Teach the Controversy
The overall ThinkProgress bossman Faiz Shakir has a post over at the main ThinkProgress blog addressing the Third Way controversy that I think everyone interested in this subject should read.
And since it’s a slow news day, a lot of people seem interested so I thought I should write something myself to address this. So here goes:
I wish the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening had been handled differently in a variety of ways since just sticking it on the blog and then going to bed seems to have given people a lot of misleading notions about the site being somehow “hijacked.” But when you get right down to it, all she was doing was reiterating what’s always been the case — I’m posting un-screened posts on an un-edited blog and covering every issue under the sun. Under the circumstances, it’s better for me, better for CAP and CAPAF, and better for everyone to understand that I’m writing as an individual not as the voice of the institution. Pointing that fact out isn’t contrary to me having an independent voice, it’s integral to having one. Nobody has deleted my post criticizing Third Way, or forced me to retract those criticisms, or prevented me from following up with a more substantive critique of something they wrote. And most of all, contrary to some of the crazier stuff I’ve read in comments, it’s not as if the senior management is leaning over my shoulder censoring every posts. For one thing, if someone was leaning over my shoulder there wouldn’t be all these typos. More seriously, the whole point of clarifying that things I write don’t automatically become “official” CAP/AF positions is that nobody is leaning over my shoulder. I’m not getting the stuff pre-approved or pre-screened by anyone, so sometimes I say stuff that other people here wouldn’t say. That’s the nature of a large organization, and especially of a large organization where different people have different roles. My role is to say what I think on the blog; that’s what I’ve always done and will keep doing.
195 Responses to “Teach the Controversy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Yay, the Festival of Lights is saved despite Palmieri!
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
This is what we wanted. Thank you!
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Or it’s all part of some clever, mad plan.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
1. Thanks for addressing this and noting that it could have been handled better.
2. if someone was leaning over my shoulder there wouldn’t be all these typos
Plausible deniability!
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Matt:
This seems to miss the point. Why did she insist on writing a post about THIS issue? I never assumed you spoke for CAP on any other subject, nor did I do so here - I didn’t need Jennifer Palmieri to shove her oar in to confirm the point. Can’t you see that - apart from making both CAP/AS and Third Way look like oversensitive idiots - what that does is imply that with all the OTHER posts, which didn’t raise CAP/AS’s hackles, you ARE in some sense speaking along the lines they approve. And if you can’t see that, you need to go back to Harvard and register for a course in linguistic pragmatics.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Yay thank you for talking about it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
There is no reason to explicitly state that the opinions on your blog are yours and yours alone because everyone knows this is A FUCKING OPINION BLOG. We are upset because the only thing that sets off the CAP freethinking alarms is talking about Third Way, a shitty organization that is not progressive.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Sounds good to me. I don’t see the problem.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
You’re part of the establishment, Matt. That’s been confirmed. If you’re content that CAP forced you to post that clarification in order to protect part of the establishment, that your call and your reputation. There are probably 100 posts that CAP would similarly want to clarify aren’t their official view, but they did it for the Third Way.
Again, your reputation, your career. This is a much bigger deal than you think.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
From a long-time reader, the credibility of your blog is ruined for me.
The decision to post her original message was a bad, and unnecessary one and your subsequent handling of it was appalling.
At this point I have no idea who is posting what on this blog and so will be leaving.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
This seems to miss the point. Why did she insist on writing a post about THIS issue? I never assumed you spoke for CAP on any other subject, nor did I do so here - I didn’t need Jennifer Palmieri to shove her oar in to confirm the point. Can’t you see that - apart from making both CAP/AS and Third Way look like oversensitive idiots - what that does is imply that with all the OTHER posts, which didn’t raise CAP/AS’s hackles, you ARE in some sense speaking along the lines they approve. And if you can’t see that, you need to go back to Harvard and register for a course in linguistic pragmatics.
Yup.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
FINALLY!
Thank you for at least finally addressing the issue.
Wouldn’t it have been a whole lot simpler (and more competent) for YOU to have made the Special Note statement? Or just do like like Big Tent Dem does and say “speaking for me only”.
The clumsy way it was done, at it’s best, brings up the question of the competence of CAP’s public relation arm.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
My role is to say what I think on the blog; that’s what I’ve always done and will keep doing.
Thank you, and that’s good to hear.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Seriously, why did it take so long to write this post? Did Jennifer Palmieri need to approve it? There is a taint.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I’ll cherish every typo from now on.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Okay, but then why not just say this in the first place? From you, not from The Management. Trust on the internet is very fragile, and anyone at CAP who couldn’t ever have predicted the outrage following Ms. Palmieri’s shameful PR-speak post just hasn’t been paying attention.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Thank you. I’m glad you are committed to keeping your independence. Faiz Shakir seems to still not really get why people are upset, which is…disappointing, I guess. I’ll go over there and point out my objections.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Better late than never, and next time without the forced nonchalance. You were small today, Matt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Thank you for addressing it. But, like others here, I don’t think that’s enough. David44 (5) says what lots of us are thinking. Why did *this* post necessitate an editorial interjection?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Appreciate this, but for me the bigger issue is what exactly prompted Palmieri’s post in the first place. If your independence and relationship with CAP and CAPAF are open and obvious (and I think they are), and if you’re free to say whatever you want about whatever you want, then what was it about this particular post that prompted a response from the higher-ups? Why was the Third Way post different from all other posts? It’s not the first time you’ve criticized Democrats or left-leaning interest groups. The immediate assumption is that someone at the Third Way got mad and asked that some action be taken. This rankles the casual reader because if thin skins exist at the Third Way, (1) they’re going to perhaps do more harm than good over the next four years and (2) we hope that blogs exist in a place beyond that where substance-based criticism (however phrased) doesn’t result in (seemingly immature) hurt feelings. Many of us have had enough of feeling-based constraints on punditry and have gravited to your blog in hopes of finding something different. We still may have, but Ms. Palmieri’s actions (in apparent reaction to the Third Way) shows that she doesn’t fully appreciate the value of this blog.
The take-away should be that anonymous, behind-the-scenes, feelings/social network-based restriction of public policy commentary is not a good thing and, in the long run, does more harm than good.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The silly part is of course the language, which really made it sound like someone at Third Way got in a tizzy and placed a phone call and demanded that someone say nice things about them. But it’s nice that we can all be grown-ups about this now.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Well, I am glad something was said about this, but still…. I can’t shake the feeling that the explanation still doesn’t work.
As others have said, why the reiteration? And why now with the Third Way? I mean, do we really need to be told that you don’t speak for an entire group of people? That wasn’t already obvious?
Also, the haughty nature of telling us that this, in fact, for the best is kind of silly. Nor does it deflect from the speculation that there is more to this than what we are being told.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
David44 needs to get a life. Seriously. Don’t you have actual things to worry about, care about? think about?
Go outside, walk the dog, drink a beer.
There’s are billions of better things to do then wank wank wank about your precious precious mind. Oh the vapors!
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I appreciate your addressing this.
But it seems to me as if you’ve ignoring the core of Palmieri’s post. She didn’t write that this was a teachable moment, and a good opportunity to review the basic guidelines under which you operate.
No, what Palmieri wrote was that you were entitled to your opinion, but that it was the opinion of CAPAF that Third Way is just great. And that was unmitigated bullshit. CAP and Third Way disagree on a host of issues. An honest person would’ve acknowledged that. Palmieri’s post was misleading and dishonest - instead of acknowledging that the two distinct organizations aren’t always in perfect harmony, she chose to close ranks.
That’s what gave the post a truly creepy edge. Not that she had a different opinion of Third Way’s worth, but that she didn’t offer an honest assessment at all. Hers was the post of a third-rate flack; boilerplate intended to deny the obvious, and smooth over evident differences. It was offensive to your readers on multiple levels. And pretending that it somehow underlines your independence is equally offensive.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I agree with the other readers. #5 (David44) is right on the money, and his point should be addressed.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
For one thing, if someone was leaning over my shoulder there wouldn’t be all these typos.
Or it’s all part of some clever, mad plan.
That’s almost funny enough to make the whole fiasco worthwhile.
This seems to miss the point. Why did she insist on writing a post about THIS issue?
I guess that’s the point if you’re extremely interested in the relationship between CAP (and/or Jennifer Palmieri) and Third Way in a “who stands next to who on Lenin’s Tomb” kind of way. If you’re interested in whether Matt is still allowed to write what he thinks in a more-or-less unfettered way, not so much.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Before closing the page, I looked back at MY’s main page and saw that he posted about the “controversy”.
I’m glad MY said he’s *not* being censored. The bored, slightly patronizing tone I could live without.
However, I’m glad his post about Third Way got a lot more attention this way. Maybe MY is crazy like a fox…
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for finally addressing this. This is really all you needed to say - what was getting creepy and making me, at least, wonder about your integrity was your total silence. It was still really screwed up of CAP to post that “clarification”, and we could use an explanation/apology from Jennifer, but you’ve done what you needed to do to make this not about you.
It would be nice though if you would say which, if any, of the comment “Matthew Yglesias”s was you.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
You could have saved everyone a lot of headaches if you’d written last night’s post as yourself rather than saying “This is Jennifer Palmieri”. A one-sentence intro with a blockquote of Palmieri’s text would have drawn a much smaller reaction.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Dear Cynic,
You’ll get over it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
This blog owes you nothing. Go wank somewhere else.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Oh, wait, I won’t, since you have to have a WordPress account to comment there. Classy.
Here are my concerns/areas that would like to be clarified:
1. Jennifer’s post was on your blog, in your blog format, with no disclaiming introduction from you. It was disconcerting, and a bit worrisome– had you been fired? Did your boat hit an iceberg? Putting a comment from ‘the boss’ in the same style as an ‘ordinary blog post’ did indeed make things look like a hijack.
2. Having what seemed like an immediate response regarding just this single organization– when you’ve criticized plenty of others– made it seem, to use the expression we’re all throwing around– creepy.
3. The whole kerfluffle makes CAP sound cowardly and either afraid of, or beholden to, Third Way. Which I think has been made more than clear.
Note that the other ‘examples’ Shakir links to don’t look or feel anything like what’s happened on this blog.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Oh, so it was you who put it up there like that. OK, I blame you now.
It should have been done as follows:
Hey folks, here’s a message from my editors that I’m putting up because they wanted to remind everybody of some stuff:
You probably knew that anyways but blah blah blah.
^^^ see what I did there? Made it look like they aren’t tapping in to your upload page.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Matt, I just read the post you linked to. Seems to me that CAP doesn’t get the culture of blogs. And I think you missed something important here as well. This lady jumped right into your blog for one issue. It was very, very intrusive. My guess is you held back in your language in this post, that you were more upset about this than you note. But your public take on this undermines peoples’ sense of you historically. Glenn Greenwald has a better deal than you do. Don’t you want that? What would he do if someone at Salon did to him what Jennifer did to you? You are looking diminished in a lot of folks’ eyes. This is not a good place for you if this is the end of this matter.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I’m done caring about this, but I’ll leave this parting shot. The issue all along has not been whether you were speaking with Palmieri’s advice and consent, but whether she was speaking with yours. Now that you’ve said that you personally inserted this post on your blog, I suppose we’ve gotten as much information on that score as we’re likely to.
The question that remains is whether you agreed with Palmieri that posting her groveling apology for your words was necessary to achieve progressive goals or whether you just did it because you were ordered. But I’m a realist and I don’t expect that answer.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Will I get over it? Sure, I will.
Matt, however, will not. His name was once so synonymous with a willingness to take on the sacred cows of the progressive movement that Sullivan still hands out an award in his honor. But the past 24 hours have focused attention on a rather unpleasant fact that we all willfully ignored. Matt used to work for a media organization; now he works for an advocacy group. He’s there because he’s useful to CAPAF. When he threatened to do more harm than good, Palmieri didn’t hesitate to bring him up short.
There are two sorts of voices in the blogosphere: those that attempt to speak to the truth of an issue as they see it, and those which view blogging as a tactical maneuver to advance their cause. Until now, I’ve always seen Matt as an exemplar of the former camp. But that’s because I wasn’t paying attention. Last July, he very self consciously switched sides, because he hated standing on the sidelines. And something like this was inevitable.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Win!
oh, and this made me giggle. Oh those crazy kids over at The Atlantic.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
A bit of a tempest in a teapot, but Jennifer P’s post was wrong on many different levels. To me, most importantly, it was disloyal. Her post should have been written as a defense of your editorial independence, with the natural and inherent reminder that CAP may not necessarily disagree.
To be blunt, the only people who evidently needed reminding that bloggers do and must have independent voices are the hyper-incrementalist bullsh!tters at Third Way. Jennifer’s reponse should have been directed at them, not at you. Bad boss. Bad, bad boss.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
One: Thanks for addressing this finally. Good for you.
Two: I think the concern, at least with the less hysterical commentators, was more of legitimacy. Someone who is not-you obviously has the power to edit the blog without your approval (because it happened, ipso facto). That makes your readers wonder to what extent such editing may have happened in the past or may happen in the future. Now I am inclined to take your statement that this is your (and only your) unedited opinion at face value, as are most of your readers I’m sure. As you have noted, the statement was non-controversial, even critical to your maintaining an independent voice as part of CAP/CAPAF. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. But keep in mind, it was the fact the statement was made on your blog without your approval, not the content that caused the concern.
Finally, let’s not insult your readers by pretending that the comment was meant to “clarify things.” No one was confused about anything. Seriously, I doubt you could find one neutral observer or regular reader who believed that statements on this blog are official statements of CAP/CAPAF. The statement was put there to mollify someone’s feelings over ad Third Way and let them feel important.
I sincerely hope you have a talk with your coworkers/superiors and make clear that y’all need a set of rules that control who can post on your blog and under what circumstances, and share those rules with your readers. It’s critical to your success that your readers can rely on knowing when and how any work on this site is “yours”
Thanks and good luck.
IMUnaware
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I just caught that MY did the actual posting of Jennifer’s insert. That really should have been clear. It still is kind of a sideline note even in THIS post. I’m not sure it makes things much better. There’s a defensiveness about this whole thing now that is bothersome. Doesn’t comport with my sense of Matt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’m interested in Faiz writing, “Suffice it to say that there was internal disagreement about the issue of Third Way’s effectiveness.”
With Palmieri directly citing Department of Homeland Security, I’d like to know who internally argued Third Way was effective in that arena. If, by effective, you mean that it appears that they appear effective in getting Sean Smith behind the podium, then I guess I would agree. If by effective you mean that it is effective for Homeland Security to have a known liar who despises the internet behind the podium in a post-Mumbai world, then I think it would be very interesting to know who at CAP defended Third Way.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening
If you put it up, then it was misleading. A post that starts with “This is so-and-so” and the so-and-so is higher up than you in the organization is assumed to have bypassed you.
A technical point, but an important one. You could have said, in your voice, that “Jenifer Palmieri wants it to be known that …”.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
You could have saved everyone a lot of headaches if you’d written last night’s post as yourself rather than saying “This is Jennifer Palmieri”. A one-sentence intro with a blockquote of Palmieri’s text would have drawn a much smaller reaction.
Quite so … that’s what I should have done. But I didn’t. It was a mistake. But what can I do about it now?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Make it clear that this is what you did. It still isn’t to a lot of people.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Matt,
The concern for me wasn’t whether someone could/couldn’t/should/shouldn’t post something on your blog. It’s that she was SO defensive about how your opinions are not those of CAPAF, about THIS specific issue.
Whether she meant it to or not, it sounds like someone at Third Way, saw your small (really not that insane) post, complained, and she felt the need to post SOMETHING. If she’s never done this before, and did it with this specific issue, there’s something about Third Way that made her defend it on a blog that no one thinks represents CAPAF’s views.
So the question still remains — why was THIS the triggering issue, and not the (probably) lots of OTHER different issues you probably don’t see exactly eye-to-eye on?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I hate to beat this horse dead but if Palmieri wanted to comment on the Third Way, why do it under your heading and not on the main thinkprogress page as Shakir did? Offering an alternative viewpoint there makes perfect sense and is an eminently reasonable thing to do. But it strains credulity to suggest that you “put up” her guest post of your own volition, without any introduction, qualification or disclaimer. Does George Will have “guest columns” that explicitly disagree with his positions AND don’t distinguish that they are being presented by George Will as an alternative position to his own? Does Maureen Dowd do that? Does E.J. Dionne? In the blog universe, do Josh Marshall or Andrew Sullivan? Does anyone credible do that? Are you honestly suggesting that you solicited Palmieri’s post? Or that she submitted it to you and you said, “hey, let me put that post on my page without any contextual clarification as to how this ‘guest post’ came to be or why it’s here?” Can you see why that explanation just doesn’t fly? I suspect that you’re in something close to an almost untenable position here. You know a serious mistake was made- perhaps not by you, but you can’t find a way to acknowledge that without causing more problems with the powers that be. But your version of how this mess came to be actually makes you MORE culpable than if you had no involvement in the decision, as it sounds like you allowed your editorial voice to be squelched by the boss. How many more times in the future can we expect Palmieri to be “guest” posting? Can you tell her no if she asks for the space? You see just how much you’ve opened Pandora’s Box here, right?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Matt, what exactly is the connection between Third Way and Think Progress? Overlapping boards or donors?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Having worked for a conservative think tank in town, it is amusing to me that so many people are shocked, shocked that the hypocrisy cuts both ways.
That being said, I think that the readership needs to go a bit more gently on Matt. It’s easy, from the outside, to yell and scream about what’s right and what’s wrong when you’re not the individual that’s forced to make a snap decision about your career or reputation.
Instead of going after Matt, I’d advise that we keep the focus on CAP and other such institutions (conservative or progressive) that claim to be objective, but are nothing more than a bunch of shills for their rich donors.
We all understand that this is how the game is played in this worthless city (DC)…Just do us a favor and don’t insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It still strains credibility that Matt didn’t see this coming. He’s not exactly new to the blogosphere; he knows how blogs (and comments) work. This “I had no idea this would be a problem!” shtick probably helps him with his employer, but it’s a load of b.s. - and TAP has sent him a clear message.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Well, you should have been a little more straightforward in this follow-up. None of your readers was under the impression that you were officially speaking on behalf of CAP on the TW post or on any other, so pretending that you were clearing up confusion doesn’t appear to be quite honest. It seems to be the case that some bigshot at TW called Jennifer P and said, “Hey, did you know one of your bloggers called us a bad name?” And Jennifer P. said, “Oh, gosh, no, I’ll take care of it right away.” Because Jennifer P. doesn’t understand blogging, she implicitly or explicitly coerced you into publishing a self-criticism, and now you feel obligated to defend it, when we all know it was BS.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Palmieri saw a butt and smooched it. It was that simple.
Shakir’s post was mindlessly naive. His comment:
“The point that is getting lost in this debate is the fact that Palmieri’s post underscores our editorial independence, not diminishes it.”
I guess so, if he means that in the way of Bush saying that he has killed thousands in Iraq to save lives.
It just seems to me that this was as tacky, creepy, and intellectually bankrupt as it possibly could be. I don’t blame you for hanging in there, but I would much rather you tell Palmieri to shove it and then you could go somewhere less Palinesque.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
The bottom line is that we’re still not getting an honest accounting of what went on here.
My best sense is this. Matt made his original post. Third Way flipped out, and went crying to Palmieri. She composed the ‘clarification,’ and asked Matt to post it on his blog. Matt, sulking, put it up without any comment - probably fully aware of the furor it would ignite.
That much looks pretty clear. Now, let’s speculate. Shakir says that there was “internal disagreement about the issue of Third Way’s effectiveness.” Translation: Matt felt the way he did, and Palmieri disagreed. I suspect that she complained that Matt’s post was insufficiently substantive, leveling invective without fact. So Matt went back and constructed a detailed post making his case on a specific issue (fairly convincingly, I might add).
One final thought. Palmieri is functioning something like a publisher at ThinkProgress. If there were any actual concerns about the content of Matt’s posts or their presentation, they should have come from Shakir, the editor. That they did not is fairly damning. ThinkProgress may have a masthead as if it were a journalistic organization, but we shouldn’t be under any illusions that it functions like one when the chips are down.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I think the way to calm down the masses is for us to see Ms Palmieri hanging upside down from the rafters. Got some real hand wringing going on here Matthew.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
This is some funny fucking shit, Matthew. Sorry I missed the huffing and puffing. Perhaps right underneath the title bar with ‘Yglesias’ - er, sorry, big swooshy ‘YGLESIAS’ - up there, you should like put ‘I just work here’ or maybe ‘It’s all my fault’ or ‘My opinions shouldn’t prevent your donations, unless they result in more money.’ Hrmmm: ‘Ninth Least Important Opinion Person at CAP’.
Anyways, never mind all that crap. You know the only way you can top that one for the hilarity would be to get Joe Lieberman to post that your opinions have nothing to do with CAP, and nobody knows why they employed a communist terrorist anti-semite like you, and also, Jews for Hitler is a fine fine organization.
max
['Because that would be fucking awesome.']
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I think you’ve dealt with this in a very classy way Mr. Yglesias, and as a reader, I appreciate that.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I just caught this too:
It was NOT clear at all that this was approved by you. I still think that you should make clear what the editorial policy of the site is vis-a-vis any posts not made by Matt himself. Also, it’s obvious that some sort of introduction would have been wise (”here is Jennifer Palmiere who wants to pop her head in with a reminder” or something). Not having access to a time machine obviously that’s impossible.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I’m not sure. It’s good that you’ve finally clarified that you created that post. But aside from the unclear construction, which exacerbated the reaction, there remains the problem that I’m hard pressed to imagine an explanation for why the disclaimer was posted that doesn’t involve some thin-skinned representative of Third Way calling up CAPAF and demanding it, with such urgency that it had to be posted immediately, late at night, without fully thinking things through. That may reflect the way the world works, but it’s disturbing nonetheless.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oh for crying out loud!
Matt, I love you man, but your commenters must be the most anal retentive, emotionally fragile wankers in the world. Can you please do something to make the endless whining in your comments section stop?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Good. I’m still interested in knowing why she felt it necessary to intervene on this particular issue and in lesser degree what way she asked to be able to make her statement but I probably won’t get an answer to that.
Next time when there is something like this? don’t wait 14 posts before addressing it.
If you just said; I notice that people are upset about the post made by Jennifer Palmieri let me just state that she posted that for reason x y and z with my permission, and that it in no way influences my autonomy here. etc. etc.
You would have ended all this within 5 minutes with 5 sentences. And you and capaf themselves would’ve come off a whole lot better, not Jennifer Palmieri of course as she still would as look incompetent as she now does, but people would been reassured and you would’ve been able to get on with your blogging.
A tip for next time.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Matt, what exactly is the connection between Third Way and Think Progress? Overlapping boards or donors?
We have a partnership on something called the Homeland Security Transition Project. I’m not sure if that project involves overlapping donors or if we have any other overlapping donors — in general, I don’t know who our donors are. We don’t seem to have overlapping board members (you can look this up on our respective web sites) so I would guess that we don’t have any really major overlapping donors since big donors are usually represented on boards.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ed Smithe: I think you nailed it. What JP did to Matt - the thinking behind it - is exactly why the conservative movement has become so callow, spineless, and dishonest. Yes, we all know that this happens every day on many conservative blogs. What I had thought was that Matt was more independent than that - a potential Yglesias Award winner, for example, not a budding NRO-style movement utensil (he’s not, but he looks that way in this example).
I mean, reading NRO, we know there are core issues on which obedience is expected and disobedience will lead to rapid Christopher Buckley-style exile. If CAP wants its bloggers to retain any credibility and avoid the stench of Rich Lowry’s NRO, it really shouldn’t be going down this path.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Matt;
Can you please verify whether or not you wrote this comment (emphases mine)?
It really really makes a difference. Your credibility as a blogger and as a person is at stake here.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Matt, I love you man, but your commenters must be the most anal retentive, emotionally fragile wankers in the world. Can you please do something to make the endless whining in your comments section stop?
I’m not sure what I can do. And, honestly, I don’t like taking heat from people but it is good to know that people care and feel passionate about the site and how they feel things should be done. For my part, I’m going to try to write a good blog and hope people keep reading.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Totally fake, and if so, not funny. That IP account should be blocked.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hey,
I totally agree that you write your own thing and people really do take things out of proportion.
However, I do think it was incredibly stupid for the center for american progress to feel a need to state that their opinions are separate from yours. Boo on them for having done that. Really, does your blog say “I am the voice for center for american progress, and I represent all things that they are”? I don’t think so.
As Techdirt says, it’s apropos to the fact that center for american progress is so sensitive that they can’t handle light criticism, that causes us to wonder what else is wrong with them. Way to kill off faith in your company through an internet harakiri, CFAP.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Re: Mustard Yellow
Matthew’s willing slum it in the same forum as the losers-with-no-life that inhabit this comment section? … we’re all a little diminished.
Worst part of all this? YOu got pwned by Jeffrey Goldberg. Sorry.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
can you clarify this discrepancy please?
You said “I wish the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening had been handled differently…”
But in his statement, Shakir referenced “the decision by our acting CEO, Jennifer Palmieri, to write a guest post on Matt Yglesias’ ThinkProgress blog in defense of the group Third Way.
So who made this decision, Matt? Did you choose put it up or did Palmieri decide to write a guest post? Or did you put it up because she decided to write it? This seems to cut to the very heart of your editorial independence.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Matt:
Maybe you could answer this question again: why are you at CAPAF and not The Atlantic?
When you made the jump, you made it sound as if you preferred to be surrounded by like-minded individuals, and the feeling that you were part of a broader cause. Has this made you rethink that to any degree? Are there ways in which you battle conflicting priorities, between group solidarity and independence?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Matt, the majority of folks criticizing Jenifer’s post on your blog were criticizing the confusion created by the way it was handled. It left us to wonder what pressure you were under, so this post was important.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I don’t quite understand what all the snarky commentary is about. Matt, shockingly, has bosses. Everyone does, even journalist/commentators who are independent. Those bosses have the right to note occasionally that Matt’s ramblings/views are not representative of the entire organization.
If you think that CAP/TP/whoever is somehow overlording their blog content and trying to control their bloggers, I’ve got news for you: If they were, the blogs would be a lot less robust and lively. Reviewing and editing, even blog posts, takes time. You can claim that TP/CAP has sacrificed editorial independence, but it’s not true.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
So who made this decision, Matt? Did you choose put it up or did Palmieri decide to write a guest post? Or did you put it up because she decided to write it? This seems to cut to the very heart of your editorial independence.
Neither of them can credibly answer that now.
But if you haven’t figured it out, it’s not particularly difficult to deduce.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
In retrospect, it should have been obvious that Matt typed the “This is Jennifer Palmieri” line, since it contained the “Progess” typo.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Has this made you rethink that to any degree? Are there ways in which you battle conflicting priorities, between group solidarity and independence?
I would say that I think a lot of people in journalism are somewhat full of shit when they talk about how much independence they have. Especially in a blogging context. I never had a situation at The Atlantic where someone told me not to say something. But at the same time, I used common sense and good judgment and avoided really ripping into decisions made by editors at The Atlantic and other Atlantic Media Company publications.
Or notice that every liberal blogger — but not Paul Krugman — on the planet has talked about how reprehensible it was of the New York Times to hire Bill Kristol. This is life.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
What the fuck is wrong with you people? How stock did you put in Matt’s “independence” anyway?
He’s a smart young guy working in politics in DC who has an opinion blog. If his opinions aren’t bought and paid for, they are almost certainly strongly influenced by whoever he happens to be listening to on a given issue. He blogs prolifically about issues we all care about, and then we actually have a forum for offering our own opinions. Jesus, H. Christ, it’s not like the NYTime having firsthand knowledge about warrantless wiretapping and keeping it secret for a year so as not to influence an election.
Oh ,and on a related note: there is no Santa Claus. Time to grow up, children.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Okay, this should settle things:
And there you have it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I for one have a devil of a time keeping straight whose opinions are whose and whose opinions are being expressed when opinions are being expressed when opining takes place. Perhaps the tech guys could come up with a footnoting system to identify each opinion expressed, whose opinion it is and who is expressing it.
For example, I don’t know whose opinion this is:
Taking a guess: is this Jennifer Palmieri’s opinion as expressed by Matthew Yglesias?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“you please do something to make the endless whining in your comments section stop?
I’m not sure what I can do.”
Tell them to fuck off, and start their own goddamn blogs, if their fragile trust has been so irrevocably destroyed. They are ruining this blog faster than any perception that your editorial independence has been compromised.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
We should have known you posted it from the typo, but it was too funny to assume she did, with a typo.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
tempest in a tea-pot, folks.
this is an entirely trivial affair, which tells us some things about the third way people (thin-skinned whiners), and some things about a lot of yglesias’ commentariat (prone to hysteria), but nothing about matt himself.
matt, keep writing good content and don’t worry about the other nonsense. this will all be over in a day or two.
honestly–this is not the progressive commentariat’s finest moment. remember when we discussed things like, how to keep the republicans from fucking up the country?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Kid, stop concern-trolling.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Wow, Matt.
This has turned into an incredibly big deal and it really comes to an issue of formatting. If you would have quoted Jennifer’s post and gave it a little intro we all would have been fine.
Interesting lesson on how a little bit of forethought could have prevented a whole lot of drama.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Glenn shouldn’t be lording over Matt like that anyway, I thought that was pretty tasteless, and should have been shared privately, not publicly. Noone should ever assume the situation they have is what someone else wants, then publicly describe why that situation is so much better, without even having talked to the guy privately first, to see if he really gives a shit, or if that really is what he wants, especially in such a trivial case as this, despite the comment thread conniptions.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Thanks for that reply, Matt.
I suspect some of the dismay that’s been voiced over the past few days comes from seeing the sausages get made - we’re all aware of the various influences, implicit or overt, exercised on opinion journalists, but we don’t generally get to see them at work in such an explicit fashion. Witnessing that forces us to shed cherished illusions - that our favorite pundits operate in a vacuum - and confront the reality that they all operate under some set of constrictions.
But I would like to point out one subtle distinction. You didn’t criticize anyone at CAP/AF. You leveled your broadside at Third Way. I know that people tend not to criticize the institutions that employ them, or their colleagues; I take that into account when I read their opinions. But the thought that people might be constrained from criticizing institutions or figures who are indirectly tied to/allied with their institutions, that’s more troubling. I don’t know how to take that into account.
After this kerfuffle, I’m reasonably confident that Palmieri won’t be taking any of her bloggers to task in public again. But I have less confidence that she won’t do so in private. I’d like to see her make a public statement, acknowledging that she was out of line here, and committing to preserving the editorial independence of those who work for her.
Why would she do that? Let’s put it this way. She’s in line to be Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs over at DoD. If she doesn’t put out this fire, she’d be a controversial pick. And her talents aren’t such that there aren’t a host of credible alternate candidates. Turning a minor spat into a much-noticed crisis is hardly a confidence-inspiring move. Let’s see if she can undo some of the damage she’s done. I suspect that we’re not the only ones watching.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Matt,
Since you seem to be responding more than usual to the comments in this post, I’d like to ask a completely unrelated question:
What’s the deal with commenters never failing to mention that you backed the war, and you implying that you didn’t? I tried to find archives elsewhere but could not. I’m not looking to string you up or anything, just curious.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Matt,
If Think Progress and Third Way are collaborating on Homeland Security, does this mean that Think Progress supports retroactive immunity for telecoms?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
i’m puzzled, walt; i’m not sure how you’re using the term.
i remember when it used to be applied to people who said, e.g. “if we use bad words on blogs, then joe america will be shocked, and democrats will lose!”
that is, i associate concern-trolling with an excessive (or feigned) sensitivity to the opinions of the wider world, and the suggestion that bloggers (or commenters) should self-censor so as to manage that opinion.
i’m not doing that here–i’m not worried about offending anyone, i just think the communal freak-out today has been silly and hysterical.
so maybe you’re using the charge of ‘concern-trolling’ differently?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
This was blown out of proportion by commenters’ outsized feelings of ownership over what goes on here. Even if we stipulate the most sinister version, which Matt has pretty conclusively debunked, we’re just onlookers even if we imagine that we’re something more. As Coates likes to say, if you have grandiose notions of yourself as a commenter, get your own blog.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Why would she do that? Let’s put it this way. She’s in line to be Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs over at DoD. If she doesn’t put out this fire, she’d be a controversial pick.
This just might be the funniest thing I have ever read on the internet.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Once again, Matt, grow some balls, dump the institutional clowns, work for yourself, host your own blog, and build it up like everybody else who’s big in blogging.
It’s not like the bandwidth and disk space will drive you into bankruptcy even in this economy.
You’ve got enough loyal readers - even ones who think you’ll mostly full of it, like me - to make your own blog work on ad revenue.
Especially if you really are a trust-fund scumbag.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I don’t think this is trivial, at all. But it’s also “not a big deal” if you consider that all mainstream journalists, as a practical matter, must consider whether it’s worth leaving a mark, of varying degrees, on the hand that feeds them. It’s in the nature of earning a living and facing the prospect of one day earning a better living. Hopefully you find a boss who shares your values, which allows you to get as close as possible to having the freedom to post whatever you want. But every boss, no matter who it is, has an ego.
The alternative to this psychological equation is living in someone’s basement and hoping to gain enough ad revenue to pay for your connection, potato chips, and tuna fish out of a can. But who but the most pure of souls is remotely interested in that kind of lifestyle.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
but nothing about matt himself.
I can’t agree, kid bitzer. I agree there is no reason to blow this all out of proportion, but this was amateur hour from top to bottom. It’s not such a big deal, but she shouldn’t have asked to post her content under his heading, he shouldn’t have agreed. There would have been many better ways to handle it.
The surprising thing isn’t the content, or even the idea that they might have pushback over content someone like Matt posts (duh). The surprise is that neither Jennifer nor Matt nor anyone else involved at TP seems to have understood why this was a bad idea, or how they should have gone about it. More than anything else, it’s a credibility hit for people who are supposedly savvy about online content.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
remember when we discussed things like, how to keep the republicans from fucking up the country?
But Republicans are not in charge anymore (by the way, ThinkProgress, I don’t need clips of those clowns like Rove or Bolton anymore, thank you, they are irrelevant now). Opposing Republicans means nothing now, since even conservatives themselves don’t know what they are for or against.
But at the same time, I used common sense and good judgment and avoided really ripping into decisions made by editors at The Atlantic and other Atlantic Media Company publications.
There is a big difference between the mighty “Atlantic Media Company” and an alliance between the CAP, the Democratic Party, the Obama transition team, Third Way and God knows what else. Conflicts of interest are much bigger in a pseudo-governmental or corporate-controlled media.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
glad to hear that the thought police have not taken over your blog. Thanks for all of the great insight.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The word “credibility” gets thrown around very casually nowadays.
Matt’s posts are interesting, introspective, and entirely original. As long as he keeps them coming he will have his readers.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
good enuf Matt.
and some of the commenters here really need to get a(nother) hobby. i think we have established that MY is not the Magical Pony of the Blogosphere. things aren’t perfect in leftish DC or in the leftish-blogosphere. you read his take. if you like MY and still respect him, read him. if not, don’t. sounds like that’s where he’s at. and he’s not too interested in taking comment-by-comment criticism and responding to each one’s personal gold standard for ethical journalism. nor would i be.
next issue, please.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Indeed, I just picked myself up off the floor after that one, almost breaking a rib, was wondering if anyone was catching that.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Well then, Willie, you need to spend a little more time websurfing.
I’m not suggesting that some Senator is going to grill Palmieri on l’Affaire Yglesias. Certainly not. But I do think that the whole incident undermines, perhaps fatally, the rationale for giving her the job in the first place. The OASD(PA) is the Pentagon’s top public affairs person. They’re supposed to orchestrate the entire department’s release of public information. Palmieri is making a bid for the job as a savvy, seasoned pro.
This mess makes her look decidedly behind the curve. She did well in the Clinton years. Her time at CAP/AF was supposed to have burnished her resume, demonstrating that she’s still up-to-the-minute. But instead, she suddenly looks amateurish, defensive, and petty.
Think no one’s going to notice? Then you’re naive. I guarantee you that Podesta is mightily pissed about this. It’s attention he didn’t want, over an issue he didn’t court, at a time he doesn’t need it. And he’s her ticket in. My bet is that she has to make this right if she wants that plum job. And so far, she’s been a spectacular failure.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
On this issue cynic is right. The person damaged most by this is Palmieri.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I think Palmieri’s post on MY’s blog was way out of line
Ther is always a tension between news/opinion versus public relations in any publication that is sponsored by an organization whose major purpose is not publishing that publication. For instance, the house organs of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) or the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
Palmieri’s post made it clear to me at least that CAP views the blogs more as p.r. vehicles than as news and opinion publications. That’s a shame because while I often disagree with MY, he deserves way better than to be turned into a p.r. flack at his tender age.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I’m just happy that you recognize that it could have been handled better. As far as the folks here going on about loss of credibility and all of that, I just find that a bit strange.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
myglesias Says:
Matt: the fancy new “this is really the blogger himself commenting” protocol isn’t working, or else the several comments by you (at least they seem like they’re really by you) are impostors.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The idea that this was a “guest blog post” and not the management’s public statement to appease Third Way is insulting to your readers’ intelligence, Matt.
We know what guest posts are, and so do you, and this wasn’t anything like one of those.
If Third Way wanted to respond to your characterization, they could have written their own reply, which you could have linked to or reposted here.
The fact that they didn’t — that they went to CAP and put pressure on Jennifer to put pressure on you — says a lot about that organization, and none of it is good.
CAP’s bowing to their demands also looks shitty. If they really want to get their message out, they should start their own damn blog and have an argument with you, or buy a blog ad, or something.
Jennifer’s post (or Matt’s, or Third Way’s, or whoever) was not a reasoned rebuttal of your post, Matt. It was a public scolding because you gored the wrong sacred cow, and calling it a “guest post” is an insult to real guest bloggers, who often write amazing posts.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
The important thing Matt, is that you self-censor without the big bosses having to step in and do it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
What’s the deal with commenters never failing to mention that you backed the war, and you implying that you didn’t? I tried to find archives elsewhere but could not. I’m not looking to string you up or anything, just curious.
Well, I don’t want to go into detail about my views on the war since that’s a whole other messy comment thread, but yeah I was basically for the war. All I’ve ever tried to imply about that for the past five years or so was that that was a mistake.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I didn’t know that Think Progress was affiliated with CAP. I never valued the site enough to visit often. Now that I know of the relationship, I’ll simply delete it from my bookmarks and read the many other blogs with progressive conventional wisdom similar to Matt’s.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for the clarification.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
The bored, slightly patronizing tone I could live without.
Dude, did you read even a small fraction of the hysterical, melodramatic comments intoning that, because an editor was an idiot, “I can never know what Matt thinks anymore and now I must stop reading this blog!”?
The fact that Matt’s tone was merely bored and patronizing rather than outright mocking is a gesture of remarkable restraint on his part.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Mr Yglesias, on behalf of the thousands of human beings maimed and killed and displaced from their homes i the war, I want to express our gratitude for your acknowledgment of your “mistake.”We understand the pressure you were under. You were blogging at the Atlantic at the time and as a progressive voice, of course you would side with Bush and Cheney and other progressives in demanding that we go to war. After all Saddam had the bomb! Saddam implemented 9-11! No hard feeling.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Jasper, try a shift-reload, or clear your cache. You probably have the old stylesheet cached, so the color background isn’t showing up.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I finding myself thinking this is a tiny little deal we’ll all have forgotten about by lunch tomorrow, and thinking that it’s kind of a big deal. But there are two kinds of bloggers: truly independent bloggers who are reputed to say what they think, and movement types who serve masters and either are known to succumb to pressure, or to at least have pressure applied to them.
The only asset MY has is his reputation and this episode, and his weak-kneed response to it, undermines his reputation to a certain extent.
I think if I were in Matt’s shoes, I’d find another place to blog. CAP will retain its important alliance with Third Way and will suffer no more unpleasant phone calls, and Matt will have full independence from the demands of movement organs whose commitment to editorial independence is not primary.
And no, I don’t think the fact that Matt’s original post is still up fully absolves CAP from infringing on his editorial independence. I’m a Corporate Guy and 99% of the time, reprimands and warnings come in the form of tart comments made in public by one’s superiors. We all know precisely what they mean.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Matt, I love you man, but your commenters must be the most anal retentive, emotionally fragile wankers in the world. Can you please do something to make the endless whining in your comments section stop?
LOL! I agree with WillieStyle…
If you like what Matt has to say, read it, otherwise don’t. If Matt’s boss feels the need to chime in to say how independent he is, I don’t care much.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
As others have said, more than anything else, this makes Palmieri look incompetent. Angling for a job in the Pentagon may have made her more sensitive, but it’s still dumb. But then, if we want incompetence anywhere in government, the Pentagon’s press office seems like the best place. There’s way too much spin, conventional wisdom and Orwellianisms coming from there as it is.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
He fisked himself. Sort of a blog version of an Escher drawing.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Jasper, try a shift-reload, or clear your cache. You probably have the old stylesheet cached, so the color background isn’t showing up.
No, perhaps weirdly, #104 shows up in full color, but not the others. Strange. Certainly won’t lose sleep over it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Jasper, try a shift-reload, or clear your cache. You probably have the old stylesheet cached, so the color background isn’t showing up.
K. Now it’s working. Just call me the antigeek.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Faiz Shakir admitted that Jennifer Palmieri did indeed make the post because the Third Way complained and asked for a clarification.
the reason and the way it was handled and your reaction to it isn’t exactly building confidence in Palmieri.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
> I don’t think this is trivial, at all. But it’s
> also “not a big deal” if you consider that all
> mainstream journalists, as a practical matter,
> must consider whether it’s worth leaving a mark,
> of varying degrees, on the hand that feeds them.
The point (which I am sure Mr. Yglesias is well aware of) is that he did not, in his initial post, leave any sort of “mark” on his /employer’s/ hand. Suddenly Third Way, a DLC-affiliated Big Dollar Democratic (sic) organization, appeared out of nowhere and demanded a retraction. Given (a) TP’s close association with the Obama transition team (b) Obama’s previous statement that he was not a member of the DLC, that is significant.
Cranky
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Suddenly Third Way, a DLC-affiliated Big Dollar Democratic (sic) organization, appeared out of nowhere and demanded a retraction.
To be clear, they’re not DLC-affiliated at all. They’re a competitor to the DLC in terms of poaching DLCish donors. Nobody hates Third Way quite like the DLC does — basically, they’re beating them at their own game.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Matt,
The human mind is infinitely flexible and capable of justifying anything it wants to. To wit, your apology for Palmieri’s post and it’s tacit display of your desperate desire to maintain this blog. If the powers that be really need a disclaimer, it could have been easily put in a one liner at the bottom, and then made standard across the website for nonmember bloggers. For the CEO to stick a full paragraph at the top of yours is more than insulting to you and her own organization. It’s called groveling to outsiders and what they represent. And it’s now matched by yours. And the situation won’t get better, as these sorts of things are inevitably slippery slopes. It’s apparent that you would rather accept public humiliation, now insitutionalized as a standing, than tand up yourself. But then, having seen what you wrote on TPM, I can’t say I’m surprised.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Now that we know that Matt Y. doesn’t mind the Jennifer Palmieri shaped boot print across his forehead, we can rest peacefully knowing the world is back in its proper place.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Matt, it may be hard to figure out exactly where you fit in the political spectrum, but that’s not the case with CAP. You’re using their real estate and sooner or later, if you stray too far from their party line, as you just did, they’re going to push you out or ask you to jump. It’s naive and immature to think otherwise. We are, after all, talking about those wonderful folks who brought us political correctness.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
> It’s called groveling to outsiders and what
> they represent.
The point still is that Third Way turned out not to be outsiders; they turned out to be intertwined with Think Progress. I fully understand that powerful people will do whatever they need to do to maintain their power and influence, and there are plenty of powerful people among the Washington DC Democratic Party insiders. Also plenty of DINOs. It still rankles a bit. Ah well, we’ll get used to it.
Cranky
How about that telecom immunity (ex post facto justification for lawbreaking), eh?
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I am completely satisfied with Matt’s explanation.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
aww what a bummer. We want controversy!
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I am disappointed with Palmieri’s intrusive post, and now your efforts at rationalisation. Palmieri could have made her point in a separate CAP contribution. Don’t get me wrong. You and Palmieri may have worked this out. But this issue gives off bad vibes. The Third Way: who the hell cares? or the Fourth Way for that matter.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
it’s not as if the senior management is leaning over my shoulder censoring every posts.
They certainly aren’t proofreading them, either.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Matt, this is a very disappointing, timid, incrementalist, bullshit explanation. Where’s the fire in your gut? If you can’t get pissed off at a pushy boss marginalizing your work and throwing her weight around where it doesn’t belong, then you’ve become the very pansy blogger you used to detest. How do you expect other people to respect your opinion if you don’t even respect yourself enough to tell your boss to stick it? And worse, make excuses for your boss and then pretend it’s all okay. Well, it’s not okay, and you need to wake up, dude, before you become completely domesticated.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I’m sorry, but between the ridiculous blogtrusion by Palmieri and this half-assed cover by Yglesias and this bizarrely delayed response, I’m going to have a pretty hard time reading this blog without imagining someone standing behind Matt cracking a whip and yelling “Dance monkey, DANCE!!!”.
Hopefully that’s just me.
Of course, if I were the acting CEO, I would only feel the need to blogtrude when Matt makes an NBA post. But only because his basketball knowledge is rather poor.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
How do you expect other people to respect your opinion if you don’t even respect yourself enough to tell your boss to stick it? And worse, make excuses for your boss and then pretend it’s all okay.
How do you know he didn’t? tell them to stick it? And why isn’t it okay for Matt to work for someone who doesn’t always agree with him, and occasionally makes this disagreement public? Where’s the “making excuses” part — I don’t see it. Seems to me open disclosure such as this (ideally handled a bit more gracefully next time) ought to make his readers more confident that Matt’s voice is truly independent — better a public Palmieri smack down than a private warning for him to never mention this or that.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
So bottom line: if this is such a trivial and unimportant matter, why did (1) Third Way get on the phone on a Sunday to the CEO to demand a retraction (2) Think Progress comply? That seems like a lot of effort for a post which garnered 14 comments and which Matt could have followed up on on Monday with a “hey the boss is a bit annoyed” post to a bigger audience. Why the need for emergency action?
Cranky
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Seconded. This stinks all to hell…
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Yeah, and while we’re all complaining, where’s that NBA thread anyway? Haven’t seen one in days and days. What’s up with that? Jennifer into the NFL?
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
People should settle down. Matt gets a paycheck and the last time I checked his employer had no policy of tenure - or a union contract that could give its bloggers real freedom of action to do their jobs best.
So you saw into the sausage factory for a moment, and it’s a little nasty. But you’re getting good sausage! Personally, I’m not interested in only reading posts by independently wealthy people who can be dilletante activists until they get tired or annoyed.
CAP’s going to be biased to donors and institutions with fat wallets. That came into view for a moment - Sacre bleu! We find out that Yglesias, who writes a left-center blog for a beltway institution, is being managed! The horror, the horror!
None of this means CAP isn’t doing good work. Keep it up CAPsters - and lesson learned that appearances matter. But we gotta keep it all in perspective: it’s the product that mostly matters, not the process. Sheesh.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Good work, Mr. Yglesias. Please keep it up. I’m on the other side of the political fence from you, but I’ve seen your work and know you’re doing it well.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
You’re own peculiar fetishes really have no place in this discussion.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
How do you know he didn’t? tell them to stick it? And why isn’t it okay for Matt to work for someone who doesn’t always agree with him, and occasionally makes this disagreement public?
I know he didn’t tell them to stick it because he admitted as much, and even posted JP’s comment himself, without complaint. If he’d actually stuck it to her, the comment would not have appeared at all, because he’d have threatened to quit if they insisted on it, and he could have said so immediately afterwards, by actually sticking it to her. He could have told her it’s fine to disagree with him, but post her disagreements somewhere else, not on his blog. She could have written a comment to his original post, as the rest of us do when we disagree with Matt, rather than take over his blog for some pussy-whipping self-serving public announcement.
Seems to me open disclosure such as this (ideally handled a bit more gracefully next time) ought to make his readers more confident that Matt’s voice is truly independent — better a public Palmieri smack down than a private warning for him to never mention this or that.”
I would agree if Matt had delivered the public smackdown of Palmieri, rather than his readers. Instead, Matt publically defends Palmieri, and smackdowns his readers. That is a really pathetic case of Stockholm Syndrome. As it stands, I have no sense whatsoever that Matt is actually an independent voice, in that he is able to internalize his overlord’s wishes to such a degree that he actually defends them, rather than smacks them down as they deserve, and doesn’t even seem to grasp what he’s done to himself in the process.
This is how hacks are born, one little intrusion at a time, so that the hack still thinks its his own free will he’s exercising, that hackery is actually the fulfillment of his freedom, rather than it’s opposite. As Guiliani says, freedom requires authority. Matt is slowly adapting to that “reality”.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Wow, I picked a great day to go out and do something productive. I’m glad .0000003% of the human population got into a tizzy about this. Seems a little overkill for such a absent-minded mistake. Unintended positive consequence - Increased traffic!
MY, enjoy a beer tonight.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
If nothing else, this incident is going to make me pay a bit more attention to the machinations at DC progressive think tanks and policy shops, to find out what I can about funding, influence and insider pipelines, and be even more attentive than before to the distinction between straight talk and managed messaging and “policy products”. It reminds me once again why I despise politics, even though I love arguing about the issues that politics deals with. I don’t understand how all those people in politics can keep their sanity working in the middle of a constant BS storm.
I feel bad for Matt, because his boss flat out embarrassed him. And the embarrassment was for nothing he did wrong, or for which he deserved to be embarrassed. It certainly looks like he was instructed either to issue the “clarifying” statement himself, or to allow Jennifer Palmieri to guest post one of her own. Either way, he was bound to look like a putz, or a child being called out publicly by mom for smashing the neighbor’s pumpkin. He chose the second option, but it was a lose-lose situation.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“So you saw into the sausage factory for a moment, and it’s a little nasty. But you’re getting good sausage!…But we gotta keep it all in perspective: it’s the product that mostly matters, not the process.”
Process does matter, because a corrupt process produces a corrupt product. Be reminded who coined the “sausage” analogy in politics - Bismark. The process he was defending was anti-democratic, nilitaristic monarchism intruding upon his weak legislature’s attempt to create laws. The product this process produced was similarly tainted, and led to international disaster of unprecedented proprortions.
So Matt is the timid legislative body that allowed his Bismarkian boss to push him around, and even defend being pushed around, as if it doesn’t matter, because look what wonderful sausage comes out the end! Well, Matt’s post here is not good sausage, and if his blog has to march lockstep with his goose-stepping bosses at CAP, well, that’s not going to produce much that trustworthy in the future. When I open a sausage, and shit comes pouring out, I am not likely to buy that brand of sausage in the future. That’s what reading these posts by Matt and his boss have been like. If he can’t stand up to her this time, and even defends his boss, why shoud I imagine he’ll stand up to her next time, or even dare to oppose her views to begin with? If a sausage maker denies that it put shit in your sausage, when you see shit right in front of you, why would you imagine that wouldn’t do it again? I would imagine quite the opposite, to be perfect rational about it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Kiss the knout, dude.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
The sun has risen and fallen since first I was taken away from my home. I do not know how long I will be in captivity, but I have resolved that no matter how long it is, no matter what, I will keep track of the days. I have no concrete, rational impetus for doing this. But it seems important nonetheless. Somehow I believe that if I know what day it is, all hope is not yet lost.
I try to hold before my mind’s eye an image of Matt. Does he feel as lost without me as I do without him? For both our sakes I pray this nightmare is over soon.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I read Glenn’s post (well, an update really) as an appreciation of Salon. My comment including the above quote perhaps wasn’t as nice as I now would wish. I think this situation is interesting from another angle however. Had this been an issue that had taken place with someone within more mainstream media, I think the hounds would have been unleashed on the offender(s) by the liberal blogosphere without remorse. As it is, MY is very well liked and a longstanding member of progressive/liberal blogland. I think he was cut some slack in tone and perhaps content as well by many other bloggers who otherwise would have hit very hard. But, that’s how things work. We don’t know we’re on the inside till we’ve been in it for a while - if then. Perhaps MY and his peers are now mainstream blogosphere inhabitants. Not that that’s bad I guess. The Clash got co-opted too! Hey, I’m old.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
>The bored, slightly patronizing tone I could live without.
>>Dude, did you read even a small fraction of the hysterical, >>melodramatic comments intoning that, because an editor was an >>idiot, “I can never know what Matt thinks anymore and now I >>must stop reading this blog!”?
Yeah. I wrote one of them. I’m not sure why I’m still reading
this blog, actually.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
this is an adequate explanation from Matt. It doesn’t really address all the questions one might ask of Palmieri or Third Way, of course, but in my view that isn’t Matt’s responsibility.
Yep.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I think I’m now comfortable with what happened.
Matt’s post here isn’t really perfect or sufficient, but it is sincere, honest and realistic, three qualities which, had they been on display yesterday and last night, none of this would have happened.
And the Third Way is sufficiently skull-fucked by this incident that I doubt it’ll happen again. Their caterwauling - presumably, since no other explanation appears plausible - drew far more attention to Matt’s essentially accurate assessment of the quality of their “work product,” and the controversy is no doubt why Matt is making subsequent posts about the Third Way that, you know, people are actually going to pay attention to.
Because of this incident, I’ll remember Matt Yglesias as probably too complacent for his own good, but it’s nonsense to suggest that his credibility is impaired to the point that I wouldn’t be caught dead reading his blog.
And because of this incident, I’ll remember the Third Way not only as sponsors of hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit, but also as a bunch of caterwauling crybabies.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Wow, over here on Earth 616, the original post is still available, and Yglesias didn’t publish a tearful apology, but merely a disclaimer that his opinions are his own from his boss, which reflected more upon her and Third Way than it did him. I feel bad for all of you trapped on Earth WTF, where MY was invisibly censored, or whatever the hell it is you’re still pissing and moaning about.
I’m vaguely remembering something about a door and an ass. Guess I’ll have to Google for it later.
(Speaking of Google, they seem to have already picked up “incrementalist bullshit” signal.)
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
1.
Faiz Shakir Says:
#35, I agree with you. We could have done it better, and we do apologize for that.
A real apology as opposed to a fake one would have been nice.
2. So Matt, which other middle of the road Dems are you (or your higher ups) going to write disclaimers for in the future?
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
You guys have strange priorities. Dick Cheney scraps about 4 out of 10 of the Bill of Rights and it rolls over you like a cool summer breeze.
Steal $3 Trillion from Social Security and gives it to the richest fuckers on the planet — not a fucking peep.
SOmeone named Jennifer posts a clarification on a chickenshit matter and suddenly you are all warriors for the Truth.
There’s a hysterically funny SNL skit in here somewhere.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I wish the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening had been handled differently in a variety of ways since just sticking it on the blog and then going to bed seems to have given people a lot of misleading notions…
Come out from behind the passive voice, Matt. Do you wish that YOU had handled it differently? Then say so. If you had no choice, then say so.
It was completely predictable that an unintroduced post from your boss contradicting one of your posts would create a bad impression (nothing misleading about it whatsoever; you were being publicly rebuked on your own blog). JP did much more than just clarify that your posts reflect your own opinions rather than CAPAF’s.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Ole Bushies sodomizes you to the tune of $2 TRILLION to bail out Wall Street — and you take it on all fours in the doggy position.
Jennifer whats-her-name puts up a post of no importance –or impact — to anyone and suddenly everybody has the balls to Speak Truth to Power.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
What a truly pathetic pack of wankers. You pussies eat Karl Rove’s shit for 8 years but NOW you’re ready to march in the streets over “a Matter of Principle”. I bet no more than 1 in 400 of you has ever fired a gun.
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
FWIW, the design feature for MY comments is just dandy, and I agree with him that this is mostly overblown, something he could easily have avoided by introducing her comments as his post in the first place, but no big deal. I’m maybe a little saddened to see apologetics from an organization, CAP, not totally familiar to me, whereas I think of MY’s host as Mother Jones and thus the left. I’m definitely a little frustrated by some overly frequent posts, not allowing thinking things through, and I’m thrilled that MY wrote about working hard on a post that didn’t materialize. But honest, let’s get back to business!
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I, on the other hand, am a real man. A man who shoots guns and plenty of them and plenty often. When Rove put his shit on a plate I didn’t eat it. I fought back; I went out and shot some little animals just like a real man would. When the Bushies handed out trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street I, like a real man, did something about it; I called my congressman and told him I wouldn’t vote for him again; and then I went out and shot some more little animals. I’m a real man you wankers. A real man! And being a real man I have no time to worry about media censorship by the very types of people who facilitated the Wall Street bailout and support the Democrat’s eating of Karl Rove’s shit. I am a real man. I shooter of guns.
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Matt, thanks for the clarification: yeah, a mistake; I’ve made a few (thousand) of those myself. The response is edifying, though: the paper-skinned disappointment trolls are swarming, positively adolescent in their righteousness (or do I have that reversed?) and stuck like rutting dogs to a fallacious Just World Hypothesis. Hard to be them, hard to read them (literally and figuratively), and worst of all, welcome to the next four to eight years. Yes we cant!
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
conradg:
You are right. Sausage making is not pretty and Bismark did coin the phrase. You win the intellect contest. Much respect.
However, I don’t think you should get all wiggy just because Matt’s ultimate boss swooped in and dropped an arguably undermining comment. My boss contradicts me in public occasionally, which I don’t enjoy. Maybe I should be really tweaked out by it… but somehow, weakling that I am, I accept it.
I can see your point that process is important. Clearly that’s true. We all cherish democracy (well not all of us, but many). However, process exists for the sake of results, not for its own sake, and CAP has a mission that is bigger than ol’ Matt’s blog.
Dropping a comment like Palmieri did may be ham-handed, but Matt and CAP generally make good sausage. I like their sausage!
Matt’s right to write whatever he wants without any public rebuttal from his boss is *not* equivalent to democracy. Anyway, you get my point, I get yours, let’s agree to disagree - and stop beating this dead horse (doh!).
ps Third Way does suck - they’re corporatist be-atches that want to crush what’s left of the regulatory state and the safety net. You wuz right to call ‘em punks Matt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The pod people have taken over this blog… they’re coming to your town soon.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Right, Don. Nobody in the whole left/liberal commentariat ever uttered a peep against Cheney’s savaging of the Constitution, or Rove, or whatever your meds are singing to you about as they wear off. Not even on those blogs Cheney and Rove helpfully keep so they can get feedback directly from the public.
Why don’t you and Hack start a group blog where you just talk to each other?
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I couldn’t read every comment but wow what a bunch of drama. Shows how much desperate hope is channeled through here. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
matt,
the best thing about days like today are that they are over. celebrate the festival of lights, have a drink, & go to bed. There are blogs to write tomorrow…
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
Why isn’t Palmieri doing all this public explaining of what happened and why? She’s the one who did the shockingly inappropriate thing, not Matt. Matt may have made the mistake of posting Palmieri’s “editorial comments” as if it was directly from her rather than him posting it for her, but she was the one who made him do it, or put him in a position where he felt he had to do it. It’s abundantly clear by now that 99.99 percent of the readers and other bloggers reacting to this incident all agree that muscling onto Matt’s blog to disavow one of his posts was really, really a bad thing to do.
Why should Matt be the one to hang twisting the wind while Palmieri hides in her office?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 am
Hugh,
The Clash got co-opted? When did THAT happen?
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 am
wow.. MY .. with a cadre of admirers like this ..who needs detractors ..eh ??
this whole mess is a most curious hairball.. AAMOF .. it’s the only “interesting” subject i’ve ever read where you’ve been involved … [wink] you betcha .. also …
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:40 am
Kathy,
When they began doing extended dance mixes. I know. Sad.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 am
Why should Matt be the one to hang twisting [in - sic] the wind while Palmieri hides in her office?
Well that’s simple math. Because Matt is the bottom in this relationship.
Heh.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:42 am
So what you are saying, Matt, is Jennifer is stating a longstanding, reasonable, and indeed, beneficial policy that allows you to be all the blogger we would want you to be and places CAP at the forefront of progressive institutions in their relationship with blogs.
Boy, that pisses me off. Please take me off you list. I’m not your friend anymore. I’m off to RedState.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
I’m back. It’s a jungle out there. RedState was….well let’s just say they didn’t seem happy. I hope you didn’t take me off your list. Would you tell Jennifer that I like her?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Taking a look at Third Way’s board members and corporate funding makes it obvious that this is no progressive group. This is a front group for big corporate and Wall Street interests. This group worked to protect telecoms that allowed the Bush administration to use them in efforts to carry out warrentless wiretapping.
Third Way seems like a group more comfortable with authoritarian behavior than progressive action. So it is no surprise that this group called on TP and CAP to stomp on a mildly critical blogger in such a heavy-handed manner.
What is surprising is that CAP and TP capitulated and, even now, are attempting to defend this capitulation. There is simply no other way to frame what has been going on in the threads related to Ms. Palmieri’s intrusive post.
What is worrisome is that CAP, a supposedly progressive outfit with ties to the transition, is teaming up with Third Way on something as important and potentially sensitive as Homeland Security. Hmm-apologists for warrentless wiretapping working on Homeland “Security”-sign me up Big Sister/Brother.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Me thinks the lady (and the gentleman)protests too much.
(Where’s the disclaimer concerning the veracity of the picture of that poor polar bear drowning in our nation’s capital?)
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Long time reader, occasional commenter. This is a much smaller deal than it might seem right now. It will not have a significant impact on the sum total of your readership, or on your reputation. Don’t let this bum you out over the holidays.
I thought it was pretty touching that so many folks were outraged over Palmieri’s post, and, after last night’s barrage, I figured that higher ups at CAP would leave your blog alone. However, by turning on you and refusing to accept your calls for peace (or, to put it another way, refusing to take “yes” for an answer), your commenters are putting you in a weakened position when it comes to disagreeing with CAP partners. If you can’t call off the dogs, you better not unleash them.
There’s a self-immolating tendency amongst liberals, and here it seems like the only acceptable outcome for many of the folks who have taken the time to comment is for you to quit your job. This is pretty stupid. For a group of people who are proud of their opposition to escalation with respect to Iraq, liberals sure are bad at de-escalation of petty workplace problems.
Seriously, enjoy the holidays. I look forward to reading your blog in the future.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Danathan:
pretty stupid, self-immolating group of people
is how I’d define the opposition to escalation with respect to Iraq.
Merry Christmas.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Pete,
We all cherish democracy (well not all of us, but many). However, process exists for the sake of results, not for its own sake, and CAP has a mission that is bigger than ol’ Matt’s blog.
But isn’t that exactly the point? Matt’s journalistic independence and integrity is being subsumed by CAP’s “bigger mission”. If even Matt’s defenders admit that he is now obligated to “play for the team”, and sacrifice his own views for the sake of “the mission”, well, isn’t that exactly what we should come to expect?
This isn’t a problem, I guess, for those who read Matt’s blog because they want to advance CAP’s and ThinkProgress’ political agenda, and who see Matt’s blog as merely a useful cog in that machine. But those of us who have been reading Matt’s blog for a longer time, before he joined TP, and who valued his independence and integrity, even his ability to be critical of his own political allies, are feeling a bit different. Sullivan named his “Yglesias” award for precisely the kind of commentary that his bosses at TP and CAP clearly think is inappropriate and in need of reprimanding, and he somehow is complicit in this approach.
I can only conclude that Matt has changed his approach to blogging. He nows sees his blog as part of a progressive bureacracy, rather than as an independent voice trying to advance the progressive cause as he himself sees fit, which includes criticizing the hell out of progressives or other supposedly left-groups without being concerned about the repercussions. Clearly, at TP, there are repercussions. Well, people do change, and we have to accept that. We don’t have to support it, however, and I would criticize Matt just as strongly as he has criticized Third Way or others who display the hyper-timid, incrementalist approach.
Matt is compromising his brand. What we have now is “New Coke”, a bureaucratized version of the original brand. I wondered if Matt would change following his decision to leave the Atlantic and enter the world of advocacy politics. Well, it’s now clear that he has. I’m sure those who are into that world and all its in-house fighting will welcome Matt to the team. The rest of us will mourn his loss of integrity. Frankly, I think it’s turning out to have been a mistake to have left the Atlantic. At least there he had real journalistic independence. Here, he’s a tool for a cause. Quite a downgrade, in my view, but it’s his life and he can live it any way he likes.
For my part, I’ve noticed myself being less interested in Matt’s blog since he moved to TP. I wasn’t sure why that was until now. I thought he’d gone downhill, and I didn’t know if I was just being subjective or cranky, or what, but now I know that he’s actually changed. Those who applaud that change are of course welcome to eat his sausage. I think I will simply continue to be less and less interested in politicized sausage, and eat this product less and less. It leaves a funny taste in the mouth.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Danathan:
Baloney. First of all, it was Jennifer Palmieri who “put Matt in a weakened position” by disavowing him, making it clear that he works for an organization that will not stand behind its commentators if they say things critical of another organization that happens to be a partner. One now has to wonder, what would Palmieri have done if Matt had instead been critical of CAP-AF? Second, if as seems likely this disavowal resulted because said partner org whined to Palmieri about how their feelings were hurt by the bad name Matt called them, you have to wonder how resolute CAP-AF is when it comes to speaking truth to power when they cannot even seem to screw up their courage enough to be critical of a small-potatoes org like Third Way. Thirdly, it was bush league and commenters who care about this kind of thing are going to speak up about it.
It was a mistake, and now it’s time for them to admit their mistake and take their medicine. Yes it will boil over and be mostly forgotten, but it’s a black mark on their record. If they hang someone else out to dry again, this episode will be remembered. And that’s also a good reason for the backlash.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“For one thing, if someone was leaning over my shoulder there wouldn’t be all these typos.”
If someone who knew grammar WERE leaning over your shoulder you wouldn’t have posted this mistake either.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
No one in their goddamn minds except Third Way themselves (and frankly, that explains a lot) thinks that you speak for CAP in anything remotely like official policy.
It probably would have worked out better if you’d written a post that instead said “My CEO wants me to remind you that: (herein follows the content of Palmieri’s post).”
But the larger points remain: 1) Third Way has been HARMFUL TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE COUNTRY, sometimes you have to cut a cancer out, and 2) Why in God’s name did you not address this right away? Your propensity for refusing or reluctance to engage with your readership on anything but the most top down level is extremely troubling about your priorities. That you finally did this now is good, but we shouldn’t have had to bulldoze the comments section to get it. Are you lecturing us, or are we having a conversation?
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Matt, do you really believe that the uproar over that post was in opposition to the idea that your blog posts don’t speak for CAP as a whole? I doubt that any of the hundreds of commenters who complained were really disagreeing with that; in fact, what people want is for you as a blogger to have total intellectual freedom from the institution hosting your blog. This blog post just compounds the problem by being so disingenuous about what the real issue is here.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
well said Conradg - I wasn’t much of a reader of Matt’s blogging pre-CAP. So I can’t say if it’s he’s suckier now. That’s your call.
I think two goals may come into some conflict: advacning an agenda and writing stuff that’s provocative and interesting. The two sometimes can be in conflict for someone who writes for an institution with a specific advocacy purpose. I am sure it’s a tough straddle.
In any case, I do enjoy the holidays and a little BSing. I think your comments were thoughtful and provocative. I’ve enjoyed this exchange and wish you (and Matt) all the best. Later…
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Whatever. Those of you in high dudgeon need to remember where you are - DLC headquarters, where the corporation is king. Don’t be surprised, then, when a careerist suit like Palmieri throws her back out bending over to accommodate her betters, publicly flogging the help when they get uppity.
What we learned, then, is that Palmieri is out of her depth, and that when she gets a little power, she goes all Deb Kozlowsi on Al Giordano at the erstwhile Field (look it up). That, and Matt’s probably a little too easy going for his own good.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“myglesias Says: Quite so … that’s what I should have done. But I didn’t. It was a mistake. But what can I do about it now?”
Obviously, you can demand, and get, an apology from JP to you, an apology that indicates she has some fucking clue what she’s apologizing for, and why it was a mistake that won’t be repeated.
December 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Obviously, you can demand, and get, an apology from JP to you, an apology that indicates she has some fucking clue what she’s apologizing for, and why it was a mistake that won’t be repeated.
And then the apology can be posted on this blog — as a block quote introduced by Matthew Yglesias!
December 24th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Hey, when you work with whores yøu get sluttish behavior. Just remember the golden rule, “You can’t insult a whore.”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Great site.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Nice site you have!
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:45 am
aggiungere cartelkle condivise a messenger 2090?ciao ragazzi cme va??
vi volevo chiedere, io sull mio windows xp volevo instalare ubuntu 8.10 ma nn ci riesco perch?? me serve il driver video ed io nn riesco a trovarlo per favore mi potete dire da dove si pu?? trovare grazie mileeeeeeeeeeeeee…
Chat Piemonte
____________
buon anno
March 11th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Sehr wertvolle Informationen! Empfehlen!
March 13th, 2009 at 5:42 am
phnlwdsme mejqflhxu obaye bmpjysrc ormxkt zrctjd uaye
March 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Hello everyone. The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it.
I am from Swaziland and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “For the cheapest air travel, check our website.”
Thank
Ofer.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Sorry. If the only prayer you ever say in your whole life is “thank you,” that would suffice.
I am from Guinea and also now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Com offers a unique marketplace to buy, sell or transfer cheap air tickets and other airline products.”
Thanks :D. Raffaello.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Good Day. There is still a difference between something and nothing, but it is purely geometrical and there is nothing behind the geometry.
I am from Barbados and now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Find discount coupons and deals for cheap airline travel tickets at online stores with couponmountain.”
With respect :o, Larry.