Should Science Journalists Reveal Themselves?
In the past year various panel reports on “climategate” and the IPCC have called for greater “transparency” in climate science.
But what about transparency in journalism? Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor and influential media blogger, has been calling for it for years and does so again in the wake of the Keith Olbermann suspension:
…self-respecting journalists should consider it an obligation to be transparent. Self-respecting news organizations should be honest with their communities and reveal the aggregate perspectives of their staffs. It’s relevant.
We have the ethic of journalism exactly reversed from what it should be: Journalists should be the most open, the most transparent, a model of honesty.
What about this? I assume Jarvis is referring to all journalists, not just political reporters. So I wonder how science journalists feel about this. Do they think it would be a good thing for journalism if they revealed who they voted for in an election?
What about the reader? Do you feel this is necessary? Also, would your perception of an article on climate change be influenced by your knowledge of the political orientation of the reporter?
What about me? Would you still respect me in the morning if I confessed that I was a Republican or Democrat? Would everything I write suddenly be filtered through your political lens?
Keith, don’t fool yourself. We all know you’re a middle-class Commie tree-hugger.
Even worse, a blogger!
I think part of Jarvis’s point is that it amounts to a false pretense of objectivity, and that people are better served understanding where a journalist comes from when interpreting their reporting.
This is an old tradition, that journalists do not belong (formally) to political parties or contribute to candidates. You know that.
With the rise of opinion columns and blogs, that has changed. Olberman is clearly an opinion talker, and it is neither a surprise nor concerning that he has contributed to a few candidates, no more so than Rush Limbaugh doing so.
Jarvis, OTOH, is a long standing concern troll (who has strong political opinions).
Oh yes, Eli forgot, it must be time for another blogger ethics panel
I guess it would matter if you had never read any other piece by a journalist or blogger. I would think that it would be irrelevant for someone whom you read on a semi-regular basis. I would bet that for most journalists after 10 articles, I could easily guess political affiliation simply by observing patterns of thought.
In your case Keith, it would be like one of those B grade movies where the main character gives a plot synopsis to bring around the really, really slow viewers.
Certainly it seems ridiculous that opinion mongers on TV and op-ed pages (and in blogland) should pretend to some objectivity. But Jarvis is talking about journalism across the board–that reporters should be more open about where they stand.
So far, I’m not seeing any clear responses as to whether a) this would be a good thing for journalism, and b) whether or not it would color your reading of an article.
Here’s a clear response:
No, it would not be a good thing for journalism. It would turn the remaining pieces of straight-talking journalism into the kind of polititainment crap that is steadily, coolly hunting down reasonable discourse in this country and shooting it in its bed.
Firstly, partisan politics have very little to do with most of the world. It’s a lot of theater. Think, for example, of primary elections. How much of that bluster actually makes it into government? Analysts and strategists openly talk about politicians who win a primary immediately shifting to the center in order to have a prayer of winning a general election.
Secondly, there are those journalists who simply don’t care about politics.
Thirdly, Jarvis’ hero is Howard Stern. He will, like his idol, say anything to get you to read his blog. He simply isn’t very good at it.
And finally, all of it would be immediately blown out of proportion. Reporters would be affiliated, unnecessarily, with political personalities. If your local education reporter was known to have voted for some candidate who was later revealed to be a pedophile, you obviously couldn’t hold it against that person, but would people on the Internet make hay of it? You bet!
Now, more than ever, it’s valuable for real journalists (e.g., not Olbermann and his ilk) to have a certain amount of breathing room between them and the breathless, page-refreshing lunatics created by polititainment.
[…] at Collide-A-Scape, Keith Kloor asks whether the idea should apply to science journalists, as well as political reporters: What about this? I assume Jarvis is referring to all journalists, […]
Dave,
Thanks for that unambiguous response and there’s a lot I agree with. However, I will openly reveal myself as a Howard Stern fan (but stopped listening after he went to satellite), so I don’t hold that against Jeff Jarvis. Let me also say that I think that both Howard and Jeff are wont to go over the line in their respective professions (as I’ve mentioned here about JJ).
I disagree that Jarvis will say anything for audience share. I often find his posts provocative to read in a good way. He challenges me to think about the reinvention of journalism for the digital age–what’s working, what’s not, etc. He’s got strong opinions, but I tend to agree with him a lot.
Just because there’s no perfect objectivity doesn’t mean anything goes. Journalists, scientists, and teachers can strive to be reasonably objective and present reasonably balanced accounts of what’s happening (reasonably balanced: giving kooks and sages equal time is not reasonable balance).
“Transparency” can be an excuse for oversharing about personal views, opinions, votes, etc. is more often an exercise in narcissism than something helpful to the reader. When someone thinks telling you about their politics in the context of helping you understand where they’re coming from in reporting on their research, a news story, or giving an academic lecture on a controversial topic, they’re shifting the focus from the subject of their reporting to themselves and implying that their point of view is so special that we need to know more about them. Better to stay in the background and make the story about its subject, striving to present it clearly and honestly.
Apologies for my bad editing. My second paragraph should read:
“Transparency” can be an excuse for oversharing about personal views, opinions, votes, etc., and thus is more often an exercise in narcissism than something helpful to the reader. When someone tells you about their politics in the context of helping you understand where they’re coming from in reporting on their research, a news story, or giving an academic lecture on a controversial topic, they’re shifting the focus from the subject of their reporting to themselves and implying that their point of view is so special that we need to know more about them. Better to stay in the background and make the story about its subject, striving to present it clearly and honestly.
Ed Yong has it about right. Science journalists should be openly partisan in the service of truth rather than journalistic norms. Applying that to Keith’s question directly- I don’t care who science journalists vote for. A science journalist might have perfectly reasonable political motivations (e.g. taxes) to vote for an openly Young Earth Creationist political candidate. As long as he or she doesn’t compromise the scientific integrity of the reporting, why should I care? It’s none of my business.
I wonder what else Jarvis thinks my readers need to know to fully evaluate what I write. I have frequently written about health and medicine. So does that mean I should offer up a full health history? (Hold on a minute, I’ve got to go get a second dose of hypertension medicine ’cause this is really stressing me out!)
Since I sometimes write about the economic and business aspects of environmental issues, I suppose I should release all of my tax returns too.
I often use my own photography in what I post at my blog. So does that mean I should reveal that my father was a Playboy photographer. (He really was!) Because goodness gracious, I must have learned my photojournalism ethics from him. (Actually, he offered fabulous guidance.)
And while I’m at it, I should probably make public all of my other relatives, not to mention friends, acquaintances, etc., because they certainly influence how I think. (My readers are surely entitled to know that I’m friends with all sorts of weirdos, including KEITH KLOOR!)
All joking aside, I try to be transparent in what I report by saying where my information comes from. I check it all out so my readers don’t have to. But if they want to, they can because I offer up my sources. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s good enough. My work speaks for itself.
Jonathan, thanks for the typically incisive comment (“bad editing” and all). Heather Goldstone has an interesting variation in a related post:
“Would owning up to political leanings clear the air for a more honest discourse? Or demolish the last possible avenue to respectful dialogue?”
Tom, so while I was home watching (with my nose pressed against the tv) I Dream of Jeannie you were accompanying your dad on photo shoots, presumably?
Seriously, good points.
Tom jokingly hints at something that I do think can be a problem with some aspects of science journalism (and science blogging)- the insular parochialism of the “rolodex”. Some otherwise very good science journalists have a stable of the same “sources” that they use over and over and over again, which can lead to a distorted view of the research in question.
Irrespective of what I think about Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt’s scientific work, I think that they would both agree that they’re overrepresented in the press. Likewise, I wouldn’t mind seeing Andy Revkin broaden his outreach to people other than Roger Pielke Jr. on some questions of climate-disaster linkage or climate science and policy. Although I more than a little proudly can say that I make it a point not to read Tom “suck on this” Friedman, he and Paul Krugman would do well to get to know some people other than Joe Romm on climate and energy policy. I appreciate that some people are more willing to reach out to the press than others, but there are some obvious “cliques” that form in some areas of science journalism that do a disservice to the reader by artificially restricting the scope and breadth of the relevant discussions.
[I don’t in the least mind that Tom and Keith are friends. I don’t mind if they frequently link to each other’s work. I think that being upfront about those kind of friendships is probably healthy for the maintenance of actual rather posed objectivity.]
Transparent Fox News is still Fox News.
+1 to TB
@willard
The problem with Fox News isn’t that they are a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party (or is it the other way around)? It’s that they pretend to be a normal, objective news source (Fair and Balanced; We Report, You Decide) and demand to be treated as one. A “transparent Fox News” is, in that way, an oxymoron in terms of the problem it poses to the traditional model of American journalistic dynamics.
TB, that “parochialism” of sources is a malady that cuts across all journalism. For example, I notice that the coterie of popular political bloggers cite each other all the time. It’s like a club. As for Friedman, yeah, I was starting to liken Romm the next “Mandelbaum” for Friedman.
So your larger point is still valid. As for for Tom Yulsman and I: in the more than two years we’ve had our respective blogs up, I think we have cited each other no more than a dozen times. That seems okay to me.
kkloor, I agree with all of the above and hope that I wasn’t giving the impression otherwise.
TB, over at the Jarvis thread, there is this good comment that echoes your point about Fox news.
> A “transparent Fox News” is, in that way, an oxymoron in terms of the problem it poses to the traditional model of American journalistic dynamics.
I was trying to convey something like that.
I am not sure how Jarvis can defend that MSNBC’s opportunity to speak for a segment of the population entails that it **must** be transparent about its views.
The audience can see the views. That’s why we call them “views”. The views are in the way the news get picked and told. Nobody needs to be told what they’re viewing. Explicitly stating the editorial lines is good, but is in no way necessary.
As Mamet says in the **Spanish Prisoner**, who is what they seem?
thingsbreak
+1 on #16
There are obvious clues to which way people lean by how they view Fox News. Lefties consider Fox to be a biased outlet and usually throw in some insults. Same lefties seldom have anything to say about MSNBC, CBS, etc. Those who whine the most about MSNBC, etc. have little to say about Fox.
Personally I don’t watch any of them, and have not for years. The ‘news’ conveyed by talking heads with flapping jaws who know next to nothing about the subjects of the day is a waste of time and electricity.
Keith makes a reasonable effort to suppress his ‘CAGW is real filter’ and at least tolerates those with different perspectives.
My bias: AGW may or may not have a meaningful effect on global temperatures, but CAGW is far from ‘settled science’ and is heavily promoted by people who usually have a lot to gain from their proselytizing.
Dr. Curry has it right: the IPCC management and the governments involved have corrupted the science for personal and institutional gain. Following the money (and not the nonsense about coal/oil/gas money) makes it possible to see why people stake out and defend undefendable positions.
I would personally prefer that reporters concentrate on identifying and disclosing the financial interests in the positions that CAGW (and skeptics) take, but that doesn’t seem likely. Knowing, for example, that failing to follow the playbook would mean never getting tenure, losing grants, personal investments in ‘green’ businesses might be lost; these would make the reports more interesting.
The fundamental problem is that well over 99% of journalism is useless or counterproductive. Things which actually make a difference in people’s lives tend to have a long arc and resist simple explanations. Who will care in 2 weeks time how many suicide bombings occurred last week around the world? People forget, or move on, unless those individual factoids are anchored in a larger story.
In my opinion, journalism has, mostly, been really bad about telling the larger story. Partly, I suspect, because it’s repetitive; the world doesn’t change so much day-to-day. And partly, I suspect, because too many journalists quail at the idea of being responsible for setting the factoid of the day in a larger story. (Are we winning in Afghanistan / was Iraq worth it?)
The mortgage crisis, the banking crisis, the collapse of the middle class and the fact that the top fraction of 1% are capturing virtually all the growth in GDP are all deeply interrelated stories. How do you even start to tell it? Matt Taibbi is doing so by approaching the story in big chunks with a clear point of view. Paul Krugman has about 5 or 6 basic ideas that he’s trying to convey in a very short format. He does so by linking one of his principal ideas to the news of the day.
So, Keith, what are you trying to do? Give somewhat more in-depth coverage to media stories on climate change issues? Create a more neutral forum than exists on RC, WUWT or Curry’s blog, with you acting as a sharp-but-fair interrogator? Do original reporting?
As sponsor of an independent forum, are you willing to call out people when you think they’ve gotten something wrong? (Do you feel competent to do so?) Take, for example, James Annan’s response to Judith Curry’s posts on uncertainty. There’s a really interesting story out there. Curry appears to be taking the position that the IPCC is unfairly claiming a degree of certainty that does not exist. Others insist that she has failed to demonstrate the IPCC error and that her own uncertainty analysis is incoherent. What role, if any, do you want to play in that dispute?
Some people will read your blog so long as it’s interesting. Other people want to read climate blogs to be reassured that their viewpoint is correct. What kind of readers do you want?
(No, I don’t care how you vote. I care that you write with integrity.)
very well said Francis.
I’ve often asked RPJr the same question, as it’s not clear to me that he operates his blog for the purpose of enlightenment (of himself or others) but rather to foment controversy and promote his own work. No crime in that, but it doesn’t exactly nurture the kind of atmosphere where genuinely curious readers can interact (as there is always a subtext of maverick/anti-ipccc/anti-RC undertones to his posts). In fairness to Roger, maybe I’m reading too much into things…but maybe not :)…
Keith OTOH, i think very much appears to be striving for the “sharp-but-fair interrogator” role and has done fairly well to date IMO. A key challenge as you allude to, is how to ask ‘sharp’ questions when you don’t have the necessary knowledge to distinguish a spaghetti strategy from coherence/consilience, which presumably requires a relatively robust understanding of the field under discussion.
Like you, I wish a blogger (Keith ?) would take up the Annan’s challenge to JC, as she is quite clearly is engaging in an area where he’s an ‘expert’ that disagrees quite forcefully with what she’s been writing about on the subject of uncertainty…and yet so far she’s refused to engage him or his substantive points (which were also made by MT and stoat and others)
therein lies a story that I know I’d like to see covered.
Journoes covering science should disclose their science background.
In mots cases this is <b>nil</b>.
So they just copy and paste from press releases and call their pet ‘expert’ if they get stuck.
This would be like having a Japan correspondent who didn’t speak Japanese and relied on his chauffeur to explain everything.
KK,
If there existed only one journalist in the world we might demand full disclosure, since we would have no other journalist views to compare what he says to.’
But in the current world we have this mega-supply of journalists. Journalist supply has exceeded demand. Anyone can compare one journalist’s account of a situation to many many others. It is relatively easy to figure out a lot about any journalist in question. So disclosure is not imperative.
John
Francis,
There’s a lot of different thoughts to your comment that deserve response. For the time being, let me just say that your first two paragraphs give an unfair representation of journalism.
The daily stuff you’re referring to is news of the day, the actual reporting of events, “first draft of history,”etc.
It sounds like what you’re looking for is more contextual reporting/journalism and you usually get that in magazines or special news programs.
Blogs are a completely different animal, many a hybrid of insta/news and deep thought.
Some of the best blogs (in my opinion) that cover climate change include Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth, because he combines reporting with big picture commentary. Reporting is something I wish I could more here in my own blog, but it’s time consuming and as I’ve said before, I don’t get paid to do this. Ideally, if I had the time and funding, I would write five blog posts a day, and two would be reported. But I don’t see that happening, so this blog is a vehicle for me to stay intellectually engaged with issues that interest me, everything from journalism and archaeology to yes, climate change and other assorted science-related topics. It’s also my shingle on the web, a necessary thing in the digital age.
I think it should be apparent to long-time readers that I like to explore meta themes, that I like to tweak certain people, and that I like the give-and-take of good discussion. In my limited role, I try to spur this with posts that challenge people to think about things in different ways.
Marlowe: You’re not being fair to Roger Pielke Jr. and you’re tarring with a broad brush. Like Jarvis with journalism, I’ve often found that Roger’s blog challenges me to critically reexamine conventional notions in climate policy and politics.
Otherwise, thanks for the generous praise you’ve lavished on me. Wish I had the means to do more of what you’d like to see.
Keith,
Perhaps you’re right in that I’m being hard on Roger somewhat. I completely agree that he regularly offers provocative and at times insightful commentary on his blog –which is why I keep reading it! The point I was trying to make is that from where I sit he appears to be a partisan in the climate blogosphere in a way that I don’t think you or Andy is. You guys don’t have a dog in this race in the same way that he does. To be clear, I don’t perceive this as an insult to Roger. It’s ok to have an agenda and use your blog to promote it.
But lets at least recognize the limitations that follow. Agenda-driven blogs like Rogers and WUWT and climate progress tend to select content and structure their narratives in a way that reinforces their particular POV, rather than as a starting point for discussion. As I’ve said before it’s the difference between a lawyer’s tactical approach (i.e. point scoring) and a teacher/scientist approach.
In Roger’s particular case it’s a shame IMO as I think that he’s uniquely qualified to explore some interesting issues (e.g. the interplay between climate denialism, trust in scientific institutions and support for climate policies). But such a discussion doesn’t play well into his iron-law narrative so it gets ignored/minimized…
KK:
I confess I listen to NPR and avoid Fox and daily newspapers. On the other hand, I’m one of your readers willing to go through the bother of commenting here, so take my comments for what they’re worth (not much, but a signal as to what one active reader thinks about the intersection of journalism and blogging).
I appreciate a good give-and-take and if people want to play in such a heated environment as this one they need to be able to accept being on the receiving end of a few sharp elbows. That said, my own viewpoint is that you discredit yourself as an analyst and commentator when you go out of your way to tweak people. For example, I find your little feud with Joe Romm to be childish and beneath the dignity of either of you. (And yes, I’m well aware that he makes himself a tempting target. People who are passionate about issues usually are.)
Based on my reading of JCurry’s new blog, I think you need to make a choice — you can indulge the temptation to tweak people on a personal level, but you will lose the participation of those who aren’t particularly interested in reading yet another blog in which the comment threads consist largely of personal attacks and cheerleading. Or you can keep the little jabs to a minimum, edit out libelous comments, and encourage your readers to engage in substantive dialog. While I like Real Climate a lot, I think that there’s plenty of room for other blogs to create space for structured debate.
Here’s a homework assignment: read the most recent thread on Volokh.com posted by Prof. Adler entitled “How Progressives Misunderstand Much Conservative Skepticism of Climate Policy”, <a href=”http://volokh.com/2010/11/08/how-progressives-misunderstand-much-conservative-skepticism-of-climate-policy/”>here</a>. It has 285 comments as of the writing of this comment. Did you like the thread? Entertaining? Thought-provoking? Is it the kind of audience participation you’re looking for? Personally, even though there were some good comments on both sides, I found the signal-to-noise level depressingly low. But Adler gets to run his comment thread the way he wants, as do you.
Francis,
It should be obvious that I take your comments seriously since I’m responding to them. Let me address your objections/issues individually:
1) Romm is just one of many people I’ve tweaked, though admittedly I tweak him more. But this is no feud (at least not from me). It honestly offends me the way he indiscriminately and unfairly attacks journalists and others. But you know what–he’s cut back a lot on this, so you don’t see me tweaking him as much, anymore, right? Obviously, I’m also an equal opportunity tweaker, as Anthony Watts hasn’t taken kindly to it, either. Additionally, like it or not, the climate blogsphere is dominated by personalities, so you can expect this kind of thing from time to time.
2) I don’t know what you mean by the suggestion that my comment threads are peopled by cheerleaders and insulters. I don’t see it that way at all. I think I’m very fortunate to attract some high-level commenters from across the spectrum. Do I still get my share of cranks and what not? Sure, but doesn’t every blog? If I see people stepping over the line and getting personal or going off topic in a way that is counterproductive, I almost always step in. (Repeat offenders end up in moderation.)
But to your larger point, you have no argument from me about the signal to noise ratio problem. As you see here, I’ve bemoaned it recently.
At the end of the day, you’re not going to approve of or agree with everything I write. That would be boring for you and for me as well if that’s the kind of audience I strove for.
#31 Francis: Or you can keep the little jabs to a minimum, edit out libelous comments, and encourage your readers to engage in substantive dialog. While I like Real Climate a lot, I think that there’s plenty of room for other blogs to create space for structured debate.
I completely disagree. The commenting environment on C-a-S is so lively and enjoyable to read because of Keith’s thought-provoking and informative articles. Plus his skill (or talent) at moderation has made this blog a growing success. I love reading the diverse opinions. No other blog (especially not RC) draws a virtual who’s who of climate science bloggers, along with their readers. It’s not uncommon for a single post to generate over 300 comments. The whole appeal of blogging is the opportunity for reader interaction.
Just a year ago, almost nobody knew who KK was. Since then, Keith is now mentioned in the same breath as Gavin Schmidt, Steve McIntyre, Joe Romm, and Anthony Watts. The successful debut of JC’s Climate, etc. was largely made possible, thanks to C-a-S.
For the past few weeks, my keyboard was barely functioning until I finally bought a replacement yesterday. It was wonderful to still be able to come here and read up on the latest buzz in the climate blogosphere with just my mouse. I like reading comments from everyone to authentic working scientists to vocal quasi-anonymous frequent “infinite monkeys”, such as myself. No other blog can boast such a diverse audience. DotEarth, Monbiot, or Delingpole may beat it in terms of numbers. But you don’t find Tim Lambert, Michael Tobis, Lucia L, Tom Fuller weighing in. (Speaking of Tom, what’s up with him lately?)
Keep doing exactly what is working so well, Keith! I even love when you blog about other blogs. Although they may be a tad jealous, you ultimately bring them additional traffic and more exposure. Joe Romm, especially, is probably secretly thanking you.
Repeat offenders end up in moderation. ?
Laursaurus:
You are very kind but you give me way too much credit and importance. I am a bit player at best. It’s true the blog has gained a higher profile in the past year and is steadily carving out a niche but honestly, the people you mentioned have vastly bigger audiences and (much greater prominence) than mine and I’m quite sure are not in the least jealous, much less impressed with whatever thing I got going on here. Also, if my blog didn’t exist, I’m certain that Judith’s Climate Etc would still have been a huge hit.
KK: yes, I’ve noticed Romm seems to be using a narrower brush and you’ve toned down on the snark. I appreciate both efforts.
On a pure style point, I prefer unacceptable comments to receive the [edit] tag rather than vanishing, especially on a numbered thread like here. Somehow, vanishing those comments feels much more Orwellian than redacting the offensive language.
Francis 32-
Re-reading your comment, I checked out the link you provided.
Did you like the thread?
Yes! Entertaining? Thought-provoking?
Yes and yes!
Is it the kind of audience participation you’re looking for?
There is a lot of good participation here at C-a-S, too. Like I mentioned, frequently a single post generates over 300 comments. Most climate blogs are snarky and one-sided. That’s what people are used to, unfortunately. So there is a bit of a transition period for people to adjust to this more mature environment.
I hope you stick around, Francis. Bring your friends 😉
Compare Jonathan Gilligan’s advice to journalists: “”Transparency” can be an excuse for oversharing about personal views, opinions, votes, etc. is more often an exercise in narcissism than something helpful to the reader. When someone thinks telling you about their politics in the context of helping you understand where they’re coming from in reporting on their research, a news story, or giving an academic lecture on a controversial topic, they’re shifting the focus from the subject of their reporting to themselves and implying that their point of view is so special that we need to know more about them. Better to stay in the background and make the story about its subject, striving to present it clearly and honestly.”
With Feynman’s advice to scientists:
“But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”
Now consider why Sonia Sotomayor was important for the court, a group of citizens who are to judge based on objective, neutral criteria.
The narcissism is not when you report on your biases, the narcissism is when you believe your life experiences, training, and so forth will not influence your writing, or somehow represent the zero point, average, or non-biased view.
Once again Keith, your commenting system is absolutely the worst one out there.
[YOU’VE MENTIONED THIS SEVERAL TIMES. SO WHY DO YOU BOTHER?//KK
Because it’s really horrid, Keith, and you’re the putative blogmeister.)
(You’re the journalism professor, I take it that when a student of yours’ makes the same misteak over and over, especially a misteak that distracts’ from his/her overall very wonderful contributions, that you mention it once, and then never again.)
Ah, but you’re the only one complaining. Context matters.
Like I said, if it’s that bad, don’t bother. Everyone else seems to put up with it without bitching. I’m aware the software has its problems. Longtime readers know I’ve experimented with other systems and they were worse.
This is as good as it gets for the time being, so either get used to it, or stop complaining. It’s tiresome.
Huge Difference, your comment is very confusing.
#39 paragraph 1, HD makes a decent point relevant to this discussion.
Paragraph 2 is interesting, but on a completely different topic.
Is Obama’s appointment to the supreme court an analogy? Sorry, I’m lost.
#3 It’s narcissistic for the writer to assume he is unbiased? And narcissistic if he discloses any personal experiences that shape his perspective? Scientists must explore every potential flaw in their experiment that could invalidate the results to be scrupulously scientific. But what about journalists?
#4, if none of this makes sense, it’s because the commenting system is unacceptable. Good red herring!!
One time there was an option to vote thumbs up or down on individual comments. It was fun, but wasn’t really Keith’s style. Too bad, I guess.