I've been trying to follow this story on Feministe and Salon and it's left me totallyfuckingconfused. Mostly because, every time I turn around, there's a new, 180-degree development in the story
( ... )
As for the resignations, both Amanda and Melissa have taken great pains to explain the whys and whens, and that the campaign reluctantly agreed. When I first heard it, I assumed they'd been fired to agreed to resign, but I don't think so after having carefully followed their statements about the resignations. Additionally, it would have made more sense to have them both resign on the same day if this was campaign-prompted, not the way it happened.
I agree that they are both used to unpleasant emails - and I don't think the emails are what led to their resignations. Also, because of their position and the high profile of their blogs, they are not nearly as anonymous as a newspaper writer.
As for its being front page news, Bill O'Reilly has covered this story every night. It's been on CNN and MSNBC. It's hardly been a hidden story.
So far Salon's standing by their reporter. They didn't drop the ball if, for whatever reason, the Edwards' campaign told the reporter the bloggers were fired.
I never suggested the story was buried. I just said it wasn't front-page news in the sense that it was likely to hurt Edwards the way Swift Boat hurt Kerry after being pounded relentlessly in the media for weeks. And, even if it could have, he wouldn't have mitigated the damage by saying he was standing by them and then firing them.
Receiving threats isn't a function of the writer's anonymity (let alone whether a blogger enjoys more celebrity than a newspaper writer, which it seems would depend on the writer in question). It's a function of online publications allowing for immediate and anonymous reader feedback. It's troll bait.
It seems the piece I'm missing is the bloggers' statements as to why they quit. Where are those?
The word is (from the sources I've been able to tap) the Edwards campaign was going to fire them, and the heat they got from Left Blogistan changed their minds
( ... )
Sure, maybe the threats were credible. Maybe the threats came from someone who knew them well enough to be able to find them. Maybe the threats came from someone with the means and the will to carry them out. Maybe the threats came from someone who knows where they keep their spare house keys.
Non-geeky type folks do not realize how easy it is to locate someone using a computer.
Case in point. Years ago, a guy I had talked to online decided he wanted to talk to me. He knew my name, and that I worked and lived in the greater Boston area at a financial services firm.
It took him about 15 minutes to track me down, and call the phone on my desk at the office. If he could get my work phone number (which was not published anywhere but an internal directory), how long would it have taken to find my location? About 3 minutes more research gave him both my work location and my home address.
I'm a real hardass about security...and he was still able to do that.
Reply
As for the resignations, both Amanda and Melissa have taken great pains to explain the whys and whens, and that the campaign reluctantly agreed. When I first heard it, I assumed they'd been fired to agreed to resign, but I don't think so after having carefully followed their statements about the resignations. Additionally, it would have made more sense to have them both resign on the same day if this was campaign-prompted, not the way it happened.
I agree that they are both used to unpleasant emails - and I don't think the emails are what led to their resignations. Also, because of their position and the high profile of their blogs, they are not nearly as anonymous as a newspaper writer.
As for its being front page news, Bill O'Reilly has covered this story every night. It's been on CNN and MSNBC. It's hardly been a hidden story.
Reply
I never suggested the story was buried. I just said it wasn't front-page news in the sense that it was likely to hurt Edwards the way Swift Boat hurt Kerry after being pounded relentlessly in the media for weeks. And, even if it could have, he wouldn't have mitigated the damage by saying he was standing by them and then firing them.
Receiving threats isn't a function of the writer's anonymity (let alone whether a blogger enjoys more celebrity than a newspaper writer, which it seems would depend on the writer in question). It's a function of online publications allowing for immediate and anonymous reader feedback. It's troll bait.
It seems the piece I'm missing is the bloggers' statements as to why they quit. Where are those?
Reply
It seems the piece I'm missing is the bloggers' statements as to why they quit. Where are those?Amanda, at pandagon.net, said ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
But, on balance, I'd say that's pretty unlikely.
Reply
Reply
No matter how far-fetched, you're just going to keep insisting that these people COULD have hunted the bloggers down and killed them. It COULD happen.
So what else can I do at this point but shut up?
Reply
Reply
Case in point. Years ago, a guy I had talked to online decided he wanted to talk to me. He knew my name, and that I worked and lived in the greater Boston area at a financial services firm.
It took him about 15 minutes to track me down, and call the phone on my desk at the office. If he could get my work phone number (which was not published anywhere but an internal directory), how long would it have taken to find my location? About 3 minutes more research gave him both my work location and my home address.
I'm a real hardass about security...and he was still able to do that.
Reply
Leave a comment