Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Duke lacrosse: About trolls and deletes

A reader asks:

Why is everyone who disagrees with the "anti-Brodheads" a troll? Why is it that those who disagree can't be credible if their child is not at risk? Why threaten to erase their comments?
I think this reader is well-intentioned but the questions are overblown and misstate.

Everyone who disagrees with those the reader calls the “anti-Brodheads” is not a troll. I’ve not said that; and I can’t think of anyone else here who has besides this reader who misstates.

My sense is that almost all the people who’ve spoken up here for President Brodhead are sincere and wish to converse in a civil and serious way with due respect for others.

Such people are welcome here even when I think they are very wrong: Example – this second reader who says in part:
In the early days of the LAX mess, the entire country thought the LAX players were guilty. During that time, Richard Brodhead was one of the very few voices of reason. While the media conducted what can only be described as a high-tech lynching of the entire LAX team, Brodhead went before the television cameras in countless press conferences and submitted to countless newspaper, magazine, and television interviews. He reminded everyone that there was no evidence of any rape other than the allegation of the accuser. ….

However, I do not see him getting much credit for his efforts on this website. All I can say is that people have short memories because it was not too long ago that Richard Brodhead was just about the only person in the country who was standing up for the LAX players, other than their lawyers and their own families.
This reader is speaking civilly and makes a genuine effort, IMHO, to offer a fact-based case although the facts offered are, again IMHO, in some instances wrong.

But let’s leave the “who’s right, who’s wrong” matter for another time. I sometimes on second or third reading see where I’ve been wrong, when on my first reading I thought it was the other person who was wrong.

All I want to do here is offer an example of the kind of reader comment supporting Brodhead that’s welcome here.

Now for something completely different. Please read this comment:
I think it is important to remember that it was the LAX players who created this mess, not Brodhead. I think one of the things going on here is that the families of the LAX players and their supporters feel so guilty about the damage the players have done to the reputation of the university and so angry at how the players have been treated by the justice system and by the media that they just want to lash out at others in order to assuage their own guilt, and at some point along the way, they decided to beat up on Brodhead. This would help to explain some of the overheated rhetoric and, in some cases, downright false accusations about Brodhead that I have seen on this website and some of the other websites that have been following the LAX case.
This comment by a third reader is the kind of comment I delete.

This third reader begins with an absurdity: “it was the LAX players who created this mess”

Third reader then says the “families of the LAX players and their supporters feel so guilty about the damage the players have done to the reputation of the university and so angry …. that they just want to lash out at others in order to assuage their own guilt, and at some point along the way, they decided to beat up on Brodhead.”

All third reader is doing is using psycho-babble to make mean, unsubstantiated personal attacks against the LAX players, their families and their supporters.

But third reader doesn’t end there. Third reader, who is acting just like a troll, wants everyone to know about the “downright false accusations about Brodhead that I have seen on this website and some of the other websites.” Only troll doesn’t cite any. Making the accusation is what it’s all about.

There should now be no one who doesn’t know the difference between reasoned discourse and troll ad hominems.

The good news for trolls and those who want to hear what they say is that there are so many blogs that let trolls be trolls.

The good news for the rest of you is I’ll keep deleting; and I won’t repeat again the explanations for deletions I’ve given these past two days.

If I get a question about a deletion I think is genuine, I’ll refer the questioner to my archives for the Sept. 10 – 17 time period.


John

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

John,

My definition of a troll is someone who makes an argument so outlandish and so incendiary that it draws attention to their fallacious statements rather than add to our understanding of the subject. Sometimes you just have to clear this stuff off the site. If ole Cash jumped on here and made statements about hush money for example there would be some spirited comments drawn to his post, but at least those comments would have enlightened the rest of us. I'm sure your editorial restraint will be fair.

Switching gears-MSM has bailed on on this Hoax again.

IMPORTANT UPDATE- "60 MINUTES" WILL NOT COVER THE DUKE HOAX THIS WEEK.

FOLLOWING IS STRAIGHT FROM THE "60 MINUTES" WEBSITE:

"'60 Minutes' Season Kicks Off Sunday
39th Season Begins Sunday, Sept. 24, 7 P.M. ET/PT

NEW YORK, Sept. 19, 2006
(CBS) Steve Kroft questions Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf about his country's ties to rogue nations and terrorists; Morley Safer talks to a doctor and nurses accused of murdering extremely ill patients; and Katie Couric reveals the private side of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the 39th season premiere of 60 Minutes, Sunday, Sept. 24 at 7 p.m. ET/PT. "

what happened????????

JWM said...

Anon at 1;49,

Thanks for your confidence.

I hope CBS/60 Minutes is not going in the bag; and I don't think the delay means they are.

Now to specutlate about the delay.

There's a court hearing scheduled for 9/22 so 60 might want to give itself a little time.

A more likely answer has to do with the Couric/Rice interview.

CBS has a huge investment in convincing us Couric has gravitas.

You see where I'm going already, don't you?

Katie Couric grills the Secretary of State. It's not a sandbagging mind you, but we all see just how "up" Couric is on things diplomatic and world-shaking.

Ideally and no doubt by design the interview will "make news" and be a two or three day story about what Couric got the Secretary to say.

Something more than, "Yes, Katie, the President is concerned about Iran as I think we all should be."

It's got to be more than that.

But with Couric making news do you also want another "blockbuster" on the same program competing?

All speculation, as I say.

What do you think?

John

Anonymous said...

If CBS News wanted to be super safe they could wait until after the election....no excuse me that's not their style. How about broadcasting the Hoax bit the Sunday prior to the election?

Anonymous said...

Years ago 60 Minutes did a segment on a community in upstate NY that used means bordering on illegal/unethical to obtains funds for their community. The last minute of the segment showed Gov. Mario Cuomo dancing on the stage with them. The segment was aired the Sun. before the election. Cuomo lost.

Anonymous said...

I applaud your desire to keep the posts on this site civilized. However, your ire and comments about trolls seem to be directed solely at those who post comments favorable to President Brodhead. Do you intend to apply the same tough standard to those who make uncivilized comments which are hostile to President Brodhead?