Of Fog, Blogs and Obfuscation
The image above is one reason why I feel I must voice my concern about the possible blurring of the blogs in this election year. I have taken pains to keep Plaintalker nonpartisan, although I have been known to point out the foibles of politicians. Now it seems that Dan is actively campaigning for someone, while still posting links to my blog. Call me a worrywart, but it makes me nervous.Dan tells me he considers Plainfield Today a locale for his personal writings, including campaigning for someone, while CLIPS is the place where he aggregates the work of others. But because CLIPS starts off with Plainfield Today, is the distinction clear? Or is it a bit foggy?
Since I was last agonizing over this in the wee hours of the morning, Dan has posted his rationale for why there is no problem. If he crafts a campaign piece and then showcases it on his blog, it's just his business. He concludes by saying in Latin, "Let the games begin." Hey Dan, I think they began back in January. But better late than never to be up front with the readers.
--Bernice Paglia
posted by Bernice at 2:20 AM
13 Comments:
Dan is being insincere here. He is not only supporting Mapp but is also Mapp's campaign manager.
Bernice,
Take it from a true virtual friend ...... do not stay up so late. Enjoy the Spring Sunshine !! [And atleast make sure your taxes are done]
GB
The reality of the web is that anyone can post a link to any site. In common usage, the site that is linked TO is never considered responsible for any opinions or actions originating from the source of the link.
So you should sleep well, knowing that even George Bush could link to the Plaintalker, but you, Bernice, do not have to feel responsible for Dubya's point-of-view, his loyalties, or his actions. Nor Dan's.
Barbara
To GB,
I spent a couple of hours in the yard on Tuesday, where many shovel-ready projects await my efforts. The grackles are back and provided a sound track.
I believe most people know the difference between Dan's partisan blog, and your reporting blog. And we are glad for both.
Frankly, I read Dan's blog for fun, and yours for information. Enjoy your gardening and keep on keeping on.
I think you are right to fret.
Damon's CLIPS of news articles are filled with his personal comments - and when ever there is mention of Plainfield, they are 100% negative!
The comments are in green at the end of the article and they are cleverly written to put the Mayor and Plainfield in a negative light.
The question I have is why it took you four years to realize that?
It's true that Dan has based his blog on being "The Needler" and before that, "Turning things over with a pointy stick" more so than presenting unbiased information. The recent difference is that when he pens campaign pieces and then presents them as news from a candidate on his own blog, he has crossed a new line of credulity in my opinion.
Bernice,
for what it is worth, I agree with you. I don't always agree with you, but on this one, you raise some valid concerns.
TB
Just become the news isn't positive doesn't mean it's not true.
All previous observations have merit. I love you both; your contribution to Plainfield is historical in significance. But I have to admit, Bernice, you are my favorite.
Dan Damon's sly personal comments on his "clips" blog destroy any pretense he tries to convey that the blog in question "simply reports the news." He is a political hack and people are now seeing his true colors. The clips are often useful information but his bias shows more and more. And he's very good at making things up; perhaps he ought to try a new career as a fiction writer.
Bernice, I don't blame you for feeling annoyed. I'm sure you'd be just as bothered if Fox News linked to your blog too ;-)
Bernice,
While I appreciate the service your blog provides, I find it a little hard to have any sympathy for your on this one. You claim to be above the fray when it comes to bias, but you too are biased. Aren't we all? You may not be as blatant about it as others, but your biases shine through nonetheless. Those of us who have the opportunity to see you in action on a regular basis have caught on to some of your tactics, like feeding comments to certain people to make at public meetings, then reporting on the fact that these persons made those comments, then the responses that follow. Is that reporting the news or making the news? You also show your biases in the opinions you share in your writing. I know, this is a blog where you are not confined by the rules of official reporting. That is fair enough. However, I think that you need to decide between being a blogger and being a reporter. Otherwise, you are just as guilty of blurring the lines.
Can you provide any specifics on your allegation? I know I tend to schmooze on the sidelines, but I can't recall setting anyone up to ask a question. Nice to know you're paying such close attention to my behavior, though.
I think my days as a reporter ended on Aug. 1, 2003 and my days as a blogger began in June 2005. Most of my freelance CN stories were features, not news.
Post a Comment
<< Home