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
Fallen off the wagon. His family and friends are gonna be so disappointed. Interventions take a LOT of energy.
Next thing you know, he'll be sticking celery up his arse again.
Oh dear.
August 30, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's obviously building a new body of work, that will undoubtedly garner accolades and acclaim heretofore inconceivable, (at least had he left the previous comment threads stand as is).
August 30, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
O - CT just loves us so much, can't stay away - we obviously are the ones he loves to hate!
(Psst - O, don't forget about the 'meeting' and bring your decoder ring!)
August 30, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like so many foolish people, you assign motives as if you are smart enough to psychoanalyze people.
I will only point out that after your "good riddance" post to me, you are the one that specifically posted to me personally. Were I you, I'd start thinking about that, Orlando.
My posts went down for a specific reason... one probably unique in TPM. A number of my blogs were taken down on Jan 19, 2009, but you probably didn't notice that. Whatever. But unlike bungum, who also took her posts down, I didn't take money from you people. And then not even post a comment on a trip that TPM readers graciously paid for.
You will note my comments are still around if you feel a need to miss me more than you already obviously do. And that I haven't commented here in a long time... I choose not to because of many of the reasons cited in Dan K's blog.
I will only point out that so long as members of the "clique" can exhibit the type of personal emotional hostility that your little jibe did, you should realize that your "bleeding heart" goodness concerning issues viz. healthcare looks self-serving, to say the least.
Either you are a kind person, or you are not.
August 30, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I'm pretty sure it's unintentional, but you're hilarious.
August 31, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Either you are a kind person, or you are not."
Choose.
August 31, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhhh . . . Do the words d-r-a-m-a-t-i-c i-r-o-n-y strike a chord?
Yup ... black or white ... but don't try and sell that crap to Obama.
~OGD~
August 31, 2009 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You too easily conflate loyalty and support for friends with cliques.
August 31, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't. But I do recognize powerplays by groups. Just as you do when it's a bunch of Senators who are merely "friendly" with one another. I specifically cited an exchange to show how even the notion of "solidarity" slips into the thinking. When convenient, of course. Then when I talk about this solidarity, the same members say "who, us?"
You protest too much, johnnie.
August 31, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnnie, you have to understand Clearthinker. His avatar says it all, quite literally. HE is the Clearthinker and it matters not how many people oppose his pov, he knows he has it right and all others are wrong. So you think he is displaying this behavior, and you are dismissed with "actually not". I know my agreement is meaningless, but I will agree nonetheless.
August 31, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always, the people here are brilliant at reading minds and assigning motives.
If you removed most of that type of content from the TPM Cafe, the number of comments would shrink to almost nothing.
Then again, great minds can discuss ideas... it is the small minds that have to discuss people. That's why flame wars take place.
Instead of telling me what I must be thinking, how about posting something showing the difference cited and merely asserted? I've shown in a bit of conversation why I said what I said.
Can you?
You are correct: I dismiss assertions that aren't proved by any means at all. When you learn how to formulate a structured discussion, then you get to sit at the adult table.
August 31, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
August 31, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, CT, I knew you were lurking all along. Are you back, or just intrigued by Dan K's thoughtful and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism?
August 31, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Dan K. You rawk. I couldn't have said it better myself.
However I have a small suggestion. We live in an age of wanton torture and rendition here in the good ol' USofA. In such circumstances it may be best to have a reputation for not knowing anything substantive lest one temp the powers that be to try to squeeze it out of you. If ever there was a time to flaunt one's ignorance and self-absorption this is it. Considering this I suggest that for your own well being you post under your name something as "trivial, inconsequential, mawkish or self-indulgent" as you can possibly make it.
August 30, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, Miguel? I TOLD you this one was still alive.
Press down on that liver some more, willya? Sure sure, use your foot if your hand's tired. Guy who sold him to me swore he had 3 quarts in him.
Squirrrrrrrt.
Ahhh. Perfect. The essence of life. Distilled Larry.
August 30, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stuff sure does stink until you get it through the refining process though, eh? L'essence du Larry. Magnifique!
August 30, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hey. If I want to see my President I have to stand in a parking lot with some nut wearing an M-16 rifle but I'm the one who is too self absorbed?"
(from the Lost Dialogues of Plato)
August 30, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it ever worry you that you can reduce the Peeg and I to stammering silence?
No, really.
August 31, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%, I just drop by this site every week or so (the cafe that is, I like the main section a great deal) just to see what kind of crud is being tossed around. The amount of pointless rants and back-slapping is boring and off-putting.
As for all the irritation about advertisements, I suggest you use Mozilla Firefox and search for a certain adblocking plugin if they are really killing you. I do not advocate in any way taking away revenue or hits from anything associated with TPM media, but if they are that offensive to you, you can get rid of them.
Also, keep in mind that nobody at TPM media has any control over what ads are shown. Google has some questionable algorithm which selects which adverts to display.
August 30, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH, my gosh. . .that's why I have no ads! It's Firefox and AdBlock? I thought it was because I lived in the hinterlands.
I've always said I come here because there are people so much smarter than I am who know so much more and are willing to share it.
Thank you.
August 30, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problems you identify, Dan, can all be addressed on the editorial side.
The right half of the page could even remain as is, accompanied by a link to a full page where posts are organized into a couple/few different categories. Something easier and more appealing than scrolling through the archives, which I never do.
Also on this full page, it would be great to see a section for those stand-out posts that receive 75+ comments or 40+ recs, regardless of their content, so that popular threads can continue more than the 24 hours such posts last on the front page now, regardless of their popularity.
It really comes down to effort by Josh and his staff at this point, especially since they just received enough money to buy the New York Times skyscraper or perhaps the paper itself.
I suppose that TPM Chat, or whatever it will be called, will alleviate some of the issues we have with the right side of the page. Some of the self-congratulating will likely move to the instant chat room.
But yeah, a link to a full page of reader blogs, organized and managed by an intern/staffer, would likely go a long way towards improving the reader blog section of TPMCafe.
August 30, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The upshot is an irresponsible failure of civic and public responsibility. Josh and company should be truly ashamed of what they have done here,"
Animadvert much?
August 30, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you blunt, rude and abrasive: Josh is trying to make money.
As for TPM Café users: There are more whiny posts about the Recommend system than there were about the election in Afghanistan. How pathetic is that? We are killing people in Afghanistan but we can't be bothered with their politics.
Here's my suggestion: If you want to read better posts in the Café, start writing them.
There. I've kicked everyone in the ass.
August 30, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah? Well, I kicked MY OWN ass first. Hard. Broke a toe, in fact. When I bent over in pain, I hit my head on the table, passed out. When I came to, couldn't remember who I was. Flagged down a cab to take me to hospital, but turned out to be a Honey Wagon, not a cab. Went into Emergency, but smelled so bad they called the cops. Cops threw me into the drunk tank. Drunks didn't like the smell either, so they held me down and broke my thumbs.
So now I can't blog for shit.
But I know what my first blog will be when I come back:
"Ass-kicking: The Double-Edged Motivational Tool."
August 30, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! You sound like your old self these days, q. ;-)
August 31, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Blow...there's nothing I like better than getting my ass kicked by 2 of my favorite guys in the same day on the same blog!!! I am a happy woman! And I mean that. Really! See? :-)
August 30, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, if you're still an ex-Republican even after all of this post-election nonsense, you're okay by me. ;-)
August 31, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better than that, Blow....in teemunney's blog the other day I shouted from the rooftops that I'm a LIBERAL! According to his list, I qualify...
August 31, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually gasket, I agree about writing better posts for those who are discontented.
Of course Josh is trying to make money as he has to support himself and family too. But we aren't paying for anything here so for us it's priceless!
August 30, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam: please realize that YOU were the cause of the discussion this weekend.
Stop playing the "concern troll" about recs.
Part of the discontentment is directed to the clique who see this as their ground to protect. That's why you fail to understand.
August 30, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, gee lil ol me caused all this hoopla? I don't think so.
You have some serious delusional issues.
If you are so upset here then why in the heck did u return?
August 31, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh . . .
That self serving individual must play a lot of solitaire. And if not, should.
Now hit me with your best Nazi shot
~OGD~
August 31, 2009 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Duckie: if you were a Nazi, you'd be shot.
Now go and repost, verbatim, long amounts of legislative text with little or no comment and pretend you are blogging.
August 31, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blog?
I thought this was the place to crap in your cereal you over pompous jackass!
hahahaha
~OGD~
September 1, 2009 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my suggestion: If you want to read better posts in the Café, start writing them.
Well, that's a good point that I will take to heart.
August 31, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rec this comment. I agree and said something similar on Stilli's post.
Human beings connect. This is a cafe of 'human beings' and it's not a law review journal.
I do believe that it would be best if the recommend system is going to continue as is that no one be able to rec a post unless they are logged in, and that there be a TPM dashboard that follows everyone and we could if desired see who had recommended a post so that 'gaming the system' could be prevented.
I am sick of hearing the whining personally. If you are so clever, write interesting posts and they will get rec'd. Granted some times of the day get less recs and sometimes it's just arbitrary whether many people are viewing the cafe at a particular time and day so you always risk that it may not be seen if there is a lot of posting.
Why not ask for or offer a solution instead of bitching and making people wrong for their love, support, and appreciation of each other.
And I suggest that you might want be careful because very often when we are stopping to point out the faults of others we end up 'doing' the exact damn thing we are 'pointing out'.
This feels like the friggin spanish inquisition.
I hope you got all of the attention you seem to be needing however inadvertently you're asking for it.
August 31, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K --
There are times when the cafe becomes personal -- sometimes excruciatingly personal. I have contributed to that, although, more often than not, the result when I do it is that I feel self-exposed and occasionally humiliated... yet, there are other times when I feel the connection amongst us, and I rejoice.
What I am trying to say is this: post Bush/Cheney -- isn't it actually grand that people at the cafe can say what is in their hearts as well as in their minds?
Isn't that what Ted Kennedy did, for decades?
Was he divorced from policy? NO. He had the gift of integrating mind and heart and actualizing that connection..
Why, Dan K, do you demand compartmentalization???? Isn't integration what the world is all about?
Just asking.
August 30, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read the personal posts I think you are talking about, wwstaebler, and I don't put them into the same category. That is because they were interesting and, though relating personal experiences, raised unquestionably important issues for all of us to think about. I can think of several other posters who have written interesting series of posts that tie some ongoing personal situation to a social or political issue.
The kind of things I am mainly thinking about are posts that just seem to be ploys for personal attention or affection, instances of emoting and acting out that are excessively self-centered, along with posts that are little more than say "Yoo hoo! How are you today, cutie? Talk to me! I'm bored!". Some of this chatter just seems inappropriate to me in this particular kind of forum. That's the sort of thing for which people invented chat software and chat sites.
August 31, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But DanK, with all due respect, I don't see that many posts that just say "Yoohoo, how are you doing today, dear?".
I admit, I'm not frugal with my recommends, but I hand them out to newcomers and people I don't know just as much as I hand them out to readers I do know.
I sometimes post a link to the chat room, usually on Friday night, in the hopes that more readers will join in the fun that we have there.
I can't recall ever posting a post that is personal to one person here, ever. I would never abuse the site that way. So if you could provide an example of a "Yoohoo, how are you today, dear?" post by one of the supposed clique, please do so.
August 31, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Wendy! (See my personal message elsewhere)
When Teddy Kennedy made a personal statement he managed to weave it in with his knowledge of history, literature, and his own experience. I had the privilege of hearing him speak at a dinner for a retiring musician once, and it was mesmerizing. There aren't many of us who can do that well, but make no mistake:
Teddy Kennedy did his homework. When I heard him there was no internet, and so his remarks were researched in a way that took more than a "click," and okay, a staffer probably helped. But his remarks were so personal and so meaningful to everyone in the room that it could not have been done in a vacuum -- ie without his efforts.
I agree with Dan K that any of us would do well to take some time and think about what we say rather than to just post (I am talking about blogs rather than "replies" because we all reply spontaneously which is a good thing.
What I plan to do (and I have done it before) is to create a blog post in Word; and edit it, looking at it as objectively as I can; if it needs more research then I should do it. If it is weak, I can delete it, or just save it until I have more energy to put into it.
One of my least favorite blog-posts is one with just a link; no comment; no ideas; just an internet fart. Fortunately we don't have many of those, but I usually comment on them to not bother.
All that said, sometimes we all just get so riled up by something that we go for it! I hope that never stops!
August 31, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, I think you make a point, however offensively or inoffensively, in castigating the more self-indulgent posts at the Cafe. I, too, find it laborious and time-consuming to sort through the crap for the gems. I wish more users would refrain from the non-news nuggets that turn up with only a link and a headline. Or the self-aggrandizing posts that offer nothing but hot steam.
On the other hand, I sometimes enjoy the kind of posts that you, CT and I have just criticized. I may also be deserving of criticism myself for posts just such as this. In the end, I think quinn has gotten closest to my take on all this: the Cafe aggregate blog is off balance.
No, I don't think editorial control is the answer.
A super-complicated rec system wouldn't help much either.
The solution will have to come from us, the users of TPM Cafe. If there is a dearth of authors here, then those who merely observe should jump in with both feet and offer something of greater substance or at least add to the diversity of voices.
But this, after all, just a blog. The writing here isn't headed for the Library of Congress or Foreign Affairs magazine. It's the place where the smallest idea has the potential to grow and enlighten and be knocked flat or patted on the back.
Finally, if the rec system is not fulfilling its function as the feedback loop that separates wheat from chaff, then yes, it should be changed. But all things being equal, I guess I don't care that much.
August 31, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, I think you make a point, however offensively or inoffensively,
OH, I THINK THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DOUBT ON THIS: OFFENSIVE. AND FIVE TIMES TOO LONG AND MEANDERING ALL OVER THE MAP BY THE WAY. FUNNY WAY TO CRITICIZE.
in castigating the more self-indulgent posts at the Cafe.
I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN AT ALL.
I, too, find it laborious and time-consuming to sort through the crap for the gems. I wish more users would refrain from the non-news nuggets that turn up with only a link and a headline.
AND I **GREATLY** VALUE BREVITY. **GREATLY.** AND IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE FOR YOU TO SAY THAT IT IS LABORIOUS AND TIME-CONSUMING ON THE ONE HAND TO READ POSTS AND ON THE OTHER THAT THEY'RE TOO SHORT. AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT THOSE OF US WHO MAY HAVE AN OCCASIONAL LINK TO POST SHOULD IMPOSE A RULE ON OURSELVES WHERE WE WON'T, YOUR ANSWER IS "HELL NO." YOU CAN PUT THAT ON THE FRIDGE IF YOU NEED TO REFER TO IT.
Or the self-aggrandizing posts that offer nothing but hot steam.
NO YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT IN POLITICS, WHEN PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT SOMETHING, THEY SHOULD SELF-CENSURE. ON A POLITICAL *BLOG* NO LESS! *NO WAY!!!*
On the other hand, I sometimes enjoy the kind of posts that you, CT and I have just criticized. I may also be deserving of criticism myself for posts just such as this.
THANKS FOR ACKNOWLEDGING AND SAVING ME THE TROUBLE.
The solution will have to come from us, the users of TPM Cafe. If there is a dearth of authors here, then those who merely observe should jump in with both feet and offer something of greater substance or at least add to the diversity of voices.
But this, after all, just a blog.
HOW TRUE! AND IS SOMEONE HERE SAYING THAT PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T BLESSED WITH A TOP EDUCATION, OR BACKGROUND I POLITICS, WHETHER EVENTS INTERVENED IN THEIR LIVES OR WHATEVER, THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST??! ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS IS *REALLY* ABOUT? THAT SOME PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ARE SO UNWORTHY THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE SHARED? SO THAT ONE MAY BE SPARED THE ORDEAL OF HAVING TO SKIP OVER THEM?
August 31, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I NEVER SAID ANYONE DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO POST. I SAID THAT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF POSTS HERE MUST BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BLOGGERS THEMSELVES. I ALSO SAID I DON'T CARE THAT MUCH.
DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO YOU IN ALL CAPS?!!!
August 31, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not particularly criticized any blogs, Ripper, though the flavor of what Dan K describes is certainly accurate.
What I don't like is a bunch of supposedly left-leaning people using the tyranny of the majority to complain that when their group of posts doesn't get as many recs as others, something "fishy" is going on. Amazingly, this left-leaning group immediately goes to "guilty until proven innocent".
They apply these standards inconsistently. For example, LisB, presently has a blog up with 29 (or is it 30?) rec's, and no one is claiming that something is fishy about that.
I think that the members of the "clique" would do well to read the myriad of comments that point out this groupthink and how it affects TPMCafe.
For all those defensive to these comments, it probably means you are a member of the clique. Note how you claim "gaming of the system" immediately, but then tell people, "Hey, find your own voice and post something popular". You try to have it both ways.
By the clique's definition, "popular" means something it, and only it, approves of (which may or may not mean you agree with the content). Anything else must be some nefarious force from the outside.
Again, I point out how closely these attitudes and reactions are to those of the neocons -- who also wanted to do right by their country. Humans are humans and there is always a tendency for those in a vocal majority to wonder what the fuss is about.
August 31, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
the following post is blunt, rude and abrasive, and could be considered hurtful to those with tender feelings.
Misson accomplished! I believe you did an excellent job of being blunt, rude and abrasive, really. I found your craftsmanship with words truly outstanding developing a highly articulate expression of disdain and contempt for people who post here. There were some useful observations and crtiticisms buring in this massive dump you've taken on TPM, it's faithful bloggers, posters and even Josh Marshall, but seriously, I am not inclined to reach out to someone who just shit all over the place. I can't stand the stench.
August 31, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also call BS on 56 recommends. I believe it is as Zipperusup above describes, "The rec-gaming is standard-issue information warfare."
August 31, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great leaping buddhas, more of this paranoia?
The post now has 108 actual comments. Ya think maybe the recommends are just par for the course given that volume?
August 31, 2009 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think 56 people commented twice?
August 31, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya got 36 people commenting here and as far as I can tell, from my almost year at TPM, it's the usual suspects, the clique, and I am not sure they are all recommending. So where are the other 20 originating? Are they the silent majority?
August 31, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, give me a break. I can't even figure out how Twitter works. You think I can figure out how to jimmy the recommendations system? It's completely normal for a post here to get slightly more recommendations than separate commenters. I have recommended posts myself that I didn't comment on, haven't you?
You're just mad that there are apparently 76 people who, whether they agree with me or not, think this is a discussion worth having. Some of them may have just liked the title. Grow up and stop appealing to conspiracy theories to explain everything you don't like.
August 31, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out my reply to Flowerchild a couple comments down. I don't know how it landed there unless my computer sensed my unabashed love for her. If I met her I would so give her a hug!
August 31, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Community.
August 31, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's the answer I was waiting for. Thank you, Stratofrog.
August 31, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, ya know....this whole recommending brouhaha could be handled easily. Eliminate the recommend button altogether. Let every post have it's 24 hours, keeping a tally of the comments only.
Would that work better?
Just wondering out loud.
August 31, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 31, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe its just me, but I think it would have to be a pretty unlikely and addled group of right-wingers that thinks they are successfully sowing discord on the left by promoting discussion on one left-leaning blog about their posting and recommendations habits.
Wouldn't that be like a group of leftists trying to bring down capitalism by clogging the Daughters of the American Revolution switchboard with crank calls?
Can I prove that such a group of time-wasting misfits doesn't exist? No. But given the very high number of actual comments that this post has generated, I think the most reasonable hypotheis is that it has struck a nerve, and that you are in "put up or shut up" territory with your suspicions and accusations.
August 31, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"pretty unlikely and addled group of right-wingers"
We get dozens of people around the country screaming and crying at town halls and you think it's unlikely? Can you explain that with any supportive evidence, or a link, or something of substance? hahahahaha
There are plenty of right wing agitators out there who would take great delight in sabotaging this site because it has gained prominence and acts as a counter to their agenda.
August 31, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you show me it's not?
You remind me of the birthers: you have a mind set and relatively little will change it.
I've heard time and time again how people on the right haven't discovered the Internet, but now you are asserting that they are rec'ing posts just to toy with the left.
You know what? TPM is small time. Were I on the right, I'd go after something that has more meaning and media flash: Huffington Post.
Of course, the people on the left sniff with a superior air how they are more sophisticated than people on the right because of things like the bloggersphere. But then, the people on the left are helpless against stopping a few recs... which we have yet to prove if they are rogue or not.
August 31, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard time and time again how people on the right haven't discovered the Internet, but now you are asserting that they are rec'ing posts just to toy with the left.
You never heard that from me and the numerous right-wing websites suggest differently.
TPM was carpet bombed with recommends weeks ago. I hope their new log-in requirement helps to authenticate the recommends. We'll know next weekend I suppose. Although I think the pirate had the right analysis of how it is done.
August 31, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually do some of this stuff for a living and I adore TPM Café.
I learn an immense amount from the feedback I get from my postings. Sure, you have to wade through a lot of Kumbaya stuff, but is is possible to get a genuine feel of human beings here, which is not that common on the net. I am what as known as "un-clubable" but I feel part of a community here.
I wouldn't tinker too much with such a successful formula.
August 31, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, TPM is markedly different than any other site I've been to, especially the cafe. I would be cautious about making too many changes to something that generally works well. I think there have been times we've gone out of balance and pulling back from the brink. Its good now and then to have these discussions and think about where we're at or heading. It can help to bring us back into balance or give us ideas on how we can make it better. This comment by quinn sums up my feelings about where we're at now.
August 31, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word David! Word!
August 31, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out, David...you are supposed to be one of the old school curmudgeons...are you TRYING to ruin your reputation?
August 31, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting, what folks say in the middle of the nite.
A discussion about cliques.
As more of a reader, not a professional blogger or commenter, I never really gave much thought to points or raves or whatever.
But I do know one thing. I would enjoy more thoughtful posts, other than just the obvious, Palin is stupid etc. as an example.
So to DanK and everyone else I just read. Goodnite.
August 31, 2009 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly I don't pay attention to recs and don't do recs. I just don't care about it. What I do care is that some persons might misrepresent themselves in one of these public forums with a political goal.
I would guess this is about lizbensky. This is the first time I have taken notice of one of the posters that has been brought to the attention of the community. So I commented for the first time about one of these posters and the peculiar nature of the posting. I received a reply from lizbensky and he specifically stated he had been posting here since 2001.
For the record I have been following and posting here since 2001 myslf. I don't happen to rmember his handle.
I did a Google search for my handle within the TPM domain name. It returned a lot of results, more than 100 Google pages, going back more than four years.
I did the exact same search for lizbensky and that name returned two pages of results indicating only recent postings. That search result is in conflict with what lizbensky said.
I could care less who posts here. However it is commonly known there is a lot of lying going on in politics which is undeniably harmful to the citizens of this country. Our politicians might be inclined to tolerate that but we don't have to and I for one won't.
It is evident that certain persons have sought to poison the well of public discourse and we need to be cognizant of that endeavor. As a nation we need to examine what is being said on our behalf and understand what goals are being sought. The citizens of this country have been lax in standing up for themselves and have suffered some bad consequences becasue of it. This is our country and we need to protect it. Plain old fashioned dishonesty and misrepresentation have been the tools of those who don't share the interests of the vast majority of citizens. We are at peril if we allow that dishonesty and misrepresentation to go unchallenged.
The public trust in this country has been thoroughly trashed and only citizens are in a position to reclaim it. If we care at all what kind of future we pass on to our children we'll take strong exception to those who would try and pull the wool over our eyes. We all know the saying, The truth will set you free. Well, it will also keep us free. To the extent we have seen our freedoms decline there exists a direct association to the factual misrepresentations and lies of certain persons in and out of government. Of that we are certain. We can choose or not to let this happen.
August 31, 2009 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez peoplechoose why did you have to go and mention googling your name, now I just tried it and found out I Dondi am an international belly dancer from L.A.! Im finding navel gazing is exhausting.
August 31, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I agree pretty much with Quinn's sentiments above. More concretely on the problems you point to:
1. Kumbaya posts - I don't think people should refrain from public displays of affection, whether you like it or not there is a community here, but it is kind of odd/funny/unhelpful to see them end up displayed on the TPM front-page as representative of what the café has to offer.
2. Kumbaya comments - jeezus, get over it, Dan.
3. Personal anecdotes - as long as they are somehow policy-related, which they usually are, and well-written, which they often are, I find them very informative.
4. Rants - Often I'll just skip them. But 'rant' is just a derogatory term to designate policy-pieces that are argued in less detail, more expressivist of a perspective or an emotion than descriptive of nuanced political reality. There is a place for that as long as it is done well.
5. Short pieces mainly serving to advertize some link to an important article elsewhere - Yes, these add to the clutter, but I find the suggestions often very useful.
6. Humorous satire - for me, it's just about the right balance: neither too much nor too little. Lighter fare can be very enlightening.
As for proposals to Josh:
- I don't think the pieces ending up on the front page, or the top of the rec'd list, always represent the best that café contributors have to offer. Sometimes this is clearly due to trolling, sometimes due to low overall participation in the recommending process that serves as a rather awkward 'democratic' editorial decision-making process. I think Josh or his staff should take the time to pick themselves the pieces they think deserve to be on the front-page, and then keep them there for more than the current 24-hour period. That might incentivize more people to post thorough substantive pieces, and provides a good benchmark for the rest of us already striving to do so.
- I don't mind rummaging through the clutter to find good interesting pieces. It's part of the charm. And even the pieces I scan and skip give me a sense of what's on people's mind, however uninteresting the details may strike me as being.
- I'd like the really good writers and thinkers around here to quit bitching and moaning about quality and set the example for those of us less gifted. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Dan, you whiney old fart.
August 31, 2009 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like the really good writers and thinkers around here to quit bitching and moaning about quality and set the example for those of us less gifted. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Dan, you whiney old fart.
For some reason, obey, I have usually been much better at producing comments on other people's posts than I am at starting discussions myself. I am a long-time blog commenter, not a blogger. Even this post started as a blog comment, and then some people suggested that I turn it into a post. I would never have thought of writing something like this if it hadn't come up in the course of another discussion that was already going on.
Recently, I have found fewer posts here that I am interested in commenting on. And some of the posts that I did write comments on, and which seemed like very good posts to me, disappeared to quickly for the discussion to go anywhere. On the other hand, I have sometimes written comments on posts that didn't seem that interesting, just to have something to write about.
Some people have asked that I single out people or posts as examples of what I like and what I don't like. I would prefer not to do that, since I am trying to keep this discussion from getting personal and turning into another excuse to engage in team-sport attacks on or defenses of individuals.
August 31, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't want to actually do the work, put in time and effort to create final product, you only want the ability to critique and judge the quality or perceived lack thereof in other's posts?
That's the equivalent of always complaining about the meals you are served. Someone else does the shopping and pays for the ingredients; reviews recipes, puts it all together and then places it in front of you for your consumption. Yet, you complain. So, simple solution, just eat your own cookin'! Or go somewhere else to dine. Write your own blogs and consider, not everyone's tastes buds savor the same dish.
August 31, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the same goes for everyone else here who comes mainly to read and comment, not to post their own blogs?
August 31, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the one who saw fit to claim the mantle of 'all that's wrong' and 'what needs fixing', et al.
And yeah, to anyone whose chosen to primarily critique, judge and otherwise disrespect those who do take the time and effort to post, I would say the same. Especially one who attests to their immense dissatisfaction with the service, menu, product and ambience of the cafe site.
Again, you don't like what's served at this cafe or many, if not most, of those who regularly choose to sip the brew that's offered here - then either practice what you pontificate by bringing in another quality blend or try the cafe down the street.
You've obviously given what's offered up here the taste test and found it not to your liking, so why keep returning to sample the offerings as it seems to only give you acid reflux?!?
And as far as the general theme of your initial post, I again reiterate - It's not what you say, it's how you say it! Your offering I found to be bitter, brackish and a base brew that obviously languished in the pot too long.
August 31, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will try to produce more posts in the future.
My frustrations have indeed been in the pot too long, and I'm certain that some of my attitudes following this long discussion are different than they were going into it. I have learned a lot from all the comments.
I'd like to note that what prompted my initial post, which was originally a comment on another thread, was yet another outburst and accusation about "gaming" over a post that had received a high number of recommendations, and had jumped to the top of the recommended list. While I was open to the idea that the accusers' suspicions might have some merit, I feel that these complaints usually come from a small self-selected group of people who have come to think of themselves as the owners and gate-keepers of the site, and who are accustomed to seeing their own posts at the top of the list, no matter how trivial the posts might be, due to the fact that the members of this group form a Mutual Recommendation Society who habitually and reflexively promote each others' work with the "recommend" button.
August 31, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just back to apologize for the 'whiney old fart' line. Someone on another thread just picked it out as the kind of deeply uncivil language turning people off this site.
It very sincerely wasn't intended that way. It was just a mildly tongue-in-cheek coda to a conclusion highly complementary of you and your contribution here. I thought it appropriate to shroud my eloge in some jocular invective given your disdain for outright intra-café fawning. Seems to have gone horribly wrong.
So let me be nauseatingly, stomach-churningly clear. Your posts, and comments on the ME conflict, among other things, are the best formulated, accurately framed and exquisitely argued that I've seen here or anywhere, thrashing finely through the weeds of moral, historical and political ambiguity. I have the highest respect for all your contributions, this included, and regard you as an immense asset to discussion around here.
I do not know nor care if you are old, nor do I in the least give credence to the idea that your voice or mode of expression are anything other than an authoritative and thunderous baritone.
And none of the above is, or ought to be suspected as, snark. Not even, perhaps despite appearances, this sincere though self-referential statement.
August 31, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The old TPMCafe (circa 2005) was a fabulous site with great leading contributors and good discussion in the comment sections. Reader blogs were sparse (maybe too sparse) but usually thoughtful. At some point (two years ago maybe?), Josh changed the format--I assume to make it easier to handle more traffic and support more ads. The new format--with its narrower columns, its lack of effective tracking and rating capabilities, and its busier page--seemed almost instantly to stifle discussion. At the same time, the quality and diversity of the leading contributors declined, and Josh seemed to turn his attention to other things. Today the site is just a pale reflection of the original. That said, I think most political blogs are even worse, so TPMCafe is still the only blog I visit regularly (HuffPost places second, though I look at it maybe once a week).
A competitor to TPMCafe that more closely resembled the original TPMCafe would be greatly appreciated by many of us who enjoyed the old site. I already have a career, however, so I'm not about to start such a site. If someone is game to create something new, though, I think there's an opportunity open.
August 31, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that the real problem for me is the decline in the diversity and quality of the leading contributors and in the discussion about their posts. Reader blogs are fine -- I read the good ones and ignore the one's that don't interest me. The volume makes them hard to track, so I probably miss some good stuff while ignoring the weaker postings. But the best thing about TPMCafe used to be the thoughtful leading articles and the good discussion that followed. If that main section of TPMCafe were strong again, I think the quality of the reader blogs would be of little concern, since we'd be getting our meat elsewhere. Right now, we're all craving more protein, but with the main course a bit thin, we turn to reader blogs where we get lots of sugar and starch, but little of substance to sustain us.
August 31, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that main section of TPMCafe were strong again, I think the quality of the reader blogs would be of little concern, since we'd be getting our meat elsewhere.
Agreed. There are also an increasingly large number of posts in the main section that are written by bloggers cross-posting from other sites, and whose posts don't actually "live" here. Their posts are just passing through, and they are not invested in discussing the posts on this site.
August 31, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That, plus a bit too much of MJ Rosenberg and too little of everything else.
August 31, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed.
August 31, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then there's the book club . . . initially this was a good idea, but it seems to replace other content and no doubt is so prominently featured because I'm sure TPMCafe gets paid by book promoters to publish this content--which is certainly a more profitable approach than paying bloggers to post articles . . .
August 31, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual a lot of the comments found something to hit on and hit away. I'm in general agreement with you. I've said much the same things myself, and this is why I simply don't bother to blog here anymore.
The list of recent headers is priceless. Not in the sense of invaluable but in the sense of them not being worth anything.
So thanks. The personal abuse you took demonstrates as well as anything how much what you said needed saying.
August 31, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks amike. I actually expected to get more abuse, and thought more than twice about posting the blog. Most of the comments have been very constructive, even when they let me have it.
August 31, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the following quote, this blog was a total home run:
I have to take exception to that description of the many right-leaning posters on this site such as myself who seek to bring substantive debate to TPM, though that is a great description of some of the "writing" coming from both the left and right fringes equally.August 31, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think DanK was referring to politics when he said right-hand side of the screen.
August 31, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see what you are saying. That makes more sense now.
August 31, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I was literally referring to the right-hand column as it appears on the screen.
August 31, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEM, you are so hyper-vigilant of the Left's assaults on the right, you even see them where they do not exist. Take a deep breath.
August 31, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you miss the part where I said I can see the alternate description as making more sense given the overall blog itself?
Based on the hit parade over on the Recommended Reader Posts, and even some comments on this very blog, being one of the few people who point out liberal hypocrisy on this issue is going to have some misfires occasionally.
Holding the mirror can be a thankless job.
August 31, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is what prompted my remark. You're moment of self-awareness was an opportunity I saw to provide encouragement to do that some more. I'm optimistic is happens sooner.
Frankly, I want you around to keep a bridle on us. I believe in bridled capitalism. But there are times when the reactive comments about how the Left does it too are excessive. Someone makes a point and making comparisons to when the Left fell, diminishes the recognition that the falling is in need of recovery. When we get into "you did it too" or "it happens all the time", we decline to give the issue sufficient gravity that it may deserve.
Take a deep breath, is all I'm saying. I want you around. :-{)>
August 31, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all good, GZ. I appreciate the nudges, gentle or otherwise, and hope I can provide the same.
I am still working on fine-tuning my bullshit meter. Since I started my journey on the left side of the house, politically-speaking, it is little wonder I am still hyper-sensitive to criticism. Being a writer doesn't help with that either. My first impulse was always to assume the reader simply didn't get it.
Took me a long time to realize it was me that was failing to deliver the right message.
August 31, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Dan, I am glad you posted this. And I am glad we got to comment on it - extensively! I think I have been here about a year and I have seen a shift around on the Cafe. People come and go, then come back and that is okay even though I wish some people would come back and others would go. People write smart things, stupid things, interesting things and boring things and that is okay. I agree with parts of your post - sometimes the kumbaya get to me so I leave and then I come back.
I like the ads. Not because I like the ads but because that means Josh and crew are getting well deserved pay and I get to be here free.
August 31, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the kumbaya stuff, I should say some of the most extreme versions of that - which for a time bordered on the cult-like - seem to have declined. For a while, posting a blog here felt like having to walk through the Hare Krishnas in a park on the way to work. There is certainly nothing threatening about it and its easy enough to just ignore it, but it's the kind of thing that makes someone like me want to take another route.
August 31, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I wish some people would come back and others would go."
A list, please?
August 31, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey you stay around . . .
Someone's gotta strum the C/G/F chords on that geetar for those singing Kumbaya . . .
~OGD~
September 1, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand the frustration you feel here, Dan. Unfortunately, about the only thing in the blog with which I completely agree is the need to overhaul the recommends system.
Personally, I'd like to see a similar rating system as the ones at sites like OpenLeft or DailyKos. I'd like to see people have the ability to rate blogs and comments, and to rate them "up" or "down". I'd also like to see people not be able to leave comments or rate posts/comments until they're logged in.
As for the rest of your post...it's not that it's wrong, per se. But I believe that TPM Cafe changes and evolves (or "devolves," if you prefer). And it may not be the place for extremely nuanced policy debates at the moment. It serves the purpose that its users want it to serve.
If you really want to "elevate" the level of discourse, I strongly recommend that you be the change you want to see in the Cafe. I see you have over 20 followers as of right now. So start posting some of those wonkish blogs whose alleged absence you decry. You'll probably find quite a few people who read, comment and rec them.
And those "empty" posts you dismiss so glibly? Maybe one person's trash is another person's treasure. My solution: I don't read every post here. And there are some writers I don't read. But maybe that post or author helps advance someone else's understanding of some issue being discussed. Just because it doesn't advance YOUR understanding of an issue YOU want to talk about doesn't automatically strip it of educational value.
As for me, I really don't care about being recommended. It's not why I blogged here, it's not why I comment here, and it's not why I rec here. Personally, I don't give too many recommends. I probably rec one out of every 20-25 posts I read, if that. But I come here every day, and read all the stuff - not just the front-page posts. In fact, that's why I don't follow anyone. I want to make sure I read many different posts and posters.
To my (perhaps unenlightened) way of thinking, TPM Cafe is a place where I can write what I want, when I want, and have it out there for review and criticism. Maybe people like it. Maybe they don't. Maybe they don't even read it. I really couldn't care less either way. I don't write for anyone but me. I think that's probably the best attitude to take with writing here.
As an example...you write an in-depth, well-sourced piece on mark-to-market accounting, international grain shortages, or what The Other Russia is doing to oppose Putin and Medvedev. And it doesn't get rec'd, or even read.
So what? Who gives a damn? YOU sure shouldn't.
The work itself should be your monument. The number of recs you get really shouldn't be a factor in your honest evaluation of your work. I've written pieces that have garnered a fair number of recs, but I often think my best work got few, if any, recommends. What makes me happy isn't the recs. It's knowing that I wrote something of which I can justifiably be proud. It keeps MY blood pressure down, anyway. :)
August 31, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What makes me happy isn't the recs. It's knowing that I wrote something of which I can justifiably be proud."
Hear hear; ditto; me too; likewise, I'm sure.
But I do tend to throw spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks, and have been an incorrigible blog-rumor monger, especially in the heat of political battle (remember "Kantorgate?), for which I apologize, but have no abiding guilt.
But most of those regularly among us know when I'm just starting a vicious blog rumor, it is usually preceded by the question "Hey, did anyone read that vicious blog rumor, yadayadayada...."
Like Deadeye tried to do to Matt, it is always fun to see one of those rumors mature into a full-blown blogfire by the end of the daily cycle.
You have to be smart enough to sort out the truth on the blogs, we all know that, at least the blogs don't pretend to promulgate unquestioned truth, like the MSM does. Here, you can decide what to believe without it being spoon-fed.
August 31, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Boyd,
I also don't really care about being recommended myself, and in the past I haven't used the recommend button very much at all myself. I really didn't want to get involved in popularity contests and in-group/out-group behavior.
I also don't "follow" anybody: not because I don't find certain writers here almost always worth reading, but because it seems easy enough to locate interesting posts without following people around. And "following" reminds me too much of "stalking". The concept makes me uncomfortable.
But my increasing frustration was rooted in what I came to see as the the way the culture of the Reader Posts section, in which I believe the recommendations system does play a role, had an influence in what happens to other people's posts, and the overall tendencies and tone of the discussion. Although each post is a separate element, they add up to produce a general atmosphere and set of dominant outlooks.
August 31, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Boyd! I love your stuff. If people have a low tolerance for affectionate verbage of a soft and gentle nature and prefer something more callous and abrasive, kindly go fuck yourself. Feel better now?
I was thinking of replying to the comment from JEP, because I think I have a similar perspective, but I chose to comment here because I think this whole, I don't care about recommends is BS. Even you are talking about it. You look! We all look!
The key to surviving here and not melting down into a rant like this post is being able to take away the self-satisfaction of having written a "monument". Great picture there. If I considered all my posts and comments monuments, I might be more careful, but I doubt it! I tend to type first and ask questions later. This is a blog, not the NY Times.
The rec'd thing is a slippery animal. I have reposted a couple of pieces to rave reviews. Originally they received neither comments or recommends. Did the piece change? Did the world change? No. It was simply a matter of timing and the traffic that day, one post absorbed everyone's attention, or that of the clique, hahaha.
Recently the traffic has been related to the rec'd board. We only get to be on the Recently Rec'd while there is room, and there has been some crap writing, which really had nothing to say at all, that has owned the board on the weekends. I'm not convinced this is due to a real popular demand by progressive and liberal lurkers, but an intentional effort to bury good work that debilitates the Rights latest meme, or strenghens the Left's agenda.
You're awesome, Boyd. I'm glad you come here and share your insight. I unabashedly recommend this comment. And again, to those squeamish when people are hugging someone other then them, go fuck yourself.
August 31, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic that a post complaining about other posts making strange leaps to the top of the list, is strangley at the top of the post list!
August 31, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meta always plays well, for some reason.
August 31, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think of it like a real cafe. There are conversations everywhere, couples, threesomes, small groups, larger groups, all discussing different issues or maybe listening to someone reciting a poem etc. Not everyone is part of all of those conversations, many are of interest to just those few involved in that particular conversation. But everyone has an opinion about the service and state of the cafe itself.
August 31, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, DanK. Thoughtful as always. But you know, we have accomplished some good things around here. We almost made Anne-Marie Slaughter think. We've riled up Amitai Etzioni. We drove Rachel Kleinfeld into her Trumanian bunker. Seriously, some heavy hitters have come here presuming to lecture us on foreign policy and have had their ideas publicly chewed over by the likes of you, Libertine and many others and even if they've left scoffing at "anonymous Internetters" you can tell that we've touched a nerve or two around these parts.
One thing that does work about TPMCafe is that, at times, this forum has given us access to people who otherwise would not have heard us. That's pretty cool.
And damn, I love to watch Ellen and Jollyroger pull apart all the financial posts. I just miss Rotwang.
August 31, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's is important is that serious writers do not give up. The pen is mightier than the rec. You gotta believe it.
August 31, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"who have formed a self-selected community of group huggers"
I have made the rec list more than once, and other than TheraP, have never been offered anything akin to a hug. (Hugs are, of course, great therapy.) I'm no TPM insider, per se, other than it is my favorite blog, but like most of us, I'm not IT'S favorite commenter.
As for the ecclectic, meandering nature of the threads around here, I find it both refreshing and educational.
Dan, in response to similar long-winded complaints, I've posted the following statement to: FDL, Harry Reid's old blog, Cilliza's "The Fix", and many oterhs, "Blogs that are required to stay on-thread lose readership and commentors"
It is what makes a blog unique.
Also, never forget there are a hundred lurkers for every commenter, maybe more. You may not get rec'd but you do get read, regardless of how the "club" treats you.
August 31, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I normally spend very little time in the TPM Cafe, mainly because of the thoughtful and accurate points that you have mentioned. You are correct in assuming that there are people who visit TPM to read and absorb, with an occasional post now and again. I am one of those people. I am not retired or unemployed, so remaining engaged in this blog is a little more challenging for me than for others, I suppose, although I've never been criticized for my infrequency of comments until recently.
I think TPM satisfies different needs and wants in different people. During the Bush reign of terror the one common thread for most blogs was a place where people could read or comment where they did not feel alone, frustrated or insane in the way they felt about the political processes in this country. Blogs were places of refuge where sanity and hope reigned and people connected to them. While that may still hold true for some people, it is my opinion that blogs are undergoing some evolution due to Obama's presidency and a Democratic majority. A lot of the empty whinging that you read is really just a hangover from the hopelessness and disbelief felt during the Bush years. However, I agree with you, some of it is just plain whinging.
With that being said, I do not judge anyone, not even the trolls, but I also expect the same courtesy extended to me and to others. It is called "civil discourse" of which there is far too little in this country. The thing I always appreciated about Josh, from the time I happened upon this blog, was that he was so even keel. His blog appeared to be professional, dignified, never resorting to below the belt namecalling. It merely existed to inform and to challenge the propaganda being fed to the American people. I still believe that is true, which is why I keep coming back.
Naturally, I've noticed the clique that has formed. It is discouraging in many ways as it certainly does not represent a democracy of free thought, but rather an inside joke that others are not privy to nor welcome to be privy to. As I said earlier, blogs serve different needs in different people and the TPM clique connects through this means. I have never had an issue with that until recently, because I've never had anyone rude enough, ignorant enough or uninformed enough to criticize me for being here. Until that occurred, TPM was one of my must-read sites. Now, not so much.
August 31, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Limo, I'm glad to see you here. I do not know if my apologies were found in response to your last visit. I have no beef with you although I did then because of my own misperceptions. I feel that if my suspicions were true, I could stand by them, but they were not. LisB explained to me how a history is declined on one's page if one does not post articles. So my perception that you were one of the phantom blogges was inaccurate. I apologize, again, here today.
Your comments here seemed to take the words right out of my mouth. I was just about to mention a post-9/11 residual skittishness in me. Not in relation to the terrorists, but in relation to the near destruction of our liberties by the Bush Regime. I am highly charged about preventing that kind of intimidation from ever resuming. I believe we managed to prevent any further development of that fascist dominanace, but the embers aer still glowing. So I keep pouring water on them. sometimes with a firehose. I seem to have gotten you quite wet!
Keep coming back! My comments last visit were not about preventing people from infrequent visits, but simply about creating a impediment to slow people down who might have several "phantom blogges" manipulating the Recommend Board. That board is important or we would not be talking about it so much.
August 31, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
While that may still hold true for some people, it is my opinion that blogs are undergoing some evolution due to Obama's presidency and a Democratic majority. A lot of the empty whinging that you read is really just a hangover from the hopelessness and disbelief felt during the Bush years.
I agree very, very much with this. The Bush years felt like a kind of crisis or emergency from a left-leaning perspective, and produced an intense and strident emotional atmosphere on a lot of the lefty blogs. That fever emotional pitch of red-hot involvement, along with an acquired outlook of dissident, oppositional negativity, was then left looking for a new object on which to direct itself following the Obama election.
The financial collapse was for me one last parting kick to the gut from the outgoing Bush era. Instead of getting to lead the vaunted new era of hope and the achievement of deferred progressive dreams, Obama has been forced first to spend a couple of years picking up the pieces of a wrecked economy and a fouled-up national security situation in a dreary and dispirited America, with massive unemployment and economic anxiousness paired with two ongoing wars and a dossier full of tattered and failed foreign relationships.
I keep asking myself, "When is the 'Obama era' going to start?" If this is it, it's not what I imagined it would be. The state of mind could be some sort of emotional hangover from Bush, and a post-trauma disorder. My intellect tells me that everything we have to work on now is very, very important. But my gut and lower brain tell me that everything is now more boring, empty and meaningless. As the military folks say, I'm trying to "get my head and my ass in gear" - to re-tool my motivational system to start working harder on the things my intellect tells me I should be working on.
So I guess part of the point of my post is to say, "Let's start focusing more on the complex and involved details of enacting these new policies that are really so important to us, instead of indulging habits of perpetual fear, despair and complaint left over from the Bush era, or the impulse to engage in sentimental outpourings."
August 31, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, when is the Obama era going to start?
It may seem to many that Obama is using brooms to sweep away the Bush snowstorm. I mean to say that while Obama has to clean up a mess, but the mess is so great that it is almost impossible to get your head around it.
We should try our best to look at the positive aspects of the Obama presidency:
1. Dignity has been restored to the White House.
2. We are no longer the #1 laughingstock of the world.
3. We have begun diplomatic dialog with other world leaders and have begun to restore the reputation of the US among nations.
4. There is legislation that has been passed that is progressive and there is legislation that has been reversed that was regressive Bush policy.
5. While many may not agree on the stimulus or the way the economic meltdown was/is being handled, we must remember that Bush was merely sitting around waiting for his term to end. His inaction only exaserbated the situation.
One problem among blogs and MSM is the obsession with one topic or story. It is unfortunate, because this failure at communicating dozens of worthy stories stunts our knowledge base. The obsession also causes us to be jaded about certain stories. I know that I, for one, couldn't take any more of the Terry Schiavo story and feel the same way about the "birther" stories. Healthcare, I am afraid, may cause this same eyes glazed over response, if we're not careful.
My fear is that the Obama presidency will look for like the clean-up of the Bush presidency and less like his own leadership footprint. My fear is that it will be a one-term presidency.
August 31, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a suggestion. Omit posts destined for TPM Muckraker from the TPM Cafe index and instead list them separately under a TPM Muckraker heading.
As it is now, many posts listed under TPM Muckraker rec list have very little to do with muckraking but instead, provide TPM members with more exposure for their posts.
My understanding is that TPM Muckraker is generally targeted at the nuts and bolts of governmental and corporate corruption and was never intended to be a forum for policy wonks.
While you, Dan, have no interest in TPM Muckraker, it is the forum that has brought Josh Marshall the most recognition as a legitimate news source, the US attorney scandal being the most well-known.
I'm the one who has been posting about Bernie Madoff a couple of times a week for the past few months. My interest in the Madoff case primarily has to do with the SEC's role in it, how the case is being investigated by the US attorney and how it relates generally to corruption on Wall Street.
The SEC inspector general is supposed to provide SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro with a detailed report today on why the SEC failed internally to uncover the biggest fraud in recent history. I'm not the only one who is looking forward to it.
In my Madoff posts, I try to provide specific information about a particular aspect of the case. Apparently, some TPM readers are interested in what I have to say and they certainly don't rate me reflexively since the number of recs vary from post to post.
(I have no idea who rates my posts since I get very few comments.)
I fully appreciate why you or many other TPM readers are not interested in this subject. I try not be intrusive by limiting the number of posts about Mr. Madoff to one or two a week.
At some point, I will stop following the Madoff case and return to digging up the odd fact or two about the crooks in Washington and elsewhere which is what I have been doing for the three years or so I have posted here.
While I have been a nuisance at times for Josh Marshall and his staff, this is the first time a TPM reader criticized me for posting about a particular topic.
I have the utmost respect for the those who can propose and analyze policy but I'm not one of them. Personally, I believe that if the system is corrupt, no policy, no matter how well thought out it is, can be effective.
I suspect one of the problems with this and other leftie forums is that the participants have not completely made the transition from underdog to top dog. Speaking for myself, it was a lot more fun digging the dirt on Tom DeLay than it is going after Nancy Pelosi.
August 31, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough Mrs. Panstreppon. I have to admit I have had trouble following the Madoff posts because there is no context for me. Each one relates some string of recently established facts about people whose names I can't keep straight and whose actions I don't remember and, because I understand little about the world of investment, can't interpret. I am always asking myself, "What is the issue or big picture supposed to be here?"
August 31, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is moot anyway since I just checked TPM Muckraker and it looks like Josh did away with the old comment format. It looks like everyone is in the same pot.
August 31, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! The TPM Muckrkaer rec list is still there but it is featured a lot less prominently.
August 31, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Panstreppon Chronicles are indeed tough to read--and that's all the more reason to do them. I hope you are sharing the fruits of those labors beyond the Cafe--for example with the investigators and others who might be looking at the case.
August 31, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, I guess that might not have been clear enough. What I am trying to say is that it's ultimately helpful to have somebody, somewhere, looking around for "connectable" facts, connecting them up, and having clear things to say about them when the time comes.
An example would be: the WMD situation in Iraq prior to the invasion. Lefties aren't typically into counting up or analyzing military data or reports, and in reading up later, I got the impression that this created a real vacuum for right-of-center consultants to fill by speculating on what Saddam Hussein "might" have. It was all fun and games until the Bush admin decided to act as if the speculation meant something. Then there was nobody with enough credibility to call "bullshit" who hadn't also collected many a paycheck or gained "hawk" points by engaging in the speculation. Scott Ritter tried, but a notable lack of support from public figures in the know cooked his goose.
I don't know if the left could have stopped the invasion given what was going on, but really having a handle on who was saying what, and why they were saying it, might have helped.
So keep going Mrs. P!
August 31, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Erica, for the kind words. My Madoff posts did generate some outside interest and, I suspect, some additional advertising revenue for TPM.
I know my Madoff posts have a limited audience so I always preface the title with "Bernie Madoff:" so readers don't waste time on a topic they have no interest in.
Before Bernie Madoff, I posted for three months straight about the National Republican Trust PAC, a extreme right wing political action committee responsible for some of the worst anti-Obama ads during the campaign last year.
In early 2008, I spent a lot of time exposing who was behind American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4) that aspired to be the premier Republican attack vehicle.
I once spent six months sticking my nose in Curt Weldon's business because I thought he posed a threat to national security.
Honestly, my eyes glaze over when I try to read lengthy policy discussions but I can happily wade through SEC and other records for hours. Give me a 990 and I'll pull out the pertinent facts!
August 31, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice pic.
August 31, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
While IRL I am not a backslapping type, preferring private verbal encouragement or compliments, I really don't have a problem with people actually encouraging one another around here. Even if the intellectual content of the online support is weak, non-existent, or treated as beside the point, which it mostly is. I also think those who see reinforcement and encouragement as irrelevant to creating and building support for positive change in our country are quite incorrect about that.
Building community seems to me a most worthwhile, desirable function of the site. I'm most gratified when I learn from stillidealistic (among others, of course) that since coming here she has felt welcome in what for her is a new political home.
I like reading DanK's comments on issues and have participated in threads with him going back many years now. But, heck, you know, even though I try to read and travel and educate myself as much as I can and have both past and ongoing involvement in the policy world, I still think of myself as pretty much of a dilettante not at all sure I would have much to offer to the kinds of discussions he seeks--however much I might enjoy reading them.
August 31, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there are a lot of amazing comments here. I never thought the post would generate this much response. A lot to think about and re-evaluation to be done. Thanks to all.
August 31, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not getting off that easy, pal.
We agreed. $1.50 per Rec. By my accounting, you owe me let's call it an even $400. What with the currency conversion and all.
Pony up.
August 31, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll ask the Freeper Blog Disruption Committee secretary to cut a check.
August 31, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Josh Marshall is trying to create anything with the cafe. I think he added the functionality for reader blogs due to reader demand, and he deliberately left it hard to navigate so it wouldn't become the dominant feature on his site.
And that's the way I like it.
I got a gutful of "community" over the course of many years' contribution to Democratic Underground. DU proves that the easier community is to create, the easier it is to destroy.
I like TPM because it isn't DU. I like informed viewpoints and stories reported with journalistic standards. I like how easy it is to ignore or engage in community as the mood strikes me.
Fluffy posts, bullying cliques, angry rants from lonely drunks in red state isolation...that's a community, baby. Love it or leave it and start your own messageboard. Josh Marshall doesn't owe anybody a soapbox.
August 31, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
he deliberately left it hard to navigate so it wouldn't become the dominant feature on his site
This is the way I used to think, but over time I have read enough meta threads where he has participated to be pretty sure it was a combination of just cluelessness, bad advice about software, and the high expense of getting good software advice in Manhattan. :-) The hiring of Al Shaw was a very good move, he appears to be quite talented, but I now suspect he has to spend too much time on maintenance of the other sites, which is where the majority of the audience is, to be in on planning and offering solutions about TPMCafe. Their emphasis is on "breaking" and churn, and has been responsible for their success in getting a larger audience, so the nuturing of a site like TPMCafe with longer-term discussions on ideas and policy is relatively low priority.
Fluffy posts, bullying cliques, angry rants from lonely drunks in red state isolation..
I think this is very accurate as to Marshall's intent, because it was him that titled the original Reader Blog section on the new TPMCafe as "Everything Under the Sun." But at the same time, he also set up the alternative "Discussion Tables" that he wanted vetted by trusted users. The topic sections were pretty narrow, too, virtually all politically oriented. The trusted users, on the other hand, would approve "everything under the sun" as far as topics were concerned, judging by quality.
August 31, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
ArtAppraiser,
In case you missed it in my lengthy comment above, thanks for your picking up the discussion back on the "One Term President" thread. Only Nixon could go to China and your comments were, I believe, the key to busting this issue into open debate.
Please check out my comment on Alan Shaw's recent thread and see if you agree to my "solution" to this issue. A strong voice there might help make the editorial board think.
I've worked with small companies and some of them remain small, not by conscious choice, but by subconscious choice. TPM may be similar to this mindset. Time will tell.
August 31, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I pretty much agree with you, but I suspect he doesn't. I just think it wise that I don't jump in on that right now, as I criticize their editorial policy enough as of late, once directly in reply to him, and it would really be pushing the envelope on that front to do it right now. From some of the past things he has said in the past, I'm pretty sure he is really into the idea of promoting the best reader blogs and input from others isn't going to change his mind.
BTW if you are interested in his current thinking as regards the whole recommend thing, he posted a bunch of comments on Aunt Sam's Aug. 23 blog on it, starting here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/aunt_sam/2009/08/josh-and-tpm-where-r-u-let-us.php#comment-3571692
August 31, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I saw the original part of that blog but not the extended version.
Quite revealing indeed!
Yes, TPM will continue to stay "small and pure". This will continue to lead to financial issues, of course, like not having the cash to properly manage the software here. (And I agree with your assessment about Josh being sold a bill of goods by someone. Maybe New York is only good for finding brokers and actors. ;-))
I've seen this before though with many small companies. Smart guys just can't let their baby grow because they love it too much.
Maybe Josh will become the Roger Corman of political websites: people intern at TPM and then move onto real (better paying) jobs with more visibility. The world needs that as well!
September 1, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the biggest issue is that many of the frequent posters are retirees who have yet to hear about this newfangled thing: Facebook. ;-)
August 31, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of recommends as currency: create a scarcity. I also like the idea of a separate room for wonkier reports.
As for the rest, I would cite the scholastics: de gustibus non est disputandum. People read what they wish as a matter of taste. They recommend it to others. I have the same reaction to the New York Times Bestseller list: how can people like this tripe?
I find the quality of posts here superior to others and so I post here in the TPM Cafe. I read primarily in scholarly articles for my job. I enjoy the atmosphere of the TPM Cafe for just this reason: I do not have to deal in footnotes!
August 31, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry I even posted on this crazy thread but I wanted to know the answer to a question. I also found out a couple of other things that I don't really care about but was surprised to learn. Over the years a couple of my blog postings were cross posted to other places. Surprise!!
This is just stuff which once I gave it some thought I was interested to know. That is all. As it happens it was simpler than slogging through the TPM site for the answers.
September 1, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Son of a bitch. No kidding. Was it just someone swiping it taking your name off? Was it used to make someone else money without your knowledge.
Maybe its personal, otherwise tell me more about this in a blog. This sounds interesting to me.
September 1, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it might be interesting but I honestly see it as a so what. My handle remained with the cross post, referencing TPM, so I don't think it's a big deal. The reason I saw it was because it was done in the typical way with the reference attached, so it was gathered up in my Google search. I never did a search like that and was very surprised actually. I guess there is a way to see even more but Google limited the number of result pages to 100. That took my postings back to mid 2005. I started posting on TPM in early 2001 so if there are pages available back to then there is probably a way to call them up. If this wasn't done in a customary way I would never have known.
September 1, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having known several articulate dissenters at this site going back to its early days and after having tried to digest the thread a bit, I really don't think "the solution" is difficult.
I am not sure how similar and consistent the visions of, say, artappraiser and DanK for what they want the site to do are. But there is an easy way to find out.
Josh could simply ask, say, artappraiser, to put together a proposal to carve out of the existing site a space to do the things it isn't doing now that are desired, and come back to him with it. No commitment to adopt it sight unseen, of course, that would be crazy, but with a commitment to take it seriously, that's all.
He could set aside a workspace at the site for artappraiser and others interested to use for developing the proposal and would commit to making Al Shaw, perhaps, available up to a point to answer technical questions about the feasibility of various architectural add-ons or adaptations necessary to implement various versions of the proposal as it is being developed, so as not to waste the time of the people committed enough to develop it.
This would be a generative, empowering use of the site. It would really be an enlightened and interesting (not sure if it would be truly pioneering or not) decision. It would represent a commitment to trying to benefit from dissent to improve the site. That doesn't happen absent a) interest from the editorial side in its possibilities and b) active support to facilitate the process.
I believe very strongly that Josh fully recognizes the value of dissent in a democracy. Some of the more adaptable and creative companies recognize its value in a business setting as well. They mean to--and do--take advantage of the creative powers of their workers.
I suspect the end product of this would, if adopted, be a part of one of the existing sites in which management more or less consciously seeks to provide space for ongoing evolution or reinvention of the site, "starting over", as it were, with the benefit of hindsight and now several years of experience.
The results could be quite interesting. They might possibly, depending, have ripple effects affecting other parts of the site. Or they might not. I would think they would be eye-catching to many not only in progressive political and advocacy circles but to others professionally or personally interested in the evolution of uses of technologies that are available to us, given the will to use them in some different ways. Josh is someone with the blogosphere visibility and following to make something potentially very interesting happen with this, with little or no risk.
September 1, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink