I like this (0.00 / 1)

I like this part very much.

---

by: Elliott @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 14:46:11 PM CDT

Should it be limited to progressives? (0.00 / 1)

You could even let the far right respond, but retain some editorial control. For instance, Fox News doesn't get a post all to themselves, but you will include their response in a followup post that also points out every place where they set up straw men, change the topic, make misleading statements or just plain lie.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

---

by: factbased @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 15:18:38 PM CDT

RE: Should it be limited to progressives? (0.00 / 1)

If the purpose of a "Right to Respond" policy is to enable "broad participation in politics" and further the political dialogue, then it is absolutely essential that any individual or organization (regardless of political affiliation) with which there is a dispute be allowed to defend themselves or their position without any "editorial control" over their response, granted that their response is a legitimate and civil attempt at determining the truth.

There are two primary reasons I feel this way:

1) We ("We" being "progressives," I guess?) won't always be correct in every post. If the Far Right is correct, the Far Right is correct. When such an instance occurs, the Far Right deserves the opportunity to let us know. Also, the correction should not come in the form of an edited response. If we are going to engage in a discussion about/with someone, they deserve a full seat at the table.

2) If we really want to show others that we are willing to engage them in a meaningful way, any "editorial control" over a response will simply make the declaration of a "Right to Respond" seem half-hearted, and it will become much less likely that they will even bother to respond. The sought-after dialogue will become a monologue.

Of course, if we come to disagree with their response, we will have the ability to refute it in our own posts and comments, just as we have afforded them the same opportunity.

Giving others a real opportunity to disagree or point out an error is itself a progressive ideal; forbidding someone from entering into a discussion because of their political affiliation, or watering down a response via "editorial control" is an insult to such an ideal.

---

by: erichagarty @ Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:14:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreeing with me? (0.00 / 1)

It sounds like you're mostly agreeing with me, except that you think the factchecking response to the other party's statement should be in the comments or in a separate post. Or maybe another difference is you wouldn't allow a response if it wasn't "a legitimate and civil attempt at determining the truth." I'd still allow it, but include the rebuttal in the same post. That's what I meant by editorial control, in case that wasn't clear.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

---

by: factbased @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 16:18:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 1)

My apologies, I re-read my post just now and realized it was fairly unclear. I do agree with you, especially in your remark about allowing the Far Right to respond. My contention was with the notion of retaining "editorial control" over their response, because for some reason or another when I read the term "editorial control" in your post I was imagining us taking their points and writing them for them, as opposed to letting them compose their own response. My mistake, I should have first clarified what you meant by "editorial control."

I'm not sure how often it will occur here, but I know that at a lot of other blogs responses from the Right will be things such as "F#$& you," etc, which is what I meant by only allowing "legitimate and civil attempt[s] at determining the truth." Again, I should have clarified.

I hope that clears at least some of what I wrote up, it was an organizational mess I am realizing. You will have to forgive me, I have been reading the progressive blogs for quite awhile but am just now beginning to post, so hopefully I will get better over time. :)

---

by: erichagarty @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 17:55:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No problem (0.00 / 0)

We're on the same page. Giving them their say is a lot less dangerous when you've got the facts on your side.

Glad you're beginning to post. It took me a while too and maybe one day I'll write something a little more substantive than a few comments here and there. :)

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

---

by: factbased @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 21:59:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Operationalizing the Policy (0.00 / 1)

You may want to clarify what level of "discuss[ion" or "mention[ing]" entitles someone to a front-page response.  A single link (by name) to someone's blog or website in the context of a post on a broader subject?  A few sentences ("Organization X says such-and-such... That seems almost right, but I'd say the truth is actually such-and-such")?  Or only a post that primarily and directly raises an activist/campaign/organization as a topic for discussion?  Does the reference have to be critical in some way, or is someone entitled to respond even if the post here wholeheartedly agrees with them?  And, of course, who counts as "progressive"?  Any non-Zell-Milleresque Democrat and anyone to their left?

---

by: cmonsour @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 18:01:27 PM CDT

Right to respond (0.00 / 0)

Excellent idea, I can't wait to see it in action. Bravo that you're up and running.

Why yes, I'm a liberal. Thank you very much!

---

by: billinfl @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 22:03:16 PM CDT