening to:
Skip James
PJ Harvey
Melt Banana
The Monks
Polysics
Faust
Gravediggaz
Kleenex
You know what, Q? I have shif taste, but I LIKE it. Ooh, here comes King Khan... Catch you later.
August 30, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
August featured - Jason Isbell, Stone Roses, Broken Records, Duke Spirit, The Faces, Wilson Pickett, Jersey Jack McDonald, Eddie Izzard, White Rabbits, Stephen Stills, Florence & the Machine, new Dylan, Tommy Stinson, Rickie Lee Jones, Sunparlour Players and World Party.
(Actually, my comment was a joke following my spitting match with that DJ guy on another thread.)
Gracie lives. Duke Spirit.
August 30, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missed the King Khan. WINNER! You should stand a few of these on end, and make a real knock-out blog. Something to dance to. Something Wilson would be proud of.
August 31, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are people who are part of the mass media who are telling people to go out and kill the President of the United States.
WHEN THEY STOP DOING THIS
I will quit responding.
August 30, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good ideas, quinn.
The cliquishness and mutual recommendation habits do bother me, I suppose because I see them as a way for a minority to play an over-represented role in controlling the content on the site, even if that's not what, from their perspective, they are consciously and deliberately trying to do.
I used to have good and varied musical taste, but it now sucks somewhat because I hardly listen to any music anymore.
August 31, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's stopping ya'?
That is, what's stopping you from hardly listening to any music anymore?
I live in the world of music. And I do mean all around the world with music.
Forty years on the road. That's two-thirds of my lifetime.
It's brought freedom ... And not just to me...
All my life...
~OGD~
August 31, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music. Aldous Huxley
August 31, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're overdoing it a bit.
It's okay for you not to like some of the "group" behavior you believe you are seeing. It's okay for you to wonder why certain posts seem to, in your opinion, inexplicably soar to the top. It's okay to dislike a lot of what you read or believe is taking place.
I don't share your complaints though I think you make some observations that are likely to be true. But if I don't like something that is written or if I don't have an interest in some of the posts it doesn't bother me one bit. I just skip them or I read them and make no comment, etc... That's all one need do. There's no reason, in my view, to want Josh and his minions somehow change how things work here. The cafe is what it is. If one doesn't like it it's quite easy to remedy the situation.
My impression has always been the cafe is a forum for readers to post their own thoughts, ideas, and so forth and for it to be a wide ranging kind of free for all in terms of content and ideas. It seems to me that mission is being realized rather more than less and it's a pretty good and interesting facet of tpm.
There's not much point or purpose in getting too worked up about the things you are concerned with IMHO. The concerns are okay don't get me wrong. You're entitled to your opinion. That's the whole purpose of the place isn't it? But I also wouldn't lose any sleep over it or let it get to me if I didn't like one or several aspects of it.
Just my two cents.
August 30, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to go back and read some of these comments more closely.
Your post is good.
But me, I am the worthless, pajamma clad clown who has nothing to do all day. I mean that is who I am.
The clique? There are three hundred people signed up here at least. My friends usually show up in chat. This is open to all here.
But I have friends who work more than a full time job and attempt to raise kids and really produce something from an occupational perspective.
I have some retired friends here. But they put in 40 or fifty years in THE MARKET. They work their gardens, care for grandkids, give their time to charities.
So go ahead and come to chat once in awhile or start your own 'clique'.
But do not color my friends with the same brush as me.
I AM, AND I SHALL REMAIN THE LOWLIEST OF THE LOW.
A MEMBER OF THE UNDESERVING POOR. HA!!!!
August 30, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So go ahead and come to chat once in awhile or start your own 'clique'.
I really wouldn't want to belong to any clique that would have me as a member.
August 31, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Where's the Hall Monitor?
August 30, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Highly Rec'ed, Dan. Let me add a few thoughts:
1) The "clique" exists, it's for real. And like any body tends to protect itself.
Here is a comment by Flowerchild made *today*:
Of course, Aunt Sam replies:
I hope all member of the "clique" read this exchange and think about how it looks to others.
Of course, the same Aunt Sam said to you (also today):
(This was in an exchange with you where she basically said "don't let the door hit you in the ass"... but she was just speaking for herself as it turns out.) For what it's worth, she sure sounded to be speaking like a policing authority to me as well.
2) This discussion started when a good post got a lot of recs -- but not from the "clique". This made a number of people jump to the nefarious conclusion that the system was "gamed". In other words, when this group didn't get an outcome to their liking, their groupthink made them jump to the conclusion that they were under attack.
Even miguelitoh2o jumped on the poster. Sadly when it was clear that the poster was legitimate, there was no real apology from him. He only said why he made the "jump" to the *wrong* conclusion. But no "I'm sorry".
Then we have a post from Stillidealistic turning everything on its head and having the "clique" circle the wagons because it was "they" who is now being attacked. This is the classic Karl Rove inversion technique -- turn something upside down. Now they are the victims. (To be fair, I don't think that Stillidealistic understood the basic issue and that her post was sincere. But, again, you can see how the body "clique" responds when attacked.)
The fact is that no one from the "clique" is on the editorial board of TPM and therefore has any right to assume "authority". This is the essence of where the discussion started, the "clique" thinks about policing TPM as "their" turf. It's not. It's Josh's and the TPM editorial board. Perhaps Josh wants to change that policy in the future, but as of today, it's not the policy.
The "clique" has a problem in not understanding this.
3) Recommendations are meaningless when there are so few people who even bother recommending. The clique has about 15 people in it, and so it's not surprising that most recs are about 15 people or so. In fact, these 15 or so recs usually determine what's "popular". It's little wonder, then, that when recs come from other places, the "clique" is feeling a bit boxed in -- they no longer have the authority to determine the flavor of TPMCafe. It's *they* who react hostile and negative -- though they believe they are saving TPM. This is very similar to the neocons who are absolutely and sincerely convinced that they are saving the country.
4) Note, however, that the clique applies its standards inconsistently. I saw a post from Orlando about 4 weeks ago that had over 40 recs's --- and not one peep that maybe she was "gaming the system".
Why?
Because the clique isn't suspicious of Orlando as she is part of the accepted group.
5) Speaking of inconsistency, there is no consistency from TPM on TOS violations, and this is a problem too. One member of the "clique" was actually tossed off TPM for some of her postings and came back as another avatar/id. Josh knows about this as this particular poster has been here for a long time. To be sure, the TPM editorial board can run the site however they wish, but that type of inconsistency can give one pause as to how serious the site should be taken.
6) And speaking of Josh Marshall: I do not understand why he gave up editorial control on part of his website, and the homepage no less. This, I think, is the most crucial issue you address. It was one thing to have a sandbox for people to play in (TPMCafe). But when he made it a part of the front page -- and determined which blogs he would post based on popularity -- he really opened up Pandora's box. Any news site is only as good as its editorial control. Regardless of how the recs are generated (e.g. if you need to log in or not), it's my opinion that recs should never be used for placing stories on the front page.
Ironically, when someone from TPM tried to return to the old "You May Have Missed..." column to raise blogs that were of general interest and well written, there was even some push back from the "clique" asking why certain blogs were chosen and not others. The "clique" really doesn't seem to understand that TPM is a news site, not their personal page.
So, I might ask, what exactly does Josh want with TPM? Some of this site is so compelling and really cutting edge journalism, it's exciting. And some of it seems like the old Geocities personal pages. When you consider that Howard Dean was posting on the left side of a webpage, where on the right side had confessional articles best discussed with a skilled therapist, you really need to wonder. Were I to advise him, the first question I would ask is this:
What do you want the TPM brand to say?
"Something for everyone" is a sure way to say that it won't say anything at all.
Let me conclude by saying that the "clique" isn't a nefarious organization either. It's just an agglomeration of like-minded individuals that tend to act as a group.
For those clever enough to have been following my posts in the past, you'll note I've often talked about how there are no conspiracies -- it's just that people tend not to see things outside their group. This "clique" who so often complains about GOP types, etc. should examine how their collective behavior became in lock-step with one another to the point where its all about "solidarity" and protecting their position. It was not surprising that they created (independently) their own chat room for themselves -- this is fitting and proper. And while they can continue to find like-minded friends here, they need to remember that some of us do not come here looking for friendship, but rather for analysis and thoughtful, deep discussion -- and that is just as valid. One wonders why they don't create their own blogspace (like their chatroom) where they wouldn't have recs on newbies to contend with. They could then police their own site to whatever degree they wish.
Thank you for this blog and also to ArtAppraiser taking on people today in the other blog with a bit of clear thinking.
August 30, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
she was "gaming the system".
I had been out of touch, and not privy to the events of the last few weekends, but I think I know what's up--some auto-troll/tweet alert is at work-a repugnant scumbag force multiplier, as it were--by way of which once a freeper decides to recbomb a post, he tweets the troglodyte horde with the appropriate html, and the rest, as they say, is commentary.
I never got 28 recs for anything before yesterday, trust me, and I don't use my own personal rec right on my posts, let alone pad--but I suspect that my disrespectful tone towards the senate majority leader caught the attention of a teabagger
August 30, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay CT - Obviously your vacation didn't improve your demeanor.
I was referring to solidarity against trolls or people gaming the system. And you assumed that i had the audacity (love that word) to speak for anyone but myself? Oh Puleeze, that's pulling it out your arse.
I'm right here, you want to talk to me or just your assumptions and innuendos about me?
How rude.
And now I'm not even goin' to tell you the secret code or show ya the secret handshake 'til you start being nicer.
August 30, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's astounding is that you like playing Gestapo just so long as you are wearing the uniform.
No one appointed members of the clique the "rec police". And that seems to upset them to no end.
August 30, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a uniform? Gee I hope it's blue - green just isn't my best color.
But, I sure do like them boots.
Why is it that all the whackos keep referencing Nazi stuff? CT, is Eva your pinup girl?
Well, gotta go - club meeting and all that ya know.
Thanks for all the giggles and even some huge guffaws!
August 31, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The clique! The clique! Its always the evil clique! There was, likely still is, a gaming of the rec system. Its was very clear when Farrar got 40ish recs almost immediately for his birther nonsense and other extreme right blogs. The most active users reported it and initiated some discussion. And yes, the most involved users are mostly friends and probably part of the "evil" clique. But the gaming of the rec system was clear before they began that discussion. I'm glad the active users put the time and effort into bringing it to management's attention.
What you're claiming is gestapo tactics I see as a bit of once burned twice shy. Having been clearly burned several times some are seeing rec gaming when its not so clear that its taking place, for example in lizbenky's "one term president" blog.
A bit of over reaction by the community is understandable, though regrettable, when the rec system has been and may continue to be manipulated.
August 31, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the use of deleting all your posts in a petulant temper tantrum if you're just going to come back?
August 30, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink