Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2007

Readers’ Representative Blog: The Comments Are Very Restricted. With Your Cooperation, I Want to Find Out Just How Restricted They Are

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:54 am

I recently did a post that says, in relevant part:

The blog of the L.A. Times‘s “Readers’ Representative” is now online.

. . . .

I suggest you go to the introductory post and leave a comment, if you are so inclined, and have any unanswered questions about the paper’s recent performance.

You might find fertile ground for comments in my recent post on Tim Rutten — in particular my unanswered e-mail about the difference between making an error and “concocting” a story. Or maybe you’re curious about Rutten’s violation of the paper’s policy on using anonymous sources, and when this issue will be raised on the blog.

You might even have questions that have nothing to do with Tim Rutten!

Go forth and leave a comment!

Well, as I noted here, very few comments have been posted, and I know of at least one comment (by reader nk) that was never posted.

Amy Alkon notes here that this “conversation” between the paper and its readers is intended to be very restricted. Amy’s sharp eye picked up this crucial qualification in the blog’s introductory post:

All comments will be read and forwarded to the appropriate Times staffers. Those that touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation will be posted.

And those that Jamie Gold deems uninteresting or insufficiently “new” . . . will not be posted. In other words, they aren’t going to post all comments. Just the ones they choose to post.

Amy Alkon says:

I think their error was in calling this a blog not a publicity campaign with a faux comments section.

Ouch. That hurts — but mostly because it may be true.

Let’s find out.

I reiterate my call for my readers to go post a comment. Be polite, and raise an interesting issue about the paper.

And save your comment before you post it.

If the paper does not post your comment, send it to me, and I will publish it in a post.

I’d really like to see wide participation on this, folks. Let’s see what they’ll post and what they won’t. Leave your comment in the blog’s introductory post.

10 Responses to “Readers’ Representative Blog: The Comments Are Very Restricted. With Your Cooperation, I Want to Find Out Just How Restricted They Are”

  1. I left this comment:

    Ms. Gold,

    Thank you for your email reponse to my earlier comment. However, I strongly urge you to follow as liberal a policy as possible for publishing comments left on this site. I would say as long as they are on topic and within the bounds of decency and courtesy. There is a great deal of benefit to your newspaper from an exchange of ideas between your readers themselves as well as between your readers and you. Using my comment as an example, we may have found out that nobody else shared my concern or that many of your readers shared my concern which I believe would be of value to you and to the editorial staff.

    nk (09a321)

  2. nk,

    What did her e-mail say?

    Patterico (faeccf)

  3. I left a pretty lengthy comment which I’d be rather surprised if they didn’t approve.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  4. Patterico #2,

    I’m sorry, but right now my feeling is that since Jamie Gold extended me the courtesy of a personal reply I should reciprocate by keeping it private. I believe that that is your general policy too.

    nk (09a321)

  5. Not with her. I believe there is an implicit understanding that anything she sends out is fit for publication.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  6. Please indulge me on this. Again, I’m sorry.

    nk (09a321)

  7. Nobody appreciates the openness of the forum you provide here more than me. I have discussed things here that I have not discussed with my father, my brothers, my wife or my best friend. Jamie Gold would do well to follow your example but if she choses not to that just makes her … not Patterico.

    nk (09a321)

  8. sent you a copy of my comment….

    i’ll be amazed if they print/reply to it. %-)

    redc1c4 (dcc4d4)

  9. This is my post, however, the site kept throwing back the “security” bit over and over:

    I agree with you completely. An exchange of perspectives between the readers and the paper may indeed shape reporting due to enlightened feedback. Your post of November 27, 2007 @ 7:30 pm is right on. How is that avenue proceeding?

    Sue (c25dfd)

  10. My Q:

    Is this going to be a chance to ask why the LAT frontlines liberal protests and ignores conservative protests? Or why the “Islamo Fascism Week” got so little coverage on it’s actual messages, only coverage of the opposition’s charges?

    Smarty (3982db)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1937 secs.