Twitter, the latest Web-based "social networking utility," offers users the opportunity to update each other on their whereabouts and activities, as long as they do it in 140 typed characters or less.
Of course, that's only how mere mortals use it. Put a tool like Twitter in the hands of Erick Erickson -- editor of redstate.com (which bills itself as "the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill and ... the most cited right of center blog in the media"), 69th most influential conservative in the United States (according to London's Daily Telegraph) and member of the Macon, Ga. city council -- and Twitter becomes a way to discredit the conservative movement with a handful of characters left over.
A few days ago, following news that Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- an appointee, incidentally, of Republican President George H.W. Bush -- was stepping down, Erickson "tweeted" the following: "The nation loses the only goat-f------ child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement." (The actual "tweet" spells out the f-word).
Earlier this week, in the worst non-apology apology ever, Erickson told the Macon Telegraph he "shouldn't have" sent the message (2,500 people subscribe to his Twitter messages, and his comment on Souter has since been widely circulated on the Web), and although he doesn't believe what he wrote, said "(i)t wouldn't surprise me ... 'cause he's creepy. I was just creatively expressing my disdain for a guy that hates America. I don't think anyone took it as fact. In hindsight I shouldn't have said it. I felt good at the time saying it."
Yeah, Erick, why should you, as EDITOR of a Web site offering all sorts of commentary on the news of the day, expect anyone to take you seriously? And why should you be concerned about whether what you write, even on Twitter, has any basis in fact? And why shouldn't you write something blatantly false and disgusting simply because it feels good? That's SO "old media."
Folks, -- and by "folks" here, I mean the people sifting through the wreckage of the Republican Party in hopes of finding some foundation upon which to rebuild it -- let me suggest to you that, if he ever was, Erick Erickson is no longer part of the solution to your considerable woes. He is, in fact, the problem.
- Jim Thompson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
What are you doing...............
Respectfully, it seems more like you're the one doing the sifting through the garbage. The Republicans are out. At this point, it looks like not even a filibuster will be able to save them. The GOP has been shut out at nearly every juncture. Yet, here you are sifting though peoples text messages and tweets over a comment that is not more nefarious than any of the other filth that goes on in politics. Seriously, our president made a derogatory comment about the Special Olympics and it is all but ignored. How about Rahm Emanuel sending a message commonly seen as a death threat to someone? Will you also discuss that and make broad proclamations over Emanuel being the problem instead of the solution.
This really seems like you're singling out a non-issue of someone you don't like. Its much like Don Nelson dredging up Tom Wyatt's resume or interviewing Larry McKinney a year after he left the chamber trying to dig up dirt against the chamber board. It's not news and it's kind of childish.
I realize Erick's taking his bias and trying to pass it off as fact or some sort of qualified view point is frustrating and downright insulting to actual journalists. However, when you troll the swamps of politics in search of stories like these, you're not helping make the case for why journalist should be taken anymore serious than political bloggers.
Not trolling the swamps
Jeff, I wasn't exactly trolling the swamps here. My initial source was the Macon Telegraph, which was quite correct in covering this, given that Erickson is a city council member.
On another of your points, I'd argue that no one seriously believes that President Obama spends his time making fun of physically and mentally challenged children, and I don't know that any of the people threatened by Emanuel have actually turned up dead. What makes Erickson's comment so egregious is that, given a chance to walk it back, he instead said "it wouldn't surprise" him if Souter engaged in child molestation or bestiality.
And while your point on the GOP is valid nationally, it remains the party of choice in Georgia.
and if the Macon telegraph jumps off a bridge?
Come on, Jim. It's a Macon Telegraph story because the guy is a city council member. You're making it an Athens story because you don't like him. I argue that no one seriously believes that Souter engaged in child molestation or bestiality and i doubt that even erick actually believes that Souter does. To your point,Obama made the special olympics comment on national TV so I think it is pretty clear that he has, at least, spent some time making fun of physically and mentally challenged children. I think the fact that we can watch him do it on you tube only strengthens the point. Whether or not the president's chief of staff has actually killed people is not what we are discussing. We're talking about comments.
Do I think our president has anything but compassion for physically and mentally challenged children? Of course not. Do I think Erick was claiming Souters extracurriculars as a fact. No. Do I think Emanuel really intends to do many of the egregious things he says he intends or wants to do? No.
In the same vein, do I think this is the kind of discussion we should be having from good paper with plenty of hometown antics, malarkey and tomfoolery here at home. No. Have a higher standard. Leave this kind of journalistic dumpster diving for the 10,000 political blogs out there. I believe the pitch that many journalists make concerning journalism versus blogging is the standards, sources, resources and that the reporting is just plain better.
You guys are just plain better than dredging up this kind of crap. And many of its readers, like myself, expect a bit more objectivity when it comes to whose comments you decide to scrutinize.
Comprehension?
"...make the case for why journalist should be taken anymore serious than political bloggers..."
I see the point you are trying to make, but I feel compelled to point out that perhaps the reason this seems more like blogging than journalism is because this is a blog. It says so right up at the top of the page.
Yes, and you can do anything through the hole in the sheet.
I don't buy the line that a professional journalist, on a newspaper site, can simply suspend the higher standards they are expected to uphold. This blog is often used to break news. It's only authors are journalists. It is linked to the paper's site. Part of the name at the top of the page is Online Athens.
I never said anything about how this "seems like blogging". You did. (though that invented argument you're attributing to me does make your little quib appear to hold water) However, you're missing the argument. I said that having professional journalists engage in such political dumpster diving may reduce the credibility the public gives them as unbiased, objective sources of information. That's regardless of what medium they are reporting with. The public can use any source it can to determine the credibility of the sources which provide information. The viewpoints the journalists offer as news or discussion here certainly colors the credibility they get when writing for the paper.
Fair enough...
OK, Your point is well made. But...
Yes, he is a journalist, and yes, the site is hosted by the paper. I would submit that news is usually broken on the main ABH page, and the blog section is used for a much more casual style of journalism.
It's my observation that the items posted here are not usually of a standard that would suffice them to be printed in the paper edition. Furthermore, I allow the paper's employees to remove their Journalist hat when posting here, or at least wear them at a more jaunty angle.
I suppose if you don't allow them to do that, then you would expect everything written by an ABH employee to be held to the same standard - but then that eliminates the need for a blog section at all.
As for Mr. Thompson's original point: Yes, Mr. Erickson did exhibit extremism in the defense of his writing, and he regretted it in a mealy-mouthed sort of way. And yes, Mr. Thompson seemed to take extreme pleasure in bringing that to our attention. But he did that here, and not in the "real" paper. I would think less of Mr. Thompson if he didn't have strongly-held opinions - he is known to write an opinion column from time to time - but I think this was the proper place for him to express something that was more personal than justifiable.
Does it stoop to "dumpster diving"? That is something that you feel, and perhaps correctly. I suspect, though, that the issue is deeper than this one incident. I would have felt better if there had been presented a series of similar writings showing a pattern of extreme Twittering by Mr. Erickson, and perhaps there is. But frankly, I've over analyzed this already...
You both have a point ...
and it's one we've talked about informally around the newsroom for awhile. It's not unreasonable to expect that the blogs directly associated with the newspaper's Web site adhere to the same journalistic standards as the print edition. In that sense, I'm a bit of a fish out of water here, since I'm associated with the newspaper's opinion pages.
What we've talked about is rearranging the blogs so that opinion writing is more clearly separated from news writing. In the meanwhile, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for me to identify myself as the editorial page editor, to help folks distinguih my posts from the news writers and editors who post here.