4 ms·

Is there a human filter on this stuff? I ask because, say a politician posts and then deletes something embarrassing on a personal level but which isn't partic

by mjw 14y ago

Is there a human filter on this stuff? I ask because, say a politician posts and then deletes something embarrassing on a personal level but which isn't particularly relevant to their political stance. They are human beings too and I don't feel there's much to gain by being a dick and re-posting this sort of thing on an automated basis. It will just get their backs up and make them a lot more wary about what they post in future. Net loss for transparency on political issues. This is something traditional journalists are good at -- knowing when to break a story and when to show a bit of discretion in order to earn people's trust and avoid unnecessarily putting people on the defensive.

anamax 14y ago
> This is something traditional journalists are good at -- knowing when to break a story and when to show a bit of discretion in order to earn people's trust and avoid unnecessarily putting people on the defensive. I disagree. This is precisely where traditional journalists go bad. It's also where their biases show. (See Obama's Chicago church vs Romney's Mormonism for an example.) Trading (non) coverage for access is PR.
- mjw 14y ago
  What's the answer though? every politician should be hounded in every aspect of their private life just so we can avoid accusations of bias? That's going to drive good people out of politics. (Cue jokes about 'they already left a while ago'). Perhaps in part it's an american thing. The political culture there seems particularly personal and nasty. It's not something I'd like to see spread unnecessarily. (And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.)
  - anamax 14y ago
    > every politician should be hounded in every aspect of their private life just so we can avoid accusations of bias? Actually, certain politicians are "hounded in every aspect" today. If you think that's wrong.... > (And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.) You forget, the personal is political. Disagree? You'll have to take that up with the folks who are currently hounding.

by mjw 14y ago

anamax 14y ago

> This is something traditional journalists are good at -- knowing when to break a story and when to show a bit of discretion in order to earn people's trust and avoid unnecessarily putting people on the defensive. I disagree. This is precisely where traditional journalists go bad. It's also where their biases show. (See Obama's Chicago church vs Romney's Mormonism for an example.) Trading (non) coverage for access is PR.

mjw 14y ago
What's the answer though? every politician should be hounded in every aspect of their private life just so we can avoid accusations of bias? That's going to drive good people out of politics. (Cue jokes about 'they already left a while ago'). Perhaps in part it's an american thing. The political culture there seems particularly personal and nasty. It's not something I'd like to see spread unnecessarily. (And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.)
- anamax 14y ago
  > every politician should be hounded in every aspect of their private life just so we can avoid accusations of bias? Actually, certain politicians are "hounded in every aspect" today. If you think that's wrong.... > (And by the way I was referring specifically to discretion on non-politically-relevant aspects of people's personal life, not selective coverage of political topics. Although I realise it's a blurry line, one has to draw it somewhere.) You forget, the personal is political. Disagree? You'll have to take that up with the folks who are currently hounding.