I think it's important for anyone with a voice on the internet to present all sides of an issue. In that spirit, I am posting the response I received via email from John Stamper of the Lexington Herald-Leader to the piece I wrote about censorship on blogs:
"Your post about Pol Watchers does not contain the entire thread of comments, as your blog states. If you go to the post in question, you will see that there has been no effort to eliminate comments just because they question Jonathan Miller and Mark Nickolas. Plenty of them still remain. However, as stated in my comment on Pol Watchers, we're not going to allow people to use the blog as a forum for name calling. It's that simple. Check around, it's a pretty common policy. For example, blogs at WashingtonPost.com have this policy:
'User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site.'
Further, I seriously doubt that the postings in question came from a state worker and his wife, as suggested. In fact, almost all of the comments we've gotten on Pol
Watchers about Nickolas and Miller, including the ones that I deleted, have come from the same IP address, strongly suggesting that a single person is using multiple identities in a deceptive effort to make it appear that many people are making these comments.
To reiterate, Pol Watchers welcomes comments from all points of view. Readers take us to task on a routine basis and I believe we're a better news organization because of their efforts. But calling someone a 'corrupt piece of dung' and a 'corrupt, lying, cheating, malicious creep' really serves no purpose.
Feel free to share this email with your readers if you want.
John Stamper
Frankfort Bureau Chief
Lexington
Herald-Leader"
To my readers and John: please accept my apology for not backtracking and providing the full thread of comments from Pol Watchers. I thank John for pointing this out to me. Sometimes I get in a hurry to post and don't do enough homework first.
I would like you all to see the response I sent to John. For anyone who is not a regular reader, please know that I am as open a book as they come. I will admit when I'm wrong; I will share with you my correspondence and my thought. Here is my response to John:"Thanks for writing. As you can tell by my post, I do have a problem with censorship -- here's why: the posts you delete only give more weight to the posts that were removed. When you leave them, others can decide on their legitimacy. You take away the ability for your readers to indulge in their own critical thinking. Let them evaluate the opinion and how it is presented to decide for themselves whether to take the comment seriously.
In all honesty, I leave every comment in place for that very reason. I know my readers; they are smart people who can evaluate a comment on its logic regardless of language used. I know you were probably offended at the emotional language used but isn't that what it's all about? People tend to protect their positions very emotionally. Why not surface that on your blog? Let others see the spectrum.
I think it's important for all sides to be heard. So, I will take you up on the offer to post your response on the blog. Thank you. My readers value being able to read and voice both sides of an issue and that is probably why I've reached the people I've reached so far."
To sum it all up, folks, my opinion on censorship in the new media is simple: Let your readers decide.
Comments
I would imagine, though, that such a code would eat up bandwidth. Oh well. Language filters it is, then.
My wife & I think you are intentionally NOT telling the truth. We are state workers and how dare you suggest we are not!
Secondly, Stamper needs to read up and INVESTIGATE IP addresses. My wife and I have AOL as do thousands of other computer useres. Here is what wikipedia says about AOL IP addresses when you search, (aol ip),
"AOL user cannot be uniquely identified as their IP address is shared with hundreds or thousands of other AOL users in their local area.
See, we have the SAME IP as hundreds & THOUSANDS of OTHER AOL users.
Mr. Stamper, you are not wise to not research. We are outraged at your continuous excuses for deleting our post. You are not an honest man.
My husband and I cannot begin to tell you how dishonest we think Mr. Stamper is.
Mr. Stamper is being deceitful while covering up and making up false claims with no facts and no data to back up his unwarranted accusations that we are a) not state workers, and b) the only posters complaining about Miller & Nickolas because we share an IP with HUNDREDS & THOUSANDS of aol users?!?! What a deceitful thing for Mr. Stamper to say. (If he is going to manage a blog he should catch up on computer technology.)
When the press and the government brainwash employees and then DISALLOW comments, for whatever reason, from those employees that is TYRANNY.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Stamper WILL not post comments that illustrate state workers are outraged that Miller & Nickolas try to use us as pliable, ignorant pawns when Miller SECRETLY has a lobbying website whose "target audience" is state government workers and which makes up lies about candidates for office to lose the vote for that candidate.
Instead of deleting our posts, Mr. Stamper could have SIMPLY written disclaimer stating that he does not know if we are state workers and he cannot possibly verify if all posts complaining about Miller & Nickolas are the same person because IP numbers are NOT unique to computers.
Mr. Stamper refuses to do the job of the PRESS and PRESS Jonathan Miller with the much needed questions that should absolutely be asked of him especially since he is running for governor. As a result of Stamper's refusal to question Jonathan Miller, Stamper would rather denigrate my husband and me to make us look like WE have done something wrong. Stamper is keeping the same STYLE of falsely accusing someone as Mark Nickolas does.
PS. Please don't delete us because my husand and I share the same IP. Thank you.
Mr. Stamper needs to STOP trying to shine a light on the wrong group of people.
The question isn't if all comments on Pol Watchers are from the same person or group of people sharing a computer or sharing the same anything.
The question is, Treasurer Miller hid and kept secret his association with the blog FOR A REASON.
Why did Treasurer Miller hide his association with the blog and has Miller spent any money (his own or tax money) to further the blog's ability to reach it's target audience and "condition" state worker's on "state policy." Has Mr. Miller used this blog to further his political career and agenda. The posters, whether they are many or few is irrelevant.
I don't care whose who in the comment section. I care if my elected Treasurer is protecting my tax money and if he is involved in corrupt business dealings.
For the sake of argument let's assume you are correct and that all the complaints about the Kentucky Treasurer's secret dealings with BGR are all from the same computer.
Ok. So what? Now that we have answered that nonessential question.
Mr. Stamper, Can you now focus your reporter's eye on the legitimate question, "Is State Treasurer Jonathan Miller violating the trust of the people and/or sections of the Kentucky Constitution by quietly supporting a political blog which he envisioned and created?"
I did not write the posts pretending to be a state worker. I can only assume that whoever wrote, ARE most likely insulted state workers. I think their posts, reprinted on Dawn's blog, speak VOLUMES and for themselves.
Now, Mr. Stamper can put that to rest. I posted the questions, and I did NOT post as a state worker. I just kind of doubt if the IP numbers from my questions are the same as the state worker's because I don't know who they are and I posted my questions from my friend's home and no one living there is a state worker.
Mr. Stamper can you now do as the poster above this suggested and get to the nitty gritty and finally focus your reporter's eye on the legitimate question, "Is State Treasurer Jonathan Miller violating the trust of the people and/or sections of the Kentucky Constitution by quietly supporting a political blog which he envisioned and created?"
The ball is rolling. I was not kidding when I told Mr. Stamper that I sent all the deleted information to members of Congress, House & Senate.
I am not stopping there. I may be some dumb, pliable state worker in the eyes of the ivy league educated Jonathan Miller and his imposter, who did NOT graduate from Berkeley, Mark Nickolas. However, I too am an ivy league grad., Cornell University. Mr. Miller had no idea that his stunts and those of Nickolas and Stamper would provoke me to contact a dear friend of mine. A friend who is "very connected" with Mitch McConnell and all republican elected officials.
Yup, I'm a GOP.
All state legislators will be hearing about this political manipulative blog of Miller's that is designed SOLELY to sway my vote and all it's "target audience's" vote. Mr. Miller IS in violation of Ky. Constitution if he donated as much as 1 cent to the blog designed to SWAY A VOTE.
He did not start your average blog, he started a blog that is designed to sway MY VOTE and all who it read it, their votes.
Mr. Miller is prohibited from donating ANY MONEY, private or otherwise to a blog or any corporation whose intent is to SWAY VOTES. The blog is incorporated and in court documents admits that its major purpose is INFLUENCE state policy.
Mr. Miller, you done misread your "target audience."
The blog Miller started is not just your ordinary, run of the mill political blog. It is a political blog that admits in court documents that its major purpose is to "INFLUENCE STATE POLICY." Which translates into "influence the elections for voters and their support in legislation." Not only that but the blog itself tries to "influence" elections by telling readers (voters) which candidate to donate money to and which candidates NOT to vote for. In the last election cycle the blog called candidates for office that it did not endorse, "corrupt, unethical, liars, cheaters, lying adulterers, ding-dong the witch will be dead" as a means of "influencing the outcome of the election."
Because of those facts and since the blog admits it's desire to "influence" voters in court documents and the way I read the Ky. Constitution, Jonathan Miller is in violation of Sections 150 & 151 if he has donated so much as 1 penny to the blog whether it is his own personal money, money from his book sales, PACS or any money that he has control over.
It has long been established that the blog is a corporation which is designed to sway the voters and admits to that in court documents. The Kentucky Constitution Section 151 is rather clear in it's language,
"Disqualification from office for using money or property to secure or influence election."
What part of that statement does the press not understand? The blog tries it's best to influence the outcome of elections. If Jonathan Miller is prohibited from spending any money, personally or otherwise, to that particular blog but he did anyway then he has violated the Ky. Constitution.
Is there any doubt left in anyone's mind that Mr. Miller should be pressed by the press and the General Assembly on his affiliation with that particular blog.
Fake Name Withheld
I take exception with "selective" censorship and censorship of any kind in general; I find it ABSURD that any news outlet would focus on a few comments and the style in which they were written over some VERY serious unanswered questions about a state official.
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone outside of The Rural Democrat and ConservaChick actually even care that our State Treasurer conceived of and possibly funded a blog to influence elections in this state...
However, it is my opinion that the state worker in question, who claims to be Ivy leage educated, could have put his degree to work and softened his language a bit while still expressing his thoughts. ("You little corrupt piece of dung. I have been a state worker since before you were crapping yellow...") I agree with what he is saying but disagree with the way in which he said it.
I don't disagree with either point that both state workers were trying to make, but I do think they DID show an educated side when they used the word, "dung" instead of it's alternative.
Hard to say which word I would have used since I am not them and don't feel the personal insult they do.
I sure do agree with their position though.
HEY NICKOLAS HAS JUST BEEN INDICTED on three counts of tax evasion.
Now, what is Jonathan Miller's role in this blog he created?
At the conservative edge, we reserve the right to limit free speech to non-profanity. Other than that, we like to let people have free reign.
Keep up the good work Dawn.
I certainly understand why some sites censor the comments; however, having been a netizen for 10+ years now, it always seems a shame to see the honest voices who let it all hang out simply overruled. Ah well. It's a brave new world... or is it? ;o)