If you have "no place to go," come here!

Is Jim "***" Brady a whiny ass titty baby? Yes and no.

Gosh, I enjoyed writing this lead (and read on to the end, Jim). So I regret not being able to use it:

Jim "***" Brady plants his ass down on the pity pot, and he's not going to get off it 'til the blogosphere admits how mean it was to him.

But it looks like we have his attention. So I decided to read the whole story before pressing Submit. And what Brady says is interesting, even though he uncritically reproduces that rapidly proliferating Republican meme that the left isn't Civil (or Dignified. And is Ungracious). Given the long train of abuses and usurpations we're dealing with, I think civility is our middle name.

But give Brady credit: He recognizes that blogosphere can be part of WaPo's business plan:

They co-exist like this: The media writes articles or files reports, then blogs use them as starting points for discussions. When the blogs do this, they almost always provide links back to media Web sites, and there isn't a news media site on the Web that doesn't receive a good chunk of its traffic from blogs. Each entity has an important yet distinct role in this potentially virtuous circle. Blogs don't have big media's capacity for expensive, coordinated news-gathering from Baghdad to Biloxi; newspapers and TV networks, even when they dive into the Web, can't match the (sometimes irresponsible) feistiness and flexibility of the blogs.

So, Jim, we're driving hits WaPo's way? That is, contributing to the bottom line it's your fiduciary duty to maintain? Then work with us. And one easy way to do that is to (1) not reproduce Republican false talking points uncritically (as Howell--interestingly, still not on the national beat did) and (2) don't wait 4 days to issue a half-hearted correction in which (3) Howell "reports" a story that's never appeared in the pages of WaPo. If you'd taken those few elementary precautions, the whole episode would never have happened.

Alas, after momentarily lapsing into reasoned discussion, our Jim flips out again:

My favorite story from this adventure involves one blogger who proudly runs a no-holds-barred blog that relishes name calling. Nonetheless, we invited this blogger to participate in an online discussion about ethics on the Web. During the discussion, this blogger peppered me with many of the same questions that I'd answered in other forums. In one of my responses, I noted the investigative nature of her questions and suggested that when she was done playing Columbo, she might actually discuss the topic we'd invited her to discuss. More than 50 of this blogger's readers later sent e-mails to me demanding a public apology for comparing this blogger to a fictional television detective. One of the complaints about my manners closed by telling me to go do something unprintable with myself "and that Wa:Po rag you ride about town." Uh, thanks.

Jim. (1) You can name "this blogger"; I will: Jane at Firedoglake. Saying that (2) Jane relishes namecalling is like saying that Johnny Apple likes a good meal. It may be true, but it's beside the point. In fact, (3) Jane's blog is the goto source in the blogosphere for information, including original reporting, on the Plame Affair. And if you don't know that, (4), well, I won't call you ignorant, because your sensibilities are apparently tender, so I will merely enjoin you to study up before you speak. Oh, and (5), the who, what, where, why, when of the comments you deleted was the story. I'm amazed that you would criticize Jane for trying to cover it.

Finally, Jim, you defend your policy for commenting on his site:

But we won't allow our comments area to become a place where people can use whatever vulgar language they want, personally attack Post staffers or bully other contributors to our pages or discussions.

I can see how WaPo--which is a commercial operation, despite being protected by the First Amendment--would want to avoid curse words in its pages, whether in print or online; to me, that's a technical issue (see note 1, below).

However, I can't see any good reason for criticism of WaPo staffers to be deleted, and some posts were deleted for that reason alone. After Judy "Kneepads" Miller, after the WMD fiasco generally, after Whitewater, after Wen Ho Lee, can you really expect reporters to be above criticism? Especially when they go on TV posing as pundits? Puh-leeze. In this day and age, they're public figures. Get used to it.

And, oh yeah, Jim, you say that you were "mugged by the blogosphere." I have a better example of being mugged---A soldier who got killed or lost a limb from an IED because the traditional media were in the tank on WMDs. Now that, I would call being mugged.

UPDATE Film at 11:00: Jim Brady is a WATB after all.

NOTE 1 Jim, if you're so fucking concerned about obscenity, why not just install a filter that bleeps that shit out, and lets the rest of the content through? I could install a module like that on my site in about 5 minutes with open source software; surely a media giant like WaPo can have their paid staff handle such things easily?

NOTE 2 Jim, anybody with an AOL email address isn't a serious person. Pretty soon, anybody who isn't using strong encryption won't be a serious person, but that's another story.

NOTE 3 Jim, you lament the "partisan" times in which we live. Uh, Jim, can you direct me to the apology for all the fine work "Steno Sue" Schmidt did on WhiteWater? If the Post wants to lament partisanship, then they shouldn't have allowed themselves to be used as tools by Spiky's sources, the Federalist Society elves, Starr's "career prosecutors," and the rest of the VRWC. That entire episode was a disgrace, as you well know. And don't get me started on the WMDs.

No votes yet