What If VoiceOfArizona.com Endorsed Barack Obama?
|
Posted By: www.MoronInCharge.com Posted on: Nov. 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM |
3.0 / 5
Based on 4 ratings.
|
I would be asking, just where do you get off comporting yourself as a site dedicated to free speech and open dialogue, and then casting the whole weight of your site to one side or the other?
Doesn't that squelch free speech and open dialogue. Doesn't that slant the playing field?
You are hosting a blog where the de facto purpose is for people from both sides to come and exchange ideas, debate, or simply through s*** at each other in an unbiased environment. When you batch-email all the members that you are squarely on one side or another, you defeat your greatest strength.
We are all aware that many at Voice have assumed identities and post here to varying extents. Some post very occasionally and non-politically, others function as "super-members" toting strong electoral opinions. One crosses these "super-members" at their own peril.
And so it goes with June. If I we not on vacation the last three weeks, I would surely be in the Phantom Zone along with her. I never saw what June wrote, but I can only assume that she named names. I don't need to repeat that action, but of course that is no safeguard that I will not be outcast shortly after hitting the "publish" button.
I don't care. The election is over, and at this point my primary use for the site is entertainment. It is questionable if the reams of commentary I have written over the last two and a half years have had even the minutest impact on anyone's opinion, other that to firmly entrench the opposition.
So I will not miss the largely fruitless debates, but I will miss the potential that I thought this site once had. That is why I ask the entity that is VoiceofArizona.com, who felt compelled to endorse McCain/Palin (was that an unanimous consensus of the Voice staff?), to reconsider their actions.
Retract your endorsement. The retraction doesn't matter politically of course, but it matters because it is the right thing to do and reestablishes a measure of credibility. You should not be endorsing any candidate. What is good for the New York Times editorial page is not good for you when trying to attract members of all persuasions. Let your members do the opinions, and if you really need to speak your mind on an individual basis, go get an avatar like the rest of us. Or bring back the radio show, where at least the partisans talking on behalf of Voice were people with names attached to their bloviations, not organizations of indeterminate size.
And after you have retracted your inappropriate endorsement, un-ban June. She deserves credit for having the guts to point the mistake out to you first.
Comments:
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 07:35:36 AM
|
||
| Correction: "throw s***," not "through s***." There are some people here who would be shocket at my spelling.
|
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Say it isn’t so! Junebug has been banished to the “phantom zone”?!?
No wonder she has not taken on the Cretins who are able to romp and stomp on her with impunity!
As I have written else-time on The Voice, a list of those that are banished should be posted and updated at each banishment/reinstatement. That would be helpful.
There is no denying that The Voice has every right to do with its site as it wishes. It is a very good site from the design and implementation viewpoint, and has evolved steadily to its very fine current level.
But at the same time it does seem to have sunk gradually into a partisan site. Now that is quite acceptable so long as it is advertised as such. But the site needs transparency in this regard:
· Post and maintain a list of those that have been made voiceless; · Identify the avatars that have a vested interest in the site (owners, workers) when they post; · Make clear with a disclaimer what the boundaries are when taking these individuals on on the issues, or any other dimension.
As terrific as The Voice is, with great appreciation and respect I have to suggest that there is room for improvement in policy along the lines suggested here.
|
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| I do hope that MoronInCharge is not banished for his straight-forward analysis and opinion.
I too enjoy The Voice for its entertainment value. I even learn a thing or two now and then, although that with diminishing returns in the sludge slinging fest that had developed here.
But over the last better part of a year the quality of the postings and comments have deteriorated badly.
I have to admit that I have succumbed to the alley fighting myself to a degree in response to the sludge that has been clogging the pipes here at The Voice. And I find that very distasteful and wasteful of my time and attention.
MoronInCharge has been one of the people that I have enjoyed discussing such things as Black Holes and other non-divisive topics with. He has and intellect and a wide spectrum of interests, but lately he too has been dragged into the gutter by the Cretins.
There are of course others with which I enjoy conversation and do indeed learn from, and who are able and willing to write in an interesting and coherent way on a variety of topics.
As you may surmise from the number and variety of my postings, I find The Voice addictive - perhaps too much so. I do have other addictions, such as the stock market and submission of opinions and articles to media organizations, that vie with The Voice for my time and attention. Given the deterioration of the intercourse here at The Voice …
Now I know that the Cretins will dis this, but who cares. If The Voice sees fit to eliminate this posting and/or ban MoronInCharge, then it will lose any last vestige of attraction for someone that is interested in exchange of ideas and legitimate differences of opinion on important issues. The sludge merchants can have it to themselves. They are a waste of my valuable time. |
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by AZ Moderate on Nov. 17, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM]
AZ Moderate
Nov. 17, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM I do hope that MoronInCharge is not banished for his straight-forward analysis and opinion. I too enjoy The Voice for its entertainment value. I even learn a thing or two now and then, although that with diminishing returns in the... View this Comment I agree with all your accolades awarded to Voice of Arizona. But I believe they harm themselves when they let the opinions of individuals become the opinion of the site at large. You can't be By The People, For The People when your official stance represents only half the people. It might be hard to resist, but the owners/employees at Voice should refrain from posting their opinions in any official capacity. They should use their censor and banning power to enforce civility and order; not to punish those who would cross them when they choose to dive into partisan debate. I am not a religious man, but on a theological level I prefer my Gods to create their universes and then to leave them largely "hands-off." They should intervene in the affairs of mortals only when the debauchery and violence threatens their creation; not when the Gods themselves feel unappreciated. They are bigger Gods than that, aren't they? If they want to get down in the mud with humanity, then they should assume human form, with all its human frailties and none of their God-like powers. |
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| The Voice has been very permissive in allowing everyone here to voice their opinions. That has to be a difficult policy to be sure.
And there are of course lines to be drawn that should not be crossed.
I do not know why June was banned. Nor should any of us know unless The Voice chooses to reveal it. That/those reason(s) is/are one of the sacrosanct rights of the owners of the site so graciously provided us. But the lines should be made as clear as possible so that we do not step across a line not drawn in the sand.
If June can be reinstated, perhaps with some kind of understanding and agreement about what is permissible and what is not (perhaps published for all of us as an update/clarificaton to the published agreement on usage), I think that would be good.
Perhaps it is time for a discussion on the site by all interested participants. Certainly not to take any prerogatives away from the site owners, but there may be suggestions put on the table if the potential problem(s) are laid out there first.
June has been a feisty and consistent contributor. I suspect she would like to get back on the site. She would be a welcome balance to the vociferous cretins that are allowed to romp and stomp all over The Voice.
|
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:45:08 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM I agree with all your accolades awarded to Voice of Arizona. But I believe they harm themselves when they let the opinions of individuals become the opinion of the site at large. You can't be By The People, For The People when your... View this Comment Well said MoronInCharge. Jacob wrestled with the angel (messenger from God) and prevailed. Even such a messenger met Jacob on equal footing. |
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 03:33:10 PM
|
||
| Hi Mic, Welcome Back! Do you know how the endorsement was made, I mean did they take a survey of who was for each candidate and why, and then endorse the winner compiling the reasons listed by various people? Or, did the owner, editor, writer or whatever just decide to endorse whoever he/she favored? If it was a personal choice how is that any different than the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc., endorsing someone. I don't think any medium should endorse one candidate or another, yet they've all done. The only way we would ever have an election free from bias would to have each candidate publish one letter telling the country about themselves, why they want to become President, how they feel about each issue and that's it. No billions and billions of dollars wasted on campaigns that last for years, no debates, no photos - just the nitty gritty. Obviously that would never happen because there's too much money changing hands this way, but it would be interesting to see the results. P. |
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM
|
||
| Thanks Patricia. It's good to be back. Now I got to shake this cold that I got, not in the antarctic, but on the plane ride back. I know less than everyone else about the specifics of the endorsement, since I was gone while it all went down. But I do know that the endorsement email was sent to all members, and that Voice posted the endorsement as an article shortly before the election, which went to the top of the home page until it was taken down after the election results came in. Did the endorsement result from a unanimous opinion of all of those who work at BBB? Doubtful. Very doubtful. Besides, I'm pretty good recognizing writing styles, and it's no mystery who had penned the endorsement. It was the one person who has already aired all of the endorsement's central themes at great length here at this site. I don't need to state the obvious. This person is entitled to his or her opinion, but it was a mistake to put that opinion under the VoiceofArizona.com aegis. It is their right. They can do whatever the hell they want. But it was a mistake nonetheless. How is this action different than a newspaper's or magazine's editorial endorsement? Newspapers are tasked with delivering the news, but more often than not the associated mission of delivering that news without bias is cast aside in an attempt to cater to one subscribing constituency or another, or to serve the personal taste of the newspaper's or magazine's owner. It's not right, but as you said, it's become the norm. But the New York Times or the Washington Times does not pretend to be about fostering free speech from their subscribers or fostering open dialogue from both sides. Voice cannot achieve this goal by taking a blatantly partisan stance for either the right or the left. Individuals associated with Voice have every right to express their opinions in the medium that they created (at their own risk), but making their opinion the opinion of all, or the equivalent to the word from on-high, is poor form. It turns away half of their audience. It makes one wonder if they even care any more. |
||
|
Nov. 17, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM
|
||
[This is a reply to comment by AZ Moderate on Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM]
AZ Moderate
Nov. 17, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM The Voice has been very permissive in allowing everyone here to voice their opinions. That has to be a difficult policy to be sure. And there are of course lines to be drawn that should not be crossed. ... View this Comment I disagree, June crossed the line one too many times! Those of you that can't understand that will repeat the same fate. Read the posts and the answers, you all seem to think that speech is free. Hmmm---wrong again, their is a price and all to often we choose not to see that the sword IS mightier than the hand. Because you choose to test others, you suffer not at their hands but of your own doings. At this rate you might take a hint! Be nice----! |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


At the end of your email endorsement you wrote:
Forward this to a friend and go to VoiceOfArizona.com to join the discussion!
Wow. Shouldn't you add the caveat: . . . and face imminent banning if you don't agree with us?
Report Abuse