11/28/2007

14 Responses to “Slow Moderation”

1. On the contrary, Patterico. Two comments have now been approved:

   I encourage you to keep this kind of communication going, i.e., a site where facts can be checked and published. I’ve sent a question to the Pew Charitable Trusts, too, asking about which agencies and national, regional and state polls can be a trusted source of credible questioning and “truth.” Somewhere in the near future, I suspect we’ll be able to bookmark the ten or twenty Internet sites for “truth” and I hope networking among them to see that Americans and wannabes get the best information. Good fortune on your venture: the L.A. Times is still one of the top sources I use periodically to check on things, particularly immigration issues.

   Posted by: Kent Mollohan, Helena, MT | November 28, 2007 at 11:26 AM

   – – –

   I was at one time the ranking fire chief for the City of Ontario Fire Department in California and served as the second-in-command for many many years. The photo of the firefighters on the ridge by Karen Tapia-Andersen is truly an iconic image. My son, also a firefighter with CAL FIRE, noted that it is a similar image as the firefighters raising the flag in sight of the steel cross at the World Trade Center disaster of 9/11…

   It is a remarkable photograph. Additionally, the comments by the photographer Karen Tapia-Andersen on the Brian Williams segment of NBC News, that she was praying for the safety of the firefighters, brought chills up my arms and tears to my eyes. The sensitivity of this “lady” while taking an award-winning image, is in itself a Pulitzer story, as is the picture she shot!

   Posted by: Rick E. Lebel, Palm Desert | November 27, 2007 at 07:52 PM

   It must have been a real tough call on the Los Angeles Times’ part whether to let those through moderation or not.

   Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/28/2007 @ 12:37 pm

   
   

2. Jamie Gold emailed me a response to my comment about the Sandra Day O’Connor story. It was responsive.

   nk (09a321) — 11/28/2007 @ 3:14 pm

   
   

3. Jamie Gold emailed me about the comment I left on their blog, but the comment has not appeared yet.

   JD (33beff) — 11/28/2007 @ 4:02 pm

   
   

4. This sounds like a very personal blog. You comment and they email a response.

   DRJ (a6fcd2) — 11/28/2007 @ 4:04 pm

   
   

5. But so far, they do not do much posting of comments for others to see.

   JD (33beff) — 11/28/2007 @ 4:06 pm

   
   

6. My favorite part was this:

   Those that touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation will be posted.

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

   Amy Alkon (262cdf) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:21 am

   
   

7. Good point. I had not noticed that.

   Patterico (faeccf) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:26 am

   
   

8. Jamie Gold emailed me a response to my comment about the Sandra Day O’Connor story. It was responsive.

   Did she explain why she didn’t post it?

   Please do share.

   Patterico (faeccf) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:28 am

   
   

9. When I checked earlier today, there were only two comments approved despite numerous ones undoubtedly submitted over days. Did you notice that both approved comments were glowing endorsements of the LAT?

   Funny that.

   Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:29 am

   
   

10. JD,

    Is this your comment?

    Patterico (faeccf) — 11/29/2007 @ 12:32 am

    
    

11. Patterico #8,

    No, she did not. I will respect her implied wish to have the substance of her response remain between her and me. It was more than acknowledgment of receipt of my comment.

    nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 4:45 am

    
    

12. implied-shmimplied…

    Was it something we would find interesting?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/29/2007 @ 5:05 am

    
    

13. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, Scott. See Patterico’s new thread for the comment I left a few minutes ago.

    nk (09a321) — 11/29/2007 @ 5:10 am

    
    

14. Here’s mine, which I posted just now in response to Jamie’s response to JD. We’ll see if it shows up there or not.

    Asking for specifics is fair. Here are three examples of blatant fabrications or distortions that were reported as fact in recent years, all of which were promptly called to the attention of your staff, and none of which resulted in a published correction.

    1. A January 25, 2003 story by Times Staff Writer Jean Guccione falsely stated that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would have “outlaw[ed]” abortion. In fact, a reversal would have merely kicked the issue back to the states.
    2. A July 13, 2004 editorial predicted that allowing the federal “assault” weapons ban to expire while California’s ban remained intact would result in there being “no bar” against Californians purchasing such weapons in Nevada. In fact, federal law prohibits anyone from purchasing a firearm he cannot lawfully own in his home state.
    3. A January 3, 2007 editorial stated that by signing AB 845, Gov. Schwarzenegger could have “spared [the California Supreme Court] the task of deciding …. whether [Proposition 22] violates the state Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.” In fact, AB 845 would have left Prop 22 on the books, as the Legislature has no power to amend or repeal voter initiatives.

    Proving political motivation, as opposed to mere sloppiness, in any particular case can be tricky. That said, how many lame errors all have to “just happen” to favor the same side of the political debate before bias can be inferred?

    Xrlq (b71926) — 11/30/2007 @ 10:09 am