That’s what BlueOregon publisher Kari Chisholm did to me when I used my contributor status to ask “his” audience to weigh in on how they feel about a “progressive” blogger hiding behind a fake name who unapologetically publishes incorrect “facts” to discredit fellow liberals and progressives who don’t support his candidate.
Chisholm’s explanation that Oregon’s largest political blog is not an appropriate place to discuss political blogosphere ethics and behavior is an argument only a mother could love. It doesn’t make a lick of sense, but it is kind of cute to look at.
It makes about as much sense as when Chisholm claims that BlueOregon (the most prominent Democratic blog in Oregon) is not an appropriate forum to question whether a hooded member of the Democratic Party blogosphere – rumored to be a professional Salem staffer – should be going around telling liberal NAVs who don’t toe the chosen party line that their opinions don’t count and aren't desired.
It’s about as credible as Chisholm complaining that writing a relevant and factually accurate description of a person’s poor behavior is tantamount to an unprecedented personal attack.
Given that standard, BlueOregon’s accurate-but-unflattering reporting about Ron Saxton’s migrant-worker camp was a personal attack. And the accurate-but-unflattering reports about the GOP’s Maui-gate ethical lapses were personal attacks.
Chisholm’s reasoning here is so obviously bankrupt, I half expect that if doctors peeled back his skull and peeked at his brain, they’d find a foreclosure sign and a bunch of speculators looking for a good deal on property that’s hardly been used.
I realize that’s harsh, but to quote a lecture from Oregon’s most powerful political blogger:
"You're a much better blogger when you're posting your own independent views, calling 'em like you see 'em, giving props when people do the right thing (even if you're on the other side), and slamming 'em when they do the wrong thing (even when they're your friends.)" by: kari chisholm, Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:27:04 AM PST @ Loaded Orygun.
In my BluO post, I simply described a factual situation and asked readers what they thought. I raised ethical issues about a blogger hiding behind a fake name using the state’s most powerful Democratic blog to attack fellow Democrats with misinformation.
But first I explained why it mattered to me and why I thought it should matter to BlueOregon’s readers. Just like the BlueO contributor who wrote about confronting Karen Minnis at a local coffee shop, I poured my heart into that post.
But Chisholm’s reaction was to try and stifle any conversation about the issues it raised. With thoroughly insulting comments like “childish pillow fight” and “a tit-for-tat spat” and “silly slap fight” and "of no interest to anybody,” he hit the bricks hard and fast to let everyone know they weren’t supposed to care. The “no interest” comment was an especially creative one, considering the post garnered 95 comments in all and included the chair of WashCo Dems, at least one former state legislator and prominent former candidates for the legislature, the Precinct 4 Committeeman, Baker Co. Democrats Vice-chair, DPO SCC Delegate, several fellow BlueOregon contributors, all of whom commented on the substance of the post even with Chisholm blustering into the conversation to try and shut it down.
If you followed that thread, (and God help you if you did), you'd have noticed Chisholm, a paid staffer for the Merkley for Senate campaign and the go-to-guy for Democratic Party internet “communication,” started out with his “spat” spin designed to dismiss the post, which was unflattering to the pseudonymous blogger and Merkley supporter whose work appears regularly on BlueOregon’s front page.
Initially, there was no hint of an offense so great that my posting privileges needed to be yanked. That didn’t happen until I forcefully called Chisholm on his smug, dismissive comments. And then, magically and conveniently, my post became beyond the pail. And The World’s Maddest Dog had to be punished.
Had Chisholm just said that my comment in the thread of that post pissed him off and he decided to smack me down with the biggest club he has, I could have respected that. Had he told me that I'm an ingrate who bites the hand that feeds him, I could have respected that. Had Chisholm just said that my cartoons suck and he doesn't want to publish them anymore, I could have respected that.
But to say that the original post had somehow crossed some double line of standards and therefore violated a double-super-secret probation that I wasn’t aware of is the disingenuous story Chisholm created to put a cool-headed “administrative” cover on his anger-driven action.
And apparently not quite satisfied with the pound of flesh he’d already extracted, Chisholm figured he’d throw some more mud on my reputation as he shoved me out the door, telling readers that “I also want to remind you that this isn't just about this one post. It's about Pat's inability to use his judgment on what's appropriate here at BlueOregon and what's not."
In this sliming effort, Chisholm at least twice referred to my cartoon depicting Karen Minnis putting Oregon’s Children through a budget-cuts meat grinder, a cartoon published well over a year ago. (I think it was my seventh on Blue Oregon).
Looking back on that episode, I think I showed some pretty good judgment. I immediately stepped forward, removed the cartoon, publicly called it a failure and a distraction and took full and complete responsibility for it. I was forthright, honest and direct.
Chisholm, however, seemed to be of two minds that day. For public view, he raked me over the coals by commenting about how embarrassed I should be and telling the Oregonian he was considering removing my posting privileges. He needed to publicly distance himself and the party's website from the cartoon because it was right before the election. And Chisholm is paid to get Democrats elected.
But in an e-mail exchange with me, Chisholm told me "no worries" and confessed that he probably would have left the 'toon up because he’s “stubborn.” Chisholm’s judgment that day, as he explained it to me, would have been to act stubbornly and leave the “offensive,” “embarrassing” cartoon on the site. Mine was to swallow my pride, take the cartoon down, take responsibility for it and fall on my sword.
So for Chisholm to throw that day in my face now when it serves his purpose is quite a far freakin' way from fair or decent.
I wonder: Does a shameless ability to play fast and loose with reality when it’s convenient -- and to unfairly slime people when it’s expedient -- show good judgment?
And while we’re speaking of what’s fair, what’s appropriate, what shows good judgment, and what exactly are Blue Oregon’s vaunted “high standards,” it shouldn’t pass unnoticed that the man who stood and publicly judged my post as low grade and beyond the pail is the only contributor in BlueOregon history to earn Willamette Week’s Rogue of the Week for “excessive use of bullshit in his mud-slinging (on BlueOregon).”
But wait, there's even more irony, because for all Chisholm’s dismissive huffing and puffing -- he commented nine times on that “boring,” “no interest” unprovocative thread -- he never took time to address the surprisingly simple issues it raised:
Are you comfortable with a fellow Democrat who hides behind a fake name unapologetically publishing misinformation to discredit Democrats who disagree with him?
Are Democrats in general comfortable with an obviously well-heeled Democratic Party insider who doesn’t disclose his political connections – or even a real name – being allowed to use (or being used by) BlueOregon’s front page to publish a hit piece attacking non-establishment Democratic candidates?
I guess we’ll never know how the Chief Cook and Bottle Washer for “one of the highest trafficked local lefty blogs in the nation” feels about those ethical issues, because he believes they’re silly, boring, childish, slap-fight, tit-for-tat, pillow-fight kind of stuff that nobody's interested in. And co-founder Jeff Allworth agrees. Their vigilance is less than inspiring. And BlueOregon’s level of credibility will inevitably reflect that.
No comments:
Post a Comment