SP&T further silences even more voices

Brent Boyer recently announced his latest effort to silence those he disapproves of.

Ostensibly, the motivation is to “create a vibrant, thoughtful and tolerant place for readers to share opinions, debate issues and otherwise engage in the news”.

Some, including myself, would suggest the real motivation is to further silence voices which do not share the political agenda of SP&T.

I think I can say with reasonable certainty that my voice at SP&T was silenced for purely political reasons. I cannot say for absolute certain why I was banned for life from ever again commenting at SP&T. You see, I never received any warning alleging any violation of the SP&T comments policy and I never received any explanation for why I was suddenly banned for life and every comment I had ever posted was summarily deleted. All I know is that I was banned for life shortly after I criticized an article published by SP&T.

On 3/12/2008 (in the throes of a heated Presidential election year), SP&T published an article which referred to “[t]he recession of the national economy”. I took SP&T to task on this and demanded a correction. At the time, the NBER had not yet declared the economy to be in recession -- that took place much later (on December 1, 2008). Furthermore, the most recent GDP data at that time indicated the national economy had expanded in each of the previous two quarters. Therefore, I submitted that SP&T was guilty of editorializing in what was purported to be objective news reporting. I further cited an editorial critical of such practices.

At that time, voicing an OPINION (on the editorial page) that the national economy was in recession would have been acceptable (albeit unsubstantiated). What was utterly indefensible was stating this as FACT in an article purporting to objectively report straight news.

Click here and see that my criticism CLEARLY irritated Mr. Boyer. Boyer threatened to (quite arbitrarily) delete any further comments on this subject. My assumption is that he went one better and deleted every comment I ever wrote and banned me for life. I have searched Mr. Boyer’s comment history and confirmed that this was the one and only time Boyer ever responded to any of my comments.

As always, NONE of what I posted was even remotely close to being in violation of the SP&T written policies for commenting on their site. What I posted did, however, expose the political agenda at SP&T. I’m about 99% certain my critique of that political agenda is what got me banned for life.

Then, as now, the only thing lacking at SP&T was anything even remotely resembling objective and unbiased enforcement of their own written policies for commenting. Then, as now, I believe the real objective was to silence those who did not share the SP&T political agenda. Phase I (requiring commenters to disclose their true identity to SP&T) CLEARLY had that effect. Our local Leftists openly admitted this and openly celebrated it. Phase II (requiring commenters to reveal their true identity to every emotionally unstable political extremist in the area) has (not surprisingly) already silenced even more of the political opposition. Once again, local Leftists are thrilled.

Sad times for Steamboat Springs.

SPT Editor Admits I Was Correct

Quoting Brent Boyer, the “Editor” of our local Socialist rag
(emphasis mine):

“Beginning in August 2008, we simply required that online commenters provide us their real names, so that we could verify their identity before giving them permission to post to our site… At the time, I also believed that if a poster knew that we knew who they were, they might be more likely to engage in civil online dialogue.

As we approach the two-year anniversary of that change, I find myself asking, ‘Did we accomplish our goals?’

Increasingly, my answer is ‘No.’”

Boyer, whether he admits it or not, has just proven my original prediction to be correct.

On 7/24/2008 -- before SPT implemented their latest efforts to suppress free speech -- I predicted:

“Eliminating anonymity will do little or nothing to improve the discourse. Better moderation will. SP&T need only objectively and reasonably enforce their own written rules.”

As predicted, the ONLY thing Boyer and crew have “accomplished” is to further suppress free speech and to drive away some of their best commentators -- yes, including myself.

You see -- with VERY good reason -- I don’t trust anybody at our local Socialist rag any farther than I could throw their building. So, there was never any way in hell they were going to get my name.

Now, as Boyer contemplates his “next steps” in suppressing free speech, the only certainty is that the iron curtain will come down one step harder on The People’s Republic of Steamboat Springs.

Sad (and, entirely predictable).

SP&T Proposed Reader Forum Changes

Updated 7/26/08
SP&T vs. “Yahoos”, Round Two
Click The Image & Recall Round One:

The Liberal Elite Never Learn!

The BIG Buzz Around Town
Steamboat Pilot & Today, (and the rest of the town) is talking about a new policy which would eliminate Reader Forum anonymity. If even one person in this small town knows your identity, you are no longer anonymous, PERIOD!

The Summary
Eliminating anonymity will do little or nothing to improve the discourse. Better moderation will. SP&T need only objectively and reasonably enforce their own written rules. Also see my expanded suggestions at the bottom of this post.

The History
Yes, the content of the Reader Forum has, up to now, largely been a sick, sad, pathetic, ad hominem joke.

But, it was extremely poor moderation which caused that, not anonymity. If the quality of the moderation does not change, neither will the content. If history is a guide, the quality of the moderation will not change, only the effectiveness of the [IMO] politically motivated censorship.

Historically, most posters who were, in my view, banned for purely ideological reasons, have created a new ID and resumed posting. After the electronic equivalent of a mass “book burning” of ALL of my entries, I opted to create a Blogger account instead (fool me once…).

Had SP&T objectively and reasonably enforced their written rules, there would have been no problem.

Then again, their rules are [IMO] designed to facilitate utterly capricious, politically motivated censorship. Quoting SP&T Reader Forum Rules:

“if you become a [ideological] problem for us or our site's other users we can and will ban you”

In practice, in my opinion, SP&T (AT BEST) did exactly what local politicians have done for decades (pandered to a tiny minority of very vocal whiners). If enough whiners complained about a given poster, the offending poster was summarily banned with no regard for whether the poster violated any of the written rules (other than the “if you become a problem [to our ideology]” clause).

Who, in our society, is most prone to whining?
Yep, you guessed it!

Net Result (Pun Intended)?
Conservatives Get The Ax!

Op/Ed Page vs. Reader Forum
SP&T correctly argues that they regularly print the views of those who oppose their views (including Ann Coulter). And, despite frequent censorship demands from The Left, SP&T has, to their credit, continued to print these opposing views.

But, in The Reader Forum, SP&T has [IMO] shown NO SUCH BACKBONE! In the Reader Forum, SP&T has, AT BEST, [IMO] routinely pandered to the whiners on The Left.

It is REALLY easy to print Coulter’s views when she is not directly challenging pet local SP&T projects like Socialist Housing (tyrannically imposed on an UNWILLING MAJORITY).

The Likely Effect
In my opinion, the ONLY effect of the proposed new policy will be to:

1) DRAMATICALLY reduce the number of Conservatives (and others) who post to the Reader Forum.

2) Make more permanent the censorship of Conservative posters. And that, in my opinion, is the PRIMARY goal!

My Own Experience
In my own case, it appears that I was banned for criticizing Brent Boyer’s editorial judgment. I say “it appears that” because, as usual, no reason was given (publicly OR privately) for my account being banned and everything I ever posted being deleted. However, my banning came directly on the heels of a criticism I offered regarding Brent Boyer’s editorial judgment.

My criticism centered around the following opening phrase from this 3/12/08 article:

“The recession of the national economy”

My argument was that this article violated the most basic standards of journalism (separation of opinion from “straight news”). I used this editorial to substantiate my point.

Even if we later learned that the economy was in recession at the time the article was published, there would still be no excuse for mixing opinion and straight news. But, at this stage, the data demonstrate that it is a virtual certainty that the economy was NOT in a recession at the time the article was published!

Therefore, it seems a virtual certainty that a correction is NOW needed in order to correct, not just the embedding of opinion inside “straight news”, but the printing of a FACTUAL INACCURACY!

To the best of my knowledge, no correction has been offered (or is likely to be offered). And, I have been banned from noting that in the SP&T Reader Forum.

My Suggestion
In my opinion, SP&T would do far better to examine their own failure to properly moderate the Reader Forum. SP&T should:

1) Educate themselves on the meaning of ad hominem. This is critical!

2) Unilaterally enforce a zero tolerance policy on ad hominem posts, unsubstantiated slander, etc.

3) Use the integrity they have shown in dealing with their Op/Ed choices as a guide to dealing with the whiners on The Left who simply seek to censor those whom, for want of evidence, they are incapable of effectively debating.

4) Leave open the option for FULL anonymity. This is especially critical in a town as small and politically polarized as ours. In my opinion, very few who disagree with anything coming from SP&T would trust ANYBODY at SP&T to protect their identity from others. I CERTAINLY would not!

If SP&T regularly, rigorously and unilaterally deletes ALL ad hominem posts, unsubstantiated slander, etc., they will have no need to ban the offenders. The offenders will be worn down and will move elsewhere.