Like many others, I follow the postings of the Virginia political blogosphere via Waldo Jaquith’s creation, Virginia Political Blogs. It is a great way to keep up with the happenings without having to go to each of the 100+ blogs, many of which I wouldn’t read, anyway. The aggregator has served its purpose quite well, in that blogs from both sides of the aisle are presented. A relatively new blog came on the scene recently, posting mostly Photoshopped items directed at Democrats, sometimes humorous, most times not. Whatever. But yesterday, the picture posted was certainly not humorous; in fact, it was downright disgusting.
In an effort to pick on Democrats, the blog in question (who I will not name), posted a picture of a beheading. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. Yes, I am aware that such pictures exist. No, I have no desire to see them. The decency threshold was crossed with the posting of that picture.
As the result, Waldo removed the blog from the aggregator. I wholeheartedly support his decision. Contrary to the postings of some others, this isn’t about censorship. This is about common decency. The exact same decency that keeps out of the blogsphere profanity-laden posts. The image was profane.
I would take it step further and say that Waldo, who has graciously hosted Virginia Political Blogs on his servers at no charge to the rest of us, should enact a code of sorts that prohibits anyone from participating in the aggregator who does not agree with the rules of basic decency.
As I was writing this post, I see that Waldo is considering shutting down the aggregator.
See what happens when you kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I want to make clear that I’m not trying to take my ball and go home — in fact, I lay out the “giving the ball to somebody else” option in my post. I just don’t want to deal with people giving me grief for trying to maintain minimal standards of decency.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a web site owner having guidelines for what is or is not suitable for a particular site. Most websites that allow for information to be posted from outside sources have “netiquette” guidelines about what is and isn’t suitable, and usually bar offensive, slanderous or bullying activities among participants. This isn’t censorship. It is needed protocol so long as it is applied equally to all political persuasions.
I think Waldo handled it exactly right.
There’s a side of me that is very entertained by this whole kerfluffle. I think Waldo is well within his rights. I don’t see the slightest taint of bias in his administration of Vapoliticalblogs. The censorship idea is crazy, unless Waldo has been elected governor and I missed it.
However, this kind of decision is exactly what the MSM deals with every day. One day we make a decision that gets ripped by the left then for four days in a row we get ripped by the right. Every time, we are trying to to do the responsible thing, but imperfect people making hard decisions by the hundreds every day are bound to do something debateable.
What Waldo thinks is so awful is the everyday reality for MSM editors. Like it or not, aggregators are straddling the fence between MSM and blogs.
“One day we make a decision that gets ripped by the left then for four days in a row we get ripped by the right. Every time, we are trying to to do the responsible thing, but imperfect people making hard decisions by the hundreds every day are bound to do something debateable.”
That may have been true in the past, but recent criticism from the left has to do with lies. Just plain lies. Lies so big they howl. See The Daily Howler or Media Matters for America.
Gene Lyons wrote a whole book exposing the Whitewater smear, which was promptly ignored. Bob Somerby exposed the smears against Gore in real time, and was ignored. That was the environment of learned media gullibility that made it possible for PNAC to lie this country into war. Media gullibility cost thousands of people their lives.
So yeah, I appreciate that those who wrestle with these decisions have a difficult job, it is just that some of your colleagues haven’t even been trying.
If he wants to remove people, fine. But then it is Waldo acting as an editor, not as a voice for all of us. We must be careful not to be too full of ourseves. Dave Mastio and his friends at eh VP could talk to this from experience.
Waldo’s tool is very cool, but I predict that it will be used to make a point from here on out. Come ’08 if someone posts about a candidate he doesn’t like and says something mean, will he drop them too?
It could happen.
Aslo if the site was backed up by a real name would he had left it? No, so why point out that it is not?
Waldo is wrong. To be so ‘offended’ but nothing he photoshops but then to be offended by something that REALLY happens is nothing more than hiding from reality and tryong to be PC as to appease.
My thoughts.
The right wing tried to boycott CNN just a few weeks ago because they were “offended” by the airing of some sort of sniper video. My how their views change when they perceive something to be of benefit to them, huh?
“This is about common decency. The exact same decency that keeps out of the blogsphere profanity-laden posts.”
You mean like several of the headlines Waldo himself has used, Vivian?