Recommended reading
The scourge of anonymous comments
Recommended reading
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I'm otherwise occupied today, but I'll return on Monday. In the meantime, I highly recommend this commentary piece from the American Journalism Review website. I couldn't agree more, especially with this wryly understated passage:
"The opportunity to launch brutal assaults from the safety of a computer without attaching a name does wonders for the bravery levels of the angry."
Comments (91)
Yo, left wing, look in the mirror. That is the greatest enemy of free people everywhere.— Daddy why did you vote Barrack insane Obama? He is clueless!
CD your comment makes no sense (nothing unusual there). The whole point is commenting under the cloak of anonymity, which clearly doesn't apply to DP.— potus- Still.. I never said there weren't any corrupt cops, just that they recieve more publicity. By the way, what is your name? You know mine. And did you ponder my last blog to you in last subject, which of the three subjects are true? Well, let me tell you, all three are. Check on it. You did after all question my ability as a detective. Let me help you a little, Anthony Joyner and the Kearsley Nursing Home.— Phil Checchia
Comment removed.- if you geniuses have so much to say, start your own blog instead of logging on to someone else's and firing easy reactionary insults at the guy who actually does it for a living— jtocz
- Phil: "And did you ponder my last blog to you in last subject, which of the three subjects are true? Well, let me tell you, all three are" - I doubt it, except for the last one. i have no reason to question your ability as a detective. i just commented that you seem to believe things solely based upon who tells you, despite and and all logic to the contrary. As an examply, the Hillary stuff. Again, stuff classified Top Secret/SAC comes out, yet we have only your buddie's word that Hillary held a "lesbian orgy" at Camp David. The Clinton stuff you wrote was laughable - the president can't go to any public place "like a beach" without the press nearby. Now maybe he did that as governor w/ the troopers setting him up, as they were known to do, but it wouldn't work as president. Why do you think all the Lewinsky encounters were in the spaces in the WH where the secret service does not go? Believe what you wish based upon no evidence - it's your choice. As for why the "liberal media" didn't report on Kennedy's affairs. because it just wasn't done. It's the same reason they didn't report on Lyndon Johnson, FDR, etc. You just didn't do it. It wasn't deemed to be news - it was considered, at that time, to be part of their private lives. It's also why you never used to hear all the dirt on professional athletes - private livers weren't considered newsworthy back in the day.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- I don't know what Polman is crying about with the comments. Most of the stuff on here is very civil in my view. Don't put a comments section if you don't want comments. I find this healthy way to discuss politics instead of irritating my liberal in laws or my wife who cares more about shopping and housewives of Orange county than discussing politics. I think what bothers Polman is that he gets called when he distorts, exxagerates, or only tells half the story. I find most liberals don't really care for free speech, only if is liberal free speech and it goes unchallenged.
- billreilly : did not mean to impugne you or imply you'd reflexively defend dirty cops. Just trying to keep that whole back in forth in the context of where it started.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- The AJR article is absolutely right. There is no reason for the Inquirer to allow anonymity, and they should stop allowing it. As an added (large) bonus, 98% of the right wing knuckleheads would disappear from the blog comments, since no sane person would put their real name on the sort of comments they post here. The down side, though, is that if you post using your real name, it would make it easy for the truly insane wingnuts to actually come to your house and burn it down for disagreeing with them. There are several who post regularly here and on Will Bunch's blog who strike me as unstable enough to do something like that.— yoda
- While I agree with the article that giving people anonymity in their postings can often bring out the worst in people, I think the market will eventually correct itself. The people who are interested in a good discussion about a topic will gravitate towards sites that have some form of moderation while those whose only interest is to sling their own ideological garbage (regardless of which side it comes from) will post on unmoderated sites.— barlowjames
- Still... you just killed your arguement that the Bill Clinton things didn't happen. If the press KNEW, they WOULDN'T report it. Also,you seem to have a problem with believing what people tell you. Why, I repeat, why, would secret service agents lie about what they saw. One agent even mentioned Susan Tomlisson (sic) a big Clinton backer who divorced her husband right in the middle of all the POOL PARTIES. You see, sometime you have to use reason, look at all the surrounding facts and come to a conclusion. You depend on written data, and you know what, I like to draw my own conclusions. And given that I'm the only person on this blog that uses their name, I do risk having people check on what I say. You, however, dont have to worry about that. I dont know if you're male or female. And as far as evidence, 95% of evidence in all investigatios is spoken word. Based on how you operate you wouldn't get to first base trying to solve a case.— Phil Checchia
- Comment removed.
- still... here's one for you. A friend of mine's son was at a party in California with one of the Bush twins. The kid said he had never heard anyone with a fouler mouth, and she got so drunk the secret service had to remove her and take her home. There you go, a little republican dirt. Feel better?— Phil Checchia
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: