Does the Cafe Condone Shilling for Candidates?
I was just using my browser's bookmark to The Times, and the first thing that popped out at me was a link to where the candidates stand on Iraq. And right below it were links to where they stood on three other critical issues. Clearly The Times thinks those things matter to readers.
I had to agree: surely all of us care deeply, surely readers want to think about where the candidates stand, surely controversy alone stimulates discussion, and surely that kind of discussion is exactly what TPM Cafe should be doing. Isn't it why we're all here?
And then I came to TPM Cafe, and it seems to me that Josh feels the answer is no. Am I wrong? I have to say that I've been very disappointed in the number of posts simply shilling for candidates, and I suspect that at least some others are, too.
We have plenty of posts on candidates, by MJR, Reed, Larry, and recently an invited guest from the Obama campaign. And every one of them is either at the level of, gee, this person is so cool or this person is such a slime. Are others put off by that as much as I? Both posts seem to me to misrepresent the candidates and to distort the political process. They also echo the kind of campaigning that is going to get us in trouble by feeding GOP attacks, even if some of the posts complaining about opposing candidates seem to be denouncing them for doing just that.
I realize that our regular posters are entitled to strong opinions about the candidates. We all have them, and anyone we respect enough to read regularly is worth our patience when they go a little overboard. But again, one poster was an invited guest, and this is all we are seeing. I realize, too, that politics gets TPM Cafe more comments and more hits, and this is a business, too.
Still, I think it's the wrong way to go. I can see evidence that others do, too. I've seen comments talking about "shilling." I've seen the most fervent comments and blogs sticking to anger at Clinton's hawkishness and at one stance or another on health-insurance mandates. Maybe those comments are mistaken about where the candidates stand, but they're there. there are too many die-hard partisan commenters that I simply scroll right by. And Josh over at TPM felt he had to defend himself against mere horse-race coverage. Conversely,
Where is this site going? And is it too late to turn it around?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
The thought did cross my mind a few days ago that maybe Josh should just go ahead and relinquish the Cafe to M.J. since he is drawing the bulk of the traffic lately. I don't enjoy so many conversations on so few topics but apparently others do.
I am not hopeful that anything will change. It has too much of an MSM feel to it - touting the horse races and manufacturing outrages du jour to draw page views. It is boring but probably very rewarding financially.
January 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still hopeful that things will change after the election, when there aren't as many reasons to stir the Outrage du Jour.
It's not that hard to avoid the cranks and shills here, and things are still pleasant when you do. There are a few front-pagers who are consistently worth skipping, and some pro- and anti-Zionist diarists who are one-track wonders of inanity, and they draw most of the vitriol and stupidity. I mostly just read a few diaries now, and would pay attention to the discussion tables if people did that as much.
There will always be places where people go to slag each other online, and it's unfortunate that parts of TPM Cafe have become such places. But I don't think the culture of the place as a whole is broken.
January 28, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean to include one other thing and just forgot. If we have to put up with regular and invited pablum about the candidates, why couldn't Josh have come up with an Edwards supporter? It might actually have resonated with more readers here.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to getting good contributors to write without a fee is to offer them stimulating grownup respectful intellectual feedback, not shrill screeds or insults. First many chased someone like Michael Lind, then eventually all of America Abroad went away, etc. (Warning: links don't work in that Lind post of mine, because of the software changeover. I am not going to bother to edit them back in.)
The community needed to police comments so that all contributors, even the inane ones, were treated tactfully with wit and grace, because potential contributors will be checking it out to see if they want to publish here. Why would anyone in their right mind want to volunteer to contribute here after looking at the reception/discussion that many authors have gotten over the last few months?
The community here never took up the policing job seriously. From the start, rewarding inane comments about Rethugs and Bush, instead of downrating them, leads eventually to inane discussion about Democratic candidates. Passionate smackdowns of Bush eventually leads to a culture of passionate smackdowns of other commenters. Uprating of inane smackdowns that you agree with leads to more of the same, driving away intelligent commentary.
The way I see it, everyone of the long-time members here voted for what they've got now. If you didn't chose to police the inane culture of insult rabble because you agreed with their political views, you helped let it happen. Too many here embraced and rewarded Larry Johnson type commentary in comments, now that's all they are left with here, that's the only type of person that wants to contribute here unless they are desperate to sell a book or write on non-inflammatory topics like Warren Reports. Those who worked hard to vote for a vibrant intellectual site lost.
It's very simple, if the contributors are not paid and don't have another agenda: the audience has to use peer pressure to make it an attractive place for the non-shillers and non-shit-stirrers to post; people have to be brave enough to humiliate the inane commenters that they happen to agree with politically, to make them shut up and sit down and learn like good children.
I believe it's too late to change things until after the election without a lot of banning and rigid moderation and rules. I suspect the only way you are going to get that is contribute to a fund to hire someone and even then maybe not as it would drive down traffic needed to pay for other "missions."
The New York Times has articles like the one you cite because it has editors with considerations other than pandering to audience in mind. On this site, the audience had most of the editorial power and made it what it is.
January 28, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I wish I had unleashed an unholy fury of zeros and ones upon the one-liner artists and flamers back in the day, maybe a year ago or more, when more comments were thoughtful little mini-essays. But it's always easier to simply ignore a few of them than to risk a ratings war and related unpleasantness. I occasionally ding someone nowadays, but that's not going to change the standards. I too was ashamed of Lind's treatment, but lacked the will to jump in and mix it up with the various haters.
I think after the election, when things slow down a bit and guests are talking about books and ideas rather than candidates, we will again have civil discussions on the main page and a high enough density of regulars to regulate. Until then, not so much -- even during the general election there should be plenty of Stupid in the front-page comments.
If I had the time, I would try to write some discussion table essays. They demand effort from the writer, sometimes lead to interesting discussions, and usually show potential guest contributors that the site's readers are intelligent, polite, and thoughtful. They might just get drowned in the noise right now, but there's always hope...
January 28, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Foo:
You write:
"I think after the election, when things slow down a bit and guests are talking about books and ideas rather than candidates, we will again have civil discussions on the main page and a high enough density of regulars to regulate."
I would like to agree with you my friend, but people who are in it for the sport do not change their ways simply because the election ends. To begin with, there will be ample opportunity to become outraged by this or that cabinet nomination. Coupled with that is the simple truth that quality folks who are willing to post here on a regular basis without fee are undoubtedly hard to come by. So we are left with shit-stirring to generate the hit frequency necessary for sustaining a place like this economically.
Kind of like destroying the forum in order to save it. . .or something.
Bruce
January 28, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, but I would hope that people who are mostly advocates for a candidate will tune out after the election, or find other reasons and places to stir the shit. Cabinet nominations? As much as I might enjoy it, I just can't see multi-hundred-post topics filled with the likes of "Richardson at energy AGAIN?! Eat flaming death, hoser!" Maybe continued Congressional spinelessness can keep people a bit riled up, and there will always be the Israel/Palestine nuts, but not like a real, live, Bush-deposing election.
I don't have any real idea of the economics of a place like this. But there are plenty of folks among the regular commenters who, like me, will occasionally have something they feel is important to say, and will take the time to (try to) say it carefully and engagingly. And if that's not enough, people are always looking for venues to promote and discuss their books, and Table for One is perfect for this (Crooked Timber has some excellent book discussions too). Such discussions are about the least crass form of commercialism one can find and, with one recent exception, tend to generate more light than heat.
January 28, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Mr. Foo, I neglected to let you know how much I enjoyed reading your reply and that your optimistic outlook on what we should be looking forward to on here was refreshing.
January 30, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink