Monday, December 12, 2005

Show of hands ... what shall we talk about today?

Tookie ..... nope already done that (juice him up already). Iran? Go ahead and bomb 'em back to the stone age (yesterday if you would please).

Well, what does that leave us? Pajamas? Oh ..... Pajamas Media, how silly of me.

Alright, you folks deserve two things, one: a concise thumbnail overview of the entire affair. And two: an indepth comprehensive overview of the whole affair. You'll get neither here, today. I'm not saying I will or won't attempt such in the future (feel free to try yourself). Just not today (I'm lazy, but then you already knew that, right?).

No, we will talk about the word. Corruption. I'll repeat, corruption. I know of no one on the right, who has accused PJM of it. Even suggested it. Myself, I slappid (sic) that wheezuhl Tony Pierce around a bit, for saying such. (Clicking on the main embedded title link in: "Glad I'm not a Right Wing Blogger in 2006, or a member of Pajamas Media. By Tuney Pearce." Will take you to the particular thread/comments at Tony's site). Being quite firm, and having a little fun in his comments. He deleted some comic references and banned me (I'm still heartbroken).

No, in the academic, in the recent past, the discussion was .... could/would PJM alter or influence content. Not some paranoid quid pro quo. Money buying a changed point of view Or directing one. But, as we have already seen, it can influence content. And sadly so.

Why has this happened? How? Well, being part of PJM has silenced many normally critical, inquisitive, and loquacious types. What we around these parts call/know as bloggers. Again, I'm not saying they were outright paid to be silent. No. I am however saying, that their internal mechanisms have been altered. Their freedom of expression not quite so free. It's obvious to me. To others?

Those that have spoken up, have not taken up any support/defense of the 'other side'. Only unthinking, reflexive spasmodic herks in defense of PJM, or in bumrush of it's critics. They used to think about their reponses to subject matter before. They used to offer up insightfull reasoned and fleshed out arguments. So of course yes, it is obvious why no one even mentions the "D" word (Dennis the Peasant). But, is that honest? Is that what bloggers did before PJM? Ignore things, ignore facets of stories. Ignore stories whole? Feel free to arrive at your own answers, yourselves. I am not telling anyone what to think. Or how to think. I am only sharing my thoughts, my thinking. It is however, my view, that PJM has lowered the quality of blogging. And most definitely. Unquestionably, has not raised it.


Addendum; 10:59 a.m.


Someone on the left, kinda, sorta, almost gets Tony Pierce:
"As to the validity of his claims, that the Pajama crew is part of a Bush conspiracy... I don't think so". Though Tony shows up in the thread, and David Anderson then seems to be less emphatic? And it becomes a mutual admiration society after that.

Addendum 10:02 p.m.


Well, I have a blog (ain' thadda beech?). Does it mean anything? Lots of things. And nothing. Call it a conning numdrum. And call this linked post whatever you want. Me .... I found it ummm, interesting (quotation marks optional).
http://sophistpundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/get-some-standards.html

Steve H's comment, in the above link's comment thread, should not be missed.


This one is actually more interesting (no optional quotation marks needed). Purporting to offer some sage business advice to bloggers, or the blogging community. Worldy, suffused with with wisdom. But ever so strangely, the writer can't resist tossing some reg'lar ole value judgements Dennis the Peasant's way (ain't blogging grand?).

It’s not officially dead yet, but buzzards are circling over Pajamas Media (PJM), an online “new media” experiment co-founded by Roger L Simon and Charles Johnson.



Addendum; Wednesday December 14, 8:47 a.m.


Some actual objectivity is now starting to enter the Pajamas Media discussion. People other than those that have been on the front lines, in most of the debates (of whichever side?). Who have not previously discussed the past issues. But starting anew. Picking up issues which have already been discussed. But bringing a fresh voice from outside the warm temps that have existed in the previous Pajamas discussion kitchen.

Diggers Realm, with "Will Pajamas Media Destroy BlogAds?" (Now there's nothing wrong with the concept itself in my opinion. And unlike some others out there I have nothing against Pajamas Media).

Related: F*ck Pajamas Media.

3 Comments:

Blogger Adam Gurri said...

I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anything written by me where I stake the claim that value judgments are bad.

Because, well, that would be a value judgment in it of itself, wouldn't it?

All I said was that he had no standards. Incidentally, your friend's comments (which "shouldn't be missed") runs along the same idea--why back up your arguments with evidence or base your theories in reality when you can just masturbate in your little corner of the web, right?

8:21 PM  
Blogger AnechoicRoom said...

LOL ...... well, you don't have to come around here to show me how it's done Adam. It seems you've got that part well in hand (snarf, snarf).

The "my blog is bigger than your blog" argument. Wow, twice in one month. Damn, now I do feel spayshul.

Oh and Adam ..... the phrase: "value judgements" applies to the link which followed the referenced term (not your's which preceeded it). Me, I said of your post: "interesting (quotation marks optional)." See, I was being both diplomatic and polite.

[In this case, the bwahahahaha is optional].

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,
Elmo :-)

6:12 AM  
Blogger Adam Gurri said...

"Oh and Adam ..... the phrase: "value judgements" applies to the link which followed the referenced term (not your's which preceeded it)."


Ahahaha, really? Well, don't I feel like an idiot.

My apologies :D

6:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home