and I'm sure this post is completely unrelated to the shellacking Walter Shapiro is taking for his Lieberman article....

Michael,

I know it can't be pleasant to be attacked for one of your articles, but is this really the way to handle it? War Room is one of my favorite things about Salon and it was depressing to read one of it's writers responding to that kind of silliness with more of the same. I look forward to your postings about political news, but can we please stay above the fray here? Best regards and welcome aboard.

Coming from the insular climes of DC which is kind of known for its .....insularity, it might help if you were a better sport about the hazing rituals around here, and look around at the reporters who do not make their connections on the expense account circuit, and talk to other people besides consultants and lobbyists...as well as our friend whose initials are DLC.

Salon has had some top writers who manage to cut thru the conventional wisdom, and dig a little deeper than tear outs and blast faxes to write their stories.

Still, there are lots of political reporters who do aspire to do little better than the gaggle...and commit journalism which actually involves some degree of serious purpose.

While the anonymous nature of the blogsphere does seem to encourage bad behavior like no other medium (save perhaps Sunday Morning Gladiator talk shows), its inclusive nature sometimes does quite the opposite, allowing for fuller, more meaningful dialogue. Sometimes good does come from bad. In one of the examples discussed, the exchange on whether blogging constitutes advocacy and should be regulated as such that takes place between Franke-Ruta of TAP and Stoller of MyDD, many of the reader comments that follow are both civil and substantive. One reader, Eligere, strengthens Stoller's arguments significantly by clarifying the distinctions between political speech and PAC-style advocacy. Most important, the comments contains real information that's both factually correct and essential to any real discussion of the issue.

My question is, without 24/7 moderating (policing), how does anyone ensure that a blog stays provocative and inclusive but civil?

Suki, lighten up a little, it's Friday. War Room is my favorite part of Salon as well, but that does not mean it has to be so limited that it cannot occasionally stray off the strict path toward political enlightenment. Besides, while you are right that all this kind of food-fighting stuff seems like just silliness, the point I take from Michael's post is that the bad behavior isn't just silly. It demeans all of the participants and diminishes their credibility. Besides, it's just plain rude, obnoxious, juvenile, and not something that can or should be ignored. Only by calling attention to the irrelevant, gratuitous nastiness is there any hope of eventually eliminating it.

Suki, lighten up a little, it's Friday. War Room is my favorite part of Salon as well, but that does not mean it has to be so limited that it cannot occasionally stray off the strict path toward political enlightenment. Besides, while you are right that all this kind of food-fighting stuff seems like just silliness, the point I take from Michael's post is that the bad behavior isn't just silly. It demeans all of the participants and diminishes their credibility. Besides, it's just plain rude, obnoxious, juvenile, and not something that can or should be ignored. Only by calling attention to the irrelevant, gratuitous nastiness is there any hope of eventually eliminating it.

Some men seem to have trouble with the most basic bathroom tidiness issues... I've posted a few helpful (and humorous) guides of my own where I work. :)

but I couldn't find another post appropriate for this comment...

So what's with the right wing suddenly making a big deal of Stockholm Syndrome: http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_03_26_corner-archive.asp#093780 (via Daou Report) They're practically accusing Jill Carroll of being incompetent.

from: http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/stockholm.html

"The victims' (sic) need to survive is stronger than his impulse to hate the person who has created his dilemma." (Strentz, 1980) The victim comes to see the captor as a 'good guy', even a savior. This condition...occurs in response to the four specific conditions listed below:

o A person threatens to kill another and is perceived as having the capability to do so.

o The other cannot escape, so her or his life depends on the threatening person.

o The threatened person is isolated from outsiders so that the only other perspective available to her or him is that of the threatening person.

o The threatening person is perceived as showing some degree of kindness to the one being threatened. [emphasis mine]

I would not begin to guess that this is the case with Jill Carroll, who was already trying to present the Iraqi's story.

However, perhaps, the folks at NRO, etc. should be talking instead to the folks at the Pentagon and the CIA, etc, and suggesting that they consider taking advantage of the Stockholm Syndrome themselves, since apparently it yields better PR than actual torture. [sarcasm mine]