Wanted: Readers to Join the PJMedia Advisory Community
PJMedia is proud to announce the formation of a new Advisory Community that will give advice on a wide variety of topics relating to website content and capabilities.
This exciting new venture was born out of our belief that our readers’ opinions are very important to us, and that there is both strength and wisdom in numbers. Hence, a community devoted to giving readers what they need to prosper in these troubled times.
We are asking for your ideas on commenting on articles and comments; how to improve new web content that will appear on the site soon, including sections devoted to personal finance and a book club; and how to market PJMedia sections to new readers.
We are cognizant of the fact that you lead a busy life and don’t wish to be bothered with responding to every request we make for your input, so we’ve included a survey that will allow you to check off those areas you think you can contribute best to. After you’ve completed the survey, please be sure to include your email address so we can contact you.
These are exciting times for our company and our community of readers, authors, and employees. We have made a significant impact on the national conversation in many areas and look forward — with your help — to continue doing so in the future.
>>We are asking for your ideas on commenting on and rating articles and comments
Do I have to fill out a survey to tell you I want to be able to edit or delete my comments and some italic and bold and blockquote thingies would be nice?
Here, here, arhooley! These are all written in the heat of passion (at least for me), and that old caveat about letting pieces “cool” first is ill-suited to the immediacy of a news-oriented setting.
I think you missed the point of what they are doing.
Solicitations for input like this can be rare, so maybe we can be forgiven for using the opportunity to make a pitch since we know for sure we’ve at least momentarily got their attention.
P. S. If you ‘re thinking about changing your software/platforms/whatever the terminology du jour is to facilitate these changes, I hope you don’t pick one that requires the enabling of third party cookies to comment. These things can wreak havoc in one’s pc, most of which stopped when the feature is disabled, and I have it on good authority (egghead relative at a super computer center)that confirms my experiences that drove my change of settings, namely that frequenters of conservative websites are targets of virus attacks far more frequently than those who are not, something I anticipate will only grow worse in the current political climate.
I understand this is tied in to website revenues, but if there’s one out there that’s not, or there’s a workaround available, hope you’ll consider it.
One thing that has put me off some sites is that they are writing their pages in such a manner that it interferes with NoScript, which I use to protect my machine, and makes reading and commenting a pain.
Some are using Discus for comments and on some sites a nuisance even to read comments.
NRO have lost me for the most part because they now have an ad that forces me to allow cross site scripting just to read their home page.
i agree with this– although there are times when i wish there was an edit function the current format of pj media is one of the best– easy to find/reply to comments versus other sites where comments get lost under some arbitrary “ranking” system or whatever makes them difficult to navigate
I agree. I’ved tried all sorts of virus blockers but sooner or later I get a virus. I’m on many conservative sites and have thought this for a long time.
You need a blogger code of ethics. When a blogger fails to follow this code, peer pressure should encourage them to reform. Here are some suggestions:
1) bloggers should read the articles they link to carefully. If they have to click through two or more web sites to get to the original documentation, news report or what ever they should do that and the can give as many hat tips as necessary but they should link to the source that is closest to the first hand report
2) bloggers should refrain from spinning stories or making a stretch to find a problem to whine about. There is enough real evidence of problems without having to risk their credibility by jumping at shadows and grasping at straws
3) bloggers should write to convince people who disagree with them. That means they should avoid sarcasm and ridicule and name calling and insulting people who disagree with them. Everything you hate about anonymous commenters should go double for the blogger. Be respectful of people who disagree with you and argue with facts not rhetorical tricks and you might convince people to change their minds. Insult them and they will just harden their position. Too many bloggers try to attract attention to themselvs by being “witty” and such polarizing and divisive writers are part of the problem not part of the solution.
4) political bloggers should focus on policy not politics. Don’t lambaste liberals or democrats stick to what is wrong with their policies.
I nominate you as Chief of Police for Internet Comments.
HERE! HERE! Peif of Chalice.
got bored after the first point and stopped reading
Go back to MoveOff.
Don’t bring your progressive sensitivities here to get us to conform to your sensibilities. You folks always end up using our “nice guys finish last” morals against us in the end.
One rule: Don’t get carried away.
Having worked for all 3 Republican Governors of Texas (Clements, Bush, Perry), I do know TX government and I would like to have the opportunity to comment when there is a question about how it works.
We are so huge and diverse, decisions must be made at the local level, so we are a good model for the nation.
Just curious;
What’s your assessment of your counterpart in Alaska?
Polly;
If you please; not being facetious:
What’s your assessment of the 10th Amendment?
This is a Conservative website. Do not publish Ruben Navarette.
havent seen any articles in a bit– *knocking on my head*
I second this notion. Of all the different bloggers I read, I inevitably end up grinding my teeth whenever I see his articles. I’ll read them in the hopes that -MAYBE-, just -MAYBE- he will actually read the comments sections and improve his writing and (hopefully) his position. But after months of the same BS he still publishes… more of the same BS that isn’t in agreement with the entire PJ community. The only commenters in agreement with Ruben are La Raza and all of his alternate personalities which contribute such meaningful things to the conversation such as “You white gringos are done for! La Raza will win the population war!” or “We Islamists have won the population war!”.
In short, crazy lunatic fringe commenters are the only ones who even -slightly- agree with Ruben.
I concur with that.
I don’t agree with Ruben Navarrette, he just focuses on petty issues like illegal immigration, instead of seeing the big picture. America has always received immigrants, but at a time when immigrants seem to be no more hard working, you have to ask why? It’s obviously that the leftist institution of Welfare State is bringing here the worst of them, the ones who only want help from government. That’s how a well-intentioned but morally flawed idea (welfare) brings more destruction than benefits. AFAIK, Navarrette NEVER discuses that!
That said, I’m not sure PJM should stop him. He is clearly being not on our side, and I think we still need to be able to debate the contrary ideas. At least, an open antagonist is better than a fake friend (or a concealed antagonist). Well, maybe PJM should open a column named “fighting the evil” or “devil’s advocate” in which people known to hold opposite views to us can write a column (duly vetted by the editors) and the commenters get skilled debating it ?
Also, maybe Navarrette is a capitalist/conservative in everything else (?), but we don’t know because he never shows it, because his error is clearly to never focus in any other thing than the immigration issue.
oh come on. Just don’t read the guy. That’s what I do.
The owners have to provide some varying viewpoints. Sometimes the squishes like Ron Radosh and Rick Moran generate the best comments.
A difficult assignment; you are a major source of the daily information we read. Glenn does a great job of adding in a pregnant comment, with his relay of a missive.
One great thing would be to help point out corrections we could push for within the country. It is easy to say ridding ourselves of “Dodd-Frank” would easy banks back into lending. Repeal of “Obama Care” would ease companies into hiring. Free the oil, gas and coal industries and see low cost energy, required for economic growth, flow into every corner of the country. No one ever reaches back to “Davis-Bacon” and the burden it places on minority business entry and personnel hiring. The Act while well intentioned has become a impediment to economic growth.
The ills of the ” Lettter Agencies” have been known for some time. F. A. Hayek addressed them in detail. Keynesian has been a major mistake, however ” Mistakes don’t count, only how we recover.”.
I am willing to read and join in a “Recovery Community.” Identify mistakes and find the path to recovery. No finger pointing, it solves nothing, no recriminations, only finding a path to recovery.
Hard push and pull politics is not bad for America, ask Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, Washington dined his uniform to stop the Wiskey Rebelion. Fight hard but, fight for a pathway to recovery. Freedom requires active involvement from all it’s participants.
The future of any good debate is one that has as its base “Roberts Rule of Order.” Works in formal discussion settings, should be implemented in both written “blog” and “comments” sections of any reputable medium. This allows dissent in a recorded, orderly manner. A record of good commentary should be kept. Poorly organized commentary is discarded…freeing up valuable software space.
Second, Adopt a “Three strikes…you’re out” rule. If a comment is personal in nature and not within keeping of addressing the message (as opposed to attacking the messenger) tha moniquer (blogger or commenter) receives warnings. Third occurance gets them eliminated from the forum…forever.
In time, respectable participants become recognized, disrespectable participants eliminated. A valuable data base of commentators is now available for this forum to add to its research staff.
PJ aspires to be the best and is opening up its doors to those desiring to share the load, carry the water and participate.
Lets help PJ be the best.
whatever you do – MORE ZOMBIE!!!!
(Ok, I realize that Zombie can’t actually increase his/her (?) output by that much, but one can always hope, no?)
Give the Rabbi Tony a regular place to present his ideas.
PJM’s sudden dedication to readers is gratifying. Wonder why they haven’t answered my email requesting help negotiating their site?
How much repetition do you require? The INTERNET just happens to exist!!!!!!!!!
Oh! Need further instructions?
“The Community Journal”, the Wall Street Journal Blog, requires that commenters use their full names. I believe that would improve the quality of comments. As a long time reader of Pajamas Media, I see a sharp decline, of late, in quality and civility of comments. PJM is still head and shoulders above many other sites, but am I the only one who sees the decline in comment quality?
And that makes it very easy for your boss–who may have different political leanings than you–to Google your name and dig up what you’ve said… which could be used in a number of ways.
With the ongoing radicalization of the left and their demonization of anyone that doesn’t toe the party line, I’ll keep my anonymity, thanks.
You’re free to think less of me, by the way… I’ve never met you and probably never will, so it’s of little concern to me.
I don’t think less of you. You should stay anonymous, if your employment might be at risk. I’ve read some of your comments and always found them excellent. I retract my suggestion if it would cost us even one good commenter; but I am still bothered by the state of decline on the site.
Wow, gentlemen. Guess I’ve led a sheltered life, but I’ve never seen more routinely nasty comment strings in my life than those that regularly flow from the regulars over at WSJ! PJM’s community seems leagues better by comparison. I visit the latter less and less, from a desire to reduce toxic exposures and an arguably quaint aversion to having my name associated with a group that has such low standards.
(Serendipitously, Mark Steyn’s piece over at IBD, “A Disturbing Lack of Tenderness,” was a reassuring reality check today after a recent “over-exposure” at Murdock’s site.)
There are other ways of getting rid of the trolls… such as a single log-in and “reputation” system.
However, from the business end, trolls are somewhat of a mixed blessing, because they generate discussion and debate, and that generates page views, which increases advertising revenues. So unless a troll gets REALLY bad, I don’t expect The Powers That Be to cut them off. That’s where an online reputation system (like the one used at the “Big” websites, BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, etc) comes in very handy… it helps identify long-term trolls.
Mr. O’Brien;
You are a piece of S##T. Is that the civility you are expecting?
If not, please reply.
When in a war, the ammo you use is at least commensurate with the enemy. And you are qualified.
The only S**T would be that leaking in your pants if we were face to face. You are a coward as well as a low-life. Keep hiding behind your anonymity.
Cyber pulled your chain and revealed who you are. Troll.
Hardly a troll, Blotto, but a lifelong conservative, politically, morally, and culturally. As a youngster I agonized over Dewey’s losses to FDR in’44 and Truman in ’48. The most inspiring political moment in my life was Barry Goldwater’s convention speech, a real American hero in war and peace. I’m a Reagan conservative, an old line Roman Catholic, a former regular army combat infantryman, a pro-lifer, and marriage between man and woman believer. I’m a grandfather who sees this country being taken down the road of economic collapse by a left wing president who has no idea what makes this country great.
Cybergeezer is a sleaze and his language shows it. I checked out his blog and he is Mr. Tough Guy there too. I would love to meet him in person. Posting your real name removes that extra layer of protection that cowardly internet tough guys rely on.
I enjoyed reading the exchange between Donald and the other guy, it was vulgar, insulting and fun.
But Anonymity is a necessity, especially for political speech.
If Tom Paine were credited with “Common Sense” or if Madison was a known contributor to “The Federalist,” those guys would likely have ended up in the back of a black SUV, en route to a ditch and a bullet in the head.
As fake Republican John Paul Stevens once wrote, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”
This.
How many of you are there?
If I can request one feature…
Enforce a single log-in for commenting (while allowing pseudonyms)… this would make it a lot harder for people to sock-puppet or banned people to return unknown.
That in itself would do a lot to remove the trolls and increase the quality of comments.
And yes, I’ve used the same username since I started commenting here.
NO.
And why would anyone disagree with that, unless they wanted to be able to sock-puppet and/or return if/when banned?
Ya just gave away your own game. Thankyouverymuch.
weren’t you the same one who wanted to keep your anonimity? You think this is only matter of pseudonims? There are IPs, log files, etc; what if there is people from enslaved countries who come here to read some fresh pro-liberty ideas?
I’d say: keep it as it is now, in this respect. The trolls are not a big issue, they can be fun, sometimes they can even say something interesting. We should be able to debate them too; as long as it’s not just a disgusting flooding, they should be able to keep coming.
You can read without logging in to comment.
Your straw man is flimsy. You just want to troll or sock-puppet, not engage in actual debate or discussion.
And your howls of protest just make that clearer.
you’re behaving more like a troll by accusing me of wanting to sock-puppet and troll.
As for your answer of “You can read without logging in to comment”, the same can be said about your previous concern: you can read from your work and no commenting at all, so nobody is going to google your name. But that’s not the point when people wants feedback, as I think the CEO of PJM is interested in feedback.
I am not interested in trolling, but I think we should learn to deal with trolls within reasonable limits, e.g., zero tolerance for flooding or spam (which are just dumb things intended to be annoying), but, for instance, flame wars are something we should learn to deal with it.
And I prefer my total anonymity, I don’t want to register and log-in, I want to be able to read by proxy servers, even anonymous proxy servers, I want to leave the least traces possible. I don’t want my email in a database (which can be stolen by leftist hackers). Not wanting to reveal which country I am really in, doesn’t make me automatically a troll. But, even if the moderators start banning trolls, that’s ok. Trolling, spamming, flooding, etc, is of concern for the owners of the website. The way I access to this site is (or should be) none of your bussiness.
Spin, spin, spin. Every time I knock down one of your straw men, you come up with another.
So now it’s not someone in a third world country that wants to keep the government from knowing where they visit online, now it’s you, right here in the good old US of A, scared of left-wingers getting ahold of your surfing records. That straw man doesn’t even rate a “nice try.”
If you really wanna be anonymous, you can’t get online at all… your ISP probably has records on your surfing activity, including every instant message, email, and porn site you visit, and can be compelled to disgorge that data pursuant to a search warrant. So given the leftist slant of the people in power in the federal government now, it doesn’t matter how many proxy servers you stack up, the lefties can still get your surfing data.
Face it, there is no anonymity online. The only thing you can do if you want to be truly anonymous is move to a cabin in the mountains with no electricity and bicycle to town for supplies and to collect your checks from your relatives… kinda like Ted Kzczynski. Enjoy your mountain retreat!
so apply your medicine to yourself: don’t want to be googled by your boss, then read and don’t comment. Your work will be safe.
There is a story in Instapundit today, about a policeman who shot an unleashed dog… and Instapundit makes an excellent point: why, in all these stories, the identities of the citizenry are revealed, but never the policeman, or bureaucrat. Well, how about a “Wall of Shame”? This would depend upon local PJ folk always being ready with their cameras, etc., and then sending such info into this site.
I understand that this whole idea is fraught with problems, but surely some smart people can figure a way to do this legally.
Sounds like digital mob rule to me. The Policeman is not on behalf of himself, is representing Law enforcement service. While everybody should be accountable, I think this is not the way to do it.
I love PJM in most of it’s current format, I do wish there was an edit function in place, but I can live without it if I have to. I rarely post without reading the blog twice and never when I’m angry. The result of which is that my post is usually #47 instead of in the top 10. My impression is that most folks don’t read comments beyond #10.
‘Sway it is.
hmmm I’m just trying to see if it’s true tha we can’t use bold or italics here… well all seems ok here
Once completed the survey responds with ” You must include a value of 1 to 31 “, and will not transmit survey.
Definitely allow for editing of comments. Sometimes the spell-checker doesn’t catch a typo, or incorrect HTML syntax is used.
Include a search function so we can easily find our posts. Check out the forum at gasbuddy.com to get an idea.
Stop breaking articles into 2-3 pages. Scrolling isn’t that difficult.
As “X” notes, bold and italic already work here. Don’t know about strikethrough; haven’t tried it. If it isn’t available, please include it.
Anonymous #2 is correct — no 3rd-party cookies! I already excise them from Firefox as much as possible using browser options & extensions.
“ConservativeWanderer” is also correct — anonymity is essential, especially in this time of universal deceit (which makes telling the truth a revolutionary act). In fact, everyone here should use proxies like Anonymizer or Tor to keep all their surfing private. There’s also a Firefox extension called “TrackMeNot” that thwarts query mining by search engines; everyone should install it.
Try becoming more like the American Spectator who treats its commentators like adults. I have noticed that this site as well as a couple of other “conservative” sites have their own political correctness going on as well and have a candy ass rule book. Get the feeling sometimes that comments are scrutinized by a stereotypical 19th century Victorian spinster whose spectacles go foggy when anyone deviates from your rigid “codes”. You are more interested in self defense from the left than you are at promoting a free wheeling forum for debate. We are all grownups here and your “survey” is a bit suspicious. No doubt you will accept and cultivate another group of PJ contributors who will “behave themselves”. Your columnists are, for the most part, the best in the business, some are brilliant in fact. They are the most enjoyable aspect of this site.
I don’t see anyone twisting your arm to visit here.
Con.Wan: Your comment is gratuitously stupid.
You’re welcome to your opinion, and welcome to express it here.
Please note, I am still here after vehemently disagreeing with one of the PJM Editors over the recent redesign of the Tatler, which has now been partially rolled back.
Perhaps the problem isn’t with the moderators, but with the commenters.
PJM is following the Huffington Post exit strategy–they want to make money from posters who are not paid
Big fail–PJM is a shadow of its former self–
If that’s true, then you’re enabling it by commenting here, you know?
I have noted that recently PJM has been receiving “hat tipS” from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. This should help generate more visits, reads and comments.
You are doing lots of things right already!
Power to you for more successes!
“…our readers’ opinions are very important to us…”
As someone whose comments–mainly in response to Roger Simon’s posts–have been rejected more than once, I question this statement.
Roger and his e-cronies on PJM are in the main establishment neocons. Time was, they sought to dominate opinion on the Left. Now they seek to dominate opinion on the Right.
Bottom line, dominating the conversation is their primary mission. They are greedy, grasping media hounds chasing internet fame and fortune.The political winds they are achanging and have been for several years. About as long as the technology has been achanging from print to electronics. Roger Simon’s talent was recognizing the political, no less than the technological shift early and jumping in with both feet.
This is not to belittle Simon’s accomplishment. PJM is an attractive site. It’s well laid out and the graphics–especially considering space limitations–are outstanding. Moreover, the contributors are all worth reading if you have the time. Finally, PJM is the most hassle free site for anyone commenting. No Captcha or other nonsense.
Theodore Dreiser, an experienced journalist before he became a novelist, famously suggested that newspaper reading is a time waste for the lazy and unemployed. Where PJM differs from the NYT is that it solicits reader comment which makes up the bulk of its content. PJM throws out the red meat and invites readers to join in the snarling and snapping feast.
But Punk Sulzberger and Roger Simon have more in common with each other than they do with me and, I would wager, most of PJM’s readers and commenters. They are establishment media hacks; civil and polite fellows full of civic and communal impulses. Punk Sulzberger is just a suit. Roger Simon is just a set of PJs. The difference between them is mainly political fashion.
The press is traditionally a force for conservatism and the reinforcement of dominant fashion and mores. Ballast for maintenance the status quo. Journalism is hackneyed almost by definition. But our best writers and artists and even journalists were not perfect gentlemen. Dreiser, a crude anti-Semite who didn’t begin to know how to relate to females was a social disaster. One hoped for something better than traditional journalism and traditional journalists on the internet.
Help PJM? Pay me, Roger.
I don’t see anyone twisting your arm to come here either.
Look, if ya don’t like the site, go elsewhere. There’s plenty of sites on “teh interwebs” for people of every stripe to find something to their liking.
But when ya come here just to complain, well… that kinda gets my dander up. All you’ve really done is put a few cents in Roger’s pockets (from the page views while you were here) and perpetuated that which you profess to oppose.
So, hit Roger in the wallet… don’t give him any page views.
One more point. I was moderated regularly for about the first 6 months I was here. It takes time for the moderators to get to know you and to understand that you’re not a troll just playing nice till you get established (which I’ve seen here and elsewhere).
Bottom line, we all had to put up with moderation. If you think you should be special and taken off moderation immediately, well… you’re almost certainly out of luck.
You’ve got a good website. I don’t object to writers whom I don’t agree with appearing here because you provide a comment section wherein criticism and rebuttal can be offered. There is one improvement that would be good. That would be some way to edit comments. Over at Breitbart, the ability to correct typos and grammar works very well for the clumsy commenter.
I’ll second that… even if they do it like Volokh (if memory serves) where there’s a time limit on editing (I think it’s 5 minutes). As one can see, especially in this thread, often I come up with new points after already hitting “Submit Comment”.
Just the way my brain works sometimes.
Initially, I have to state that I have no respect for any website that would name Rachel Peepers a part of the PJM advisory committee.
True, battling Obama since he ran against what’s her name’s husband in Chicago (the girl form the TV show, Boston Public) has given me a certain perspective on the brown eyed handsome man. The anointed one. Zero Bama. I won’t say for sure that I was the first to tell the world that virtually everything Obama does is intentional before Rush Limbaugh came to that conclusion; that Obama is out to literally destroy this nation; that he’s the tallest tree in a forest of corruption.
True, I’ve been attacking Zero for the last six years because I consider him a mole in American politics that even the Orkin Man can’t get rid of.
True, I do make predictions that almost never are wrong. To wit: Two years ago I wrote that Rick Perry will be the Republican presidential nominee. Three years ago, I said that Obama won’t run for a second term. Plus, when Holder let the Panthers walk on the voter intimidation case, I said leftists charges of racial bias would never stick again from that day forward.
True, I coined the phrase, “oral office”. “Libtards. And wrote the Pennzoil line, “Not just oil, Pennzoil.”
True, I told Roy Hoffmann to go the broadcast commercial route to rout John Kerry in his Presidential bid.
True, I think vote stealing is the only chance the Dems have to win in 2012.
And true, I predict the Dems will win Calif. and New York and set a special low water mark that will make Walter Mondale smile.
But Rachel doesn’t do well in groups of more than two. She doesn’t play well with others. And isn’t happy unless she’s the boss.
Oh, two other things. I would like to suggest the names of two brilliant thinkers would would be a great addition to PJM or the advisory group. You know one as cfbleachers. The other is Fran Porretto. On a good day, both can write and think circles around me. They know the “s” in “corpsman” is silent. And they work well with others.
Rachel, you are being far too modest.
I have mixed feeling about PJM. When it’s good, it’s very good, when it’s bad it’s woeful. In a recent comment I made in reply to the latest Ledeen dross, I pointed out that PajamasMedia is so enamoured of neocon delusions (ie liberal delusions), it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. Ledeen and Radosh are among the worst offenders here. Then again since many conservatives (especially in the States) identify with naive reality-free liberal beliefs (ie neoconservatism), I realize that the likes of Ledeen and Radosh are playing to a large readership. So there is a demand for their dross.
I have noticed very little film criticism of late (but I may have missed it), PJM has been so second-rate here, third-rate really, that it near beggars belief. Either get people who know a few things about films to comment on them or don’t bother with film reviews (of late it appears you haven’t been bothering, that would be a good thing then).
A lot of other things I think are seriously wrong with PJM, that is it shares in the same superficial know-it-all simplistic commentary as liberal sites are guilty of as a matter of course. Not nearly enough criticism and self-reflection of conservative compromises, blunders, delusions etc of which there is no shortage and never will be. Hint – they are often enough the same deulusions, compromises and worse that liberals specialize in.
Of course there is a lot I admire about PJM and a lot I think it gets right. It’s also not possible to please everybody and PJM shouldn’t try to do that, then you will please nobody.
I don’t consider PJM to be a ‘Conservative’ site. It’s more Libertarian/Independent views than those of Conservatives, IMO. It’s why some Illiberal posters have some interesting comments.
Most of the authors are former Illiberals and very few have ‘changed sides’ altogether. Mr. Radosh, Roger L. Simon to name a few voice their Illiberal views from time-to-time. Which is fine but goes to show that PJM has Center-Right authors.
PJM contributor Dan Miller is a the middle-of-the-road American author who now lives in Panama providing his own take is too far removed from most PJM writer’s views.
PJM contributor Brendan Loy is involved in Law though PJM employs this guy on occasion for his ‘Hurricane’ take. Mr. Loy has less of a science understanding/background than Al Gore. Using government funded NOAA and AGW supporting ‘Climate Central’ (take a look at the donors to this ‘non-profit’ http://www.climatecentral.org/about/funding// for ‘validity’ in his recent Hurricane Irene piece, saying the NHC downgraded Irene’s strength/Category when doing anything but.. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-East-Coast-Prepares-for-bloomberg-3761725705.html?x=0sec=topStoriespos=3asset=ccode=
Many posters have already spoken of the ninny that is Ruben Navarrette. I support and believe in having differing views, takes on an array of subjects. Though Mr. Navarrette’s ideology engulfs every fiber of his being and makes his retread-like articles to be ‘Groundhog Day’ like.
Rating system = ego attractor = groupthink . Is this like actuall trolling?
Good luck with that. U prolly will have. It should be called facebook-think. Or mybe facespace-think. To split the credit. I think these markers are possible down-turning points. The first identified myself was MTV. It always served the gratuitous. But when theysyarted saying “vote,just to vote”, I knew there was trouble on the horizon. What beast are u trying to feed?
How about a de-merit system
- sent from my iphone -
Most of the online reputation systems for comments (see the Breitbart “Big” sites for examples) allow a person to rate a comment either up or down, allowing a person to build either a positive or a negative reputation.
Generally–though there are exceptions–trolls end up with significantly negative reputations, and good solid commenters end up with highly positive ones.
Some of my fellow commenters should chill on bashing certain commentators who they don’t deem ideologically pure enough. Disagree with them, even heatedly to a point, in comments, but the veiled notion of purging them goes too far.
Am I the only one who remembers Roger’s path to get to this point, and that he is not a hard right conservative now, but rather a ‘come to his senses’ old school sane Democrat, more or less?
The disagreements on certain points don’t bother me a bit. Why become as politically puritanical as the lefties we all despise?
Newscaper, you have that right. Who are these self appointed hall monitors telling people to get lost? Both Betina and David Levavi were intelligent and polite. They didn’t call anyone a piece of s##t as CYBERGEEZER, one of the two hall monitors did to me, because I suggested using your real name might improve civility and quality. Only a suggestion…but made in good spirit. Would he have said this if we were in the same room? He made the argument for me that anonymity abrogates responsibility. Incapable of intellectual argument, they patrol the halls hoping they will be noticed by the powers that be. Pathetic creatures.
That was *no*; Are we havin’ fun yet?
Thanks for support, Don. Intelligent, I hope I always am. Polite depends upon whether I’ve taken my meds or not.
One ease of use request — a streamlined — or at least better re-flowing version of the site’s pages for small screen or low horsepower devices.
I think there may be a simplified version of just the homepage, but I’ve never figured out how to get to it again — seems to me a link should be prominient near the top left of the conventional page.
PJM is a very good site as it is.
A request. This may be impossible, but here goes.
Could a committed leftist blogger be found, who would express the point of view of the left on various matters? Not necessarily a high profile individual, but someone who would write from that point of view while having a broad understanding of what libertarian/conservative/religious thought is about, and not in the usual condescending manner. A person who has had practical experience in the libertarian/conservative/religious world.
Someone with the personality and toughness of say, a left wing Dick Cheney.
Sounds crazy, certainly. However -
This person would get hammered, and might lose their mind eventually, but it’s worth a try. These people do exist. As a side note, I have worked as a professional musician much of my life, I have worked in LeftLand extensively, and I basically grew up in LeftLand. There are leftists that can speak and think rationally, and can disagree without going “DefCon Bush did it”, or what ever convenient leftist talking point is at hand, when a non-left thought enters the conversation.
Most of the leftist commenters on PJM represent their cause in a not so positive manner, they usually are thoroughly knee jerk, and they usually do a poor job of representing rational leftist thought. (Ok lefties, others are not immune from this either.) This is why a such blogger might be a worthwhile alternative.
Yes, there are sites where you can pick up some of this, then again, Runnin’ with the Devil on PJM might be interesting.
And, the moderators do a great job. No need to change that.
Oh yeah, Lefty must have a sense of humor.
Had one.
Ron Rosenbaum.
He didn’t last long after starting a series of tea-party-bashing pieces.
Ron Rosenbaum. Thanks for the heads up.
Yes, that’s right CW, I remember RR now. Way too much of a scold/punk. No sense of humor, unless a “dumb” conservative was cited. In spite of his outward glib worldliness, to me, he is very narrow minded.
Bill Clinton Type…???? Maybe someone with southern exposure. And the Yale/Harvard Axis of Evil should be approached with caution.
Damn near impossible!
All such lefties have been purged from the ranks by the Obamabots, alas. Now they’re either toeing the party line in order to protect their cocktail party invitations, or have turned some shade of Republican Red (some lighter than others, surely).
“Wanderer”;
One of Rosenbaum’s last article here tried to get everyone to use their real names.
He even went to the extremes of calling us ‘chicken’ for not complying. (Not his exact terminology). Claimed he could not understand our apprehension.
I suggested that if we all were so trusting of each other, and the internet we were using, that we all post our children’s and grandchildren’s names, photo’s, addresses and schools they attended. I told him he had our email addresses if he thought it was that important.
Never got any messages from him, so, apparently it wasn’t.
Here’s a sample of Rosenbaum’s writing at PJM:
” Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Why I have never been tempted to activate the “comments” feature on my blog
Perhaps I’m being unfair or excessively finicky to say this, but my impression from reading blogs for almost a decade is that, as a general rule, the “comments” threads on most blogs tend to be dominated by junk that is useless at best–and often worse than that, since it’s common for them to fill up with mindless ranting and vituperation. There are occasional exceptions, and some blogs with well-established constituencies even manage to generate intelligent discussions in the “comments” threads. But, even for those blogs, keeping things from getting out of hand usually requires persistent and draconian policing of the “comments” to weed out postings and posters that go over the line (trolls, obsessives, bigots, conspiracy theorists, outright loonies, and so on). That strikes me as more time-consuming than it’s worth, though I can appreciate why other bloggers might feel differently.”
Funny thing; Many here, who have taken the same oath I did to “serve and protect the United States from enemies, domestic and foreign”, lose track of that principle when they get ‘dissed’.
That oath included maintaining our Constitutional Rights and FREEDOM OF SPEECH; REMEMBER? THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Millions of comments are interested to nobody the commentators including.
This great voice of the humanity must be studied ,though there are no answers but the tales of ourselves.
I suggest that you have your contributors interact more with commenters. You do trumpet the ‘new interactive media’, after all.
Often, ideas cannot be fully developed in a short essay form and can be elaborated upon in the comments. Also, commenters often bring up very interesting ideas, new information or interpretations that enhance the original article.
It seems that many of PJM’s contributors suffer from the Peggy Noonan syndrome, that their words are Pearls From Heaven – beyond comment and modification. They have spoken and the readers’ part is to hear and obey. Very deadwood.
A good example for contributors to follow is Richard Fernandez, who engages his readers and always has interesting and intelligent discussions in the comments. But he did that before migrating to this site…..
I simply could not leave your site prior to suggesting that I actually loved the standard information a person supply in your guests? Is gonna be again incessantly in order to check up on new posts