The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - An Open Apology To Our Readers

September 25, 2004

| An Open Apology To Our Readers

After reading … and taking part in … the comments on the “presenile dementia” post, it’s clear to me that I need to apologize to our readers in general, and to a few specific readers in particular.

The first apology is to the readers in general not for posting that article and letter from The Atlantic, but for how I did so. I did a poor job of providing context, and that lack of context created a vacuum of attribution that was quickly filled by some of our readers … much of whom inferred that I was furthering an anti-Bush bias (in the best) or whom questioned my patriotism (in the worst).

Having had a night to think about it (and I have to tell you, when you’re laying in bed at 4 a.m. thinking about something like this that’s supposed to be a hobby, it might be time to question your level of investment), I should have set up the post differently, perhaps with something along the lines of this:

In reading the past two month’s Atlantics I was quite surprised to see that some people are invoking hypotheses about a biological cause for the president’s occasional malapropisms, and was even more surprised to see the Atlantic print a letter to the editor that attempts to legitimize such a claim, even though the physician writing the letter has made no examination of the president.
I want to post both because I think both … that one would make the claim and that the Atlantic would post the letter … are newsworthy—not because I agree with either, but because they demonstrate the state of the campaign, and because I think the Atlantic is out on a limb with the letter. I do so in keeping with our “we post, you decide (and discuss)” policy, but know that I’m distancing myself from the content itself. I’m looking forward to the fact-checking and the debate on this, as I expect our readers to clarify the matter (as they typically do).

I didn’t lead with that context because I posted this from work, in the middle of a busy day, and had about 3 minutes to dash something off.

In retrospect, I wish I had.

So I apologize for the poor context, and I apologize for tarnishing this space, if in fact, in your mind, I did.

Now for the second apology, which I extend to TexasGal and CERDIP, two loyal, if strident, readers. They reacted to a lack of context I created, and I became defensive as a result of their commentary. It was I who pushed the bounds of civil and respectful behavior, and for that I’m sorry to both of them. It’s a lot of work, managing this place … a labor of love (one in which, as I suggest above, I might be too personally vested). We try quite hard to get it “just right,” and while I know we’ll never satisfy everyone … nor do we want to … some days sharp feedback is more difficult to take than others. That’s my problem, not theirs, and again, I apologize for the stridency I exhibited in return.

So. I hope they, and you, will accept. I learned early on in life that all of us are a hell of a lot smarter than one of us, and the feedback here tells me the greater wisdom lies with the group. As with so many things from Command Post over the past year and a half, another chance for me to learn, and hopefully, be better as a result.

As I’ve said from day one, “thanks for reading the Post.”

Posted by Alan at September 25, 2004 12:18 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I’m going to echo what Alan said here.

It’s a hazard of this “job” that we get defensive about what’s posted here and the reaction to those posts. We put an awful lot of work into providing news, opinions and a forum in which you can debate those things. It’s human nature, I suppose, to get a bit defensive when the work you are putting out is lambasted. It’s the hazard of what we do. The fact that we do it in our “spare” time for little or no monetary reward sometimes leads to frustration when we feel that our work is being picked apart.

And sometimes, the work is picked apart rightfully.

I also apologize to any readers I offended in my haste to defend Alan, myself and Command Post in general. I think we learned a lot from this episode.

Posted by: Michele at September 25, 2004 12:36 PM

Having been here as long as I have, I’ll have to accept this post as - It’s as good as it’s gonna get.

No. That ain’t good enough - The words are failing me. It’s your game, and I’ll continue to play.

In the heat of the moment we all go over the edge occasionally. Thanks to you both for trying to do what you see as the proper course.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 25, 2004 01:36 PM

As simple as it needs to be:

Thank you for taking responsibility and making a quick correction. The fact that you would think about your actions at 4am while most would be sleeping shows your “soul investment” in this site.

Those who are rational and kind-hearted should have no problem in saying, “Apology accepted. Now, let’s get back to the business of blogging.”

Posted by: dewaun at September 25, 2004 01:49 PM

I’ve learned a lot, too: stick to picking on Nader and Sharpton. ;)

Posted by: Laurence Simon at September 25, 2004 03:30 PM

Michele- Thank you.

Alan - I can’t speak for TGal, but where I come from, you don’t qualify your apologies with self-serving little asides about how strident and defensive your intended recipient is. Either you’re sorry you called her snarky and dismissive and equated her criticism of your post with dancing on Pat Tillman’s grave, or you’re not.

Posted by: marymcl at September 25, 2004 03:57 PM

Alan - Re-reading your post I see that you were speaking of yourself as being defensive. Sorry about that.

All the same - strident? TGal? You’ve got to be kidding. Same goes for CERDIP. Me? Maybe so. Don? You bet. But not those two. And especially not TGal. Not by a long shot.

Posted by: marymcl at September 25, 2004 04:10 PM

I see my comments were deleted and I didn’t get an apology…..

Hit a nerve?

Posted by: No Party at September 25, 2004 04:51 PM

Alan : Spoken like a Gentleman, Sir

I learned early on in life that all of us are a hell of a lot smarter than one of us, and the feedback here tells me the greater wisdom lies with the group.

Yup. And there’s even a good Scientific reason for this, one worthy of a PhD thesis in the field of Artificial (and Natural) Intelligence. But I digress.

Meanwhile, don’t sweat it, both Michele and yourself are doing the job a hell of a lot better than I could, and I’ve got a really high opinion of myself :-)

And posting the original article gave a good excuse to write this one, which gives us all an insight into the way TCP works. As I said before in my comments, I wouldn’t have done it, and that would have been my loss.

Posted by: aebrain at September 25, 2004 09:04 PM

..dang,no more mud wrestling..it was getting very interesting..;-))
..no chit tho..spoken like a true Gentleman..
..Always remember there is but one who does make mistakes…

Posted by: Rob_NC at September 25, 2004 09:58 PM

I’d like to thank both you and Michelle for the generous amount of time you spend here. As a longtime lurker I was surprised by your original post and it’s aftermath. I understand your reason for posting it and TxGal’s reaction to it. Your apology is more than good enough for me. We ALL make mistakes and over-react to sharp feedback.

Posted by: JarheadMom at September 26, 2004 10:39 AM

wow, you’re taking this very seriously.

I read a bit of one article but once I knew the source I lost interest.

You folks are doing fine. This is a very nice service and no mea culpa’s are required!!!

Posted by: skip at September 27, 2004 10:28 AM

I’m starting to take this BS with Typekey personally. How many times do you have to sign in before you’re actually signed in?

Alan If I understand you correctly, you’re not sorry you posted yet another stew of cheezy potshots about the President’s mental capacity by people in no way qualified to make such judgments as breaking news (and with a sensational headline no less) but that you didn’t rationalize it adequately at the time.

Forgive me for sounding the one sour note in this chorus of good cheer, but the Bush is an ape routine has been with us for lo these many months, so it hardly qualifies as breaking news. Even if I leave aside for the moment the issue of whether the piece is news or opinion, I wonder what drove you to interrupt a busy work schedule at some inconvenience to yourself to post it when you did. Couldn’t it have waited?

And what has happened to all the contributors you used to have anyway? Where have they gone?

The more you say to justify your decision the more it sounds to me like you have an agenda. Which wouldn’t bother me if you just came out and said so. But you don’t. You continue to insist that this was hard news. The Defense Department and the pentagon get relegated to the Op-Ed page, but one more round of Bush is a monkey is fact, moreover it’s breaking news that can’t wait. You know what they say, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck….

One last thing Alan, something I learned a long time ago, back when I was your age. The great “we” leands itself nicely to broad statements of good intent and PC bromides, but in practice it usually means the iron heel. In any case, it’s no substitute for independent critical thinking.

And don’t worry this is the last time I’ll be raining on your parade.

Posted by: marymcl at September 27, 2004 04:12 PM

Hmmm, tough room! ^

slaps Alan & Michele with a rubber chicken, runs away giggling

Heck, no need for an apology, but nonetheless accepted anyway in the spirit given. CP gets another boost of esteem in my books, assuming that it’s possible to pump it any higher.

or to quote dewaun:

“Apology accepted. Now, let’s get back to the business of f^Hblogging.”

:-)

Posted by: CERDIP at September 27, 2004 10:05 PM