I have been greatly distressed by Ann Althouse's seemingly irrational dislike for Pajamas Media, and wanting to see them fail. I have generally liked her and have been reading her for perhaps 1-1/2 years. The only other point that I disagreed with her was her similar attacks on Harriett Miers. I understand that she was in unity with the law profs, but I did not like the tone of the attacks, just as in the Pajamas Media case.

Parade .... meet rain.

http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2005/11/the_certain_thi.html

I'm thinking it's a class thing. I generally like her perspective on the world, but here she's gone way into some other dimension. She seems to think she's protecting the purity of blogging. Has she ever visited any of Nick Denton's sites?

I just read through the links and I have to say I'm on Ann's side on this one. It looks like, unless I'm misreading it, she never played the sexism card - only one of her commenters did.

More importantly, she's right on the facts. Whatever PJM eventually becomes, right now it's kind of a mess. It's sort of a news aggregator, but hard to read, and almost impossible to find any specific piece of information.

Finally, I think Jeff G. is completely overreacting. If they're trying to take blogging to the next level of respectability or whatever, the worst thing they can do is pound on the inevitable criticism that will come. Actually, worse than even that is pounding on the critic (her)self. In his case, he's making not just himself but the whole organization look bad.

Obviously, given the experience with the other people you mentioned in your post, I'm not saying one shouldn't respond to criticism; I'm just saying be civil and if the other side comes off petty then they have to live with that. I'd say we've managed so far.

What's the "outrageous accusation" at the link?

me: "Why do you take joy in the pain of children, Yaron? Why do you laugh at their pain? Why?

"I'm not judging you, mind. I'm simply asking the question. And for the love of all that is good and pure, you need to tell us. WHY MUST YOU RUIN THE SPIRIT OF BLOGGING BY LAUGHING AT THE INJURIES TO A POOR LITTLE GIRL WHO WANTED NOTHING MORE THAN TO WATCH A PARADE?"

Yaron: "But I didn't --"

me: "--AHA! Did I strike a nerve, Yaron! STOP BULLYING ME WITH YOUR WORDS! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO RESPOND TO MY CRITICISMS!"

Yaron: "But you're misrepresent --"

me:: " -- WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO DENY THAT YOU HATE CHILDREN? AND WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING ME SIMPLY FOR POINTING IT OUT?"

****
I don't know, Yaron. I guess it's easy to accuse others of overreacting when it ain't your reputation on the line.

I'm with Jeff, Yaron, she has taken it way too far for it to be just criticism. She seems to have some sort of vendetta and it's making her irrational and insane. And she did play the sexism card, calling for feminists to defend her at one point.

As for Jeff G., the only thing he does that I wouldn't do is link to the people. No need to give them attention and traffic. But otherwise, I'd go just as far as he's going to defend myself.

Alright, here's how I see it: the site, PJM, features both serious items and jokey stuff (like the parade live-blogging thing). In my opinion, and I guess in Ann's, the site doesn't do a good enough job distinguishing between the serious stuff and the snark. That sense of unprofessionalism I think is what's causing her to post about it; maybe she's posted about it too many times, though, I don't know. In any case, you (Jeff) felt personally attacked because it was you that had written most of that jokey stuff. So I can see how you came to your point of view, although I think if the site were just better about denoting humor as humor then none of this would be an issue.

Hoping everyone calms down eventually.

Oh .... look what the cat dragged in, Jeff G. The same indidvidual, who in a different thread, changed the default to a link leading to his own website (linking to a protein wisdom comments thread). Where the participants disparaged another indidvidual, who was merely offering criticisms of the Pajamas Media business model. Changing the link to an offensive image (and then after a period of time, changing it back again).

The same Jeff G.'s whose comments threads have called into question the character and integrity of Steven Den Beste. The same Jeff G. who goes to every single last Pajamas Media crtique thread on the entire planet, to spread his cheer and sunshine.

Hey Jeff G. what is your opinion of what Roger/Pajamas Media did to Kenton Kelly?
Or does your life only revolve around obfuscation, deflection and attack?

What a hack.

I'm with Yaron here.

Karol, I think you're missing the point of Ann's arguments. Ann has argued two things: (1) OSM was founded without a clear plan for its business or operation, and therefore looks amateurish in its pitches to prominent bloggers, and (2) the backlash she has faced from this criticism has been harassing.

As for the issue of her asking feminists to defend her, again, you're missing the point. She was making the point that the traditional pool on leftist feminists, who ordinarily rise to the defense of any woman who is derided for speaking her opinion, has thus far been absent in defending her. Her point is that feminists are fair-weather feminists: they have no problem defending their ideological brethren, but will not say a word to conservative and/or middle-of-the-road women like Ann.

Whether you agree with these arguments or not is one thing. However, to assert thatn she is being irrational, or that Instapundit "made" her is patently false. I would remind you that Instapundit became aware of Althouse through her blogging for the 2004 Presidential election.

Check your facts; your argument is not supported by them.

Again, I have no problem with PJM criticism.

Ok, put it this way. I have plenty of 'blog friends'. Like you, Dave. We're friendly but we've never met or anything like that. If I started a business, any business, and you decided to extensively trash it on your blog, we wouldn't be friendly anymore. For Ann not to get that she should treat people that is she is friendly with with more respect than she has is too bad. And yes, I maintain that Glenn made her. Nobody would've ever heard of her if it wasn't for his consistent linking. I think she owes him at least an ounce of decency and kindness for that. Constructive criticism is one thing. What she is doing is quite another.

Elmo, Jeff has commented on my site before but I do believe this is your first visit. Are you technorati-ing PJM? At least Jeff has a reason to defend himself and PJM, you seem to be just one more person wanting to take shots at PJM.

Ann owes no one anything; she can vilify any endeavor Instapundit or anyone else is involved with. There is no law that requires one to hold one's tongue when one sees holes in a new venture. Sure, there may be a part of etiquette which says it's better not to say unpleasant things than it is to express them, but how honest is that?

Further, it's normal in business for new businesses that are poorly thought out to be trashed; look at the literature on ill-conceived dot com companies, for example.

Finally, I think Glenn Reynolds et al are adults; if they wish to parry Ann's arguments I am sure, they being educated people, will do so. Some even have.

No need for you to do their dirty work for them, is there?

I'd ask the same thing of you Karol, that I would ask of Jeff G.. Opinion on Roger/Palamas Media treatment of Kenton Kelly.

And, since you have already questioned my intentions here, I'll take that as a disinvite to further participation.

It would seem Karol (nothing personal), that you have little background on the entirety of the field that is the history of OSM/Pajamas Media/Kenton Kelly/Althouse discussion. But, that hasn't stopped you from defending those who stoop to slime.

And .... like too many, are engaged in a simple blind, personal defense. Like I said, nothing personal. Taken as a whole, the behavior of Roger and OSM, and that of those who ignored it. Then attacked those who would question it. Is simply a disgrace that will not pass.

Okay, I have no idea what Elmo is talking about. Changing links? Offensive images? Say what now?

Elmo is a vociferous PJM critic. In fact, go to any of the sites that criticize PJM regularly and you'll find Elmo a fixture there, piling on. I suppose he's trying to ingratiate himself with other, bigger PJM critics in order to make a name for himself. The tide is turning, however, and people are starting to recognize that the tone of much of the criticism has been poisonous and destructive. Which means that when critics start easing up (and I'm friendly with several of the biggest of those critics, IMing with them regularly), people like Elmo will fall back into the obscurity they so richly deserve, and will be remembered only for their behavior during this debacle.

As I've said several times, though I find her tone displeasing and petty, I honestly don't mind the criticism from Ann over PJM, or the criticism of the liveblogging. In fact I said so TO ANN in her comments. However, what I won't tolerate is a misrepresentation of the facts in a post that is designed to do damage to people's reputations. From one of the comments I addressed to Althouse on her site:

"I don’t much care if you like the liveblogging or not. That’s a matter of taste. But you are suggesting here that we were callous or unconcerned — when the fact of the matter is, it wasn’t even clear to us what had happened."

In sum, here's the deal:

Ann admitted that she hadn't watched the parade coverage, so she had no idea what we, the livebloggers, were seeing and hearing on CBS (NBC didn't cover the balloon incident at all). Initially, CBS noted initially nothing more than that the M&M float had gotten a rope snagged somewhere -- which precipitated the joking comments (none of which, pace Yaron, I had written myself). This took place at 8:33 am PST (see the liveblog thread); at 8:37 am, CBS cuts to a shot of the felled lamp. At that point I raise the possibility that someone could have been injured -- though CBS has not yet done so. Once everyone on the liveblog refreshes and sees my comment (given the nature of the software, our responses overlap), the joking stops.

I explained to Ann what we ACTUALLY saw and heard, and how that differed from what she later learned from a Breitbart news release (and what I learned, ironically, from her -- that two people had been slightly injured).

But instead of admitting she had jumped to a conclusion and apologizing for thinking so ill of six people she doesn't know (she argued that, in her words, "a lamppost hit a young woman in the head and you guys went on with a series of jokes [...] and seeing something dangerous happen to a crowd that included kids didn’t stop you" -- which misunderstands and misrepresents the chronology of events, as she well knows) -- she has been arguing that the proof that we blithely ignored the seriousness of an incident that resulted in injuries is that — wait for it — I’ve been defending myself against the very charge.

Her original post asks rhetorically, "Do our intrepid bloggers right themselves?” -- then goes on to suggest that no, we don't. Her follow-up comments continue to make this clear.

But that assertion is untrue. Ann leaves out the entry, directly after the ones she quotes, that says, "Was somebody injured? Oy. I thought the only casualties were a lampost and a polypropelene float.”

All of this happened with two or three minutes, mind you, and mind you as well that it happened independent of the CBS's commentary; I was the first one to suggest there might be an injury because CBS cut to a shot of the lamp, which looked big and heavy.

All of this could have been avoided had Ms Althouse been willing to admit she was basing her entire post on reportage that came AFTER the fact and that we at the time had no access to, or knowledge of.

a lawyer blogger who gets 20 or so hits a day

i get more than 20 or so hits a day...not much more, but still.

and i am not a moron.

bitch.

There is no law that requires one to hold one's tongue when one sees holes in a new venture. Sure, there may be a part of etiquette which says it's better not to say unpleasant things than it is to express them, but how honest is that?

Dave, again, it's one thing to criticize. It's quite another to be a huge jerk about it.

Russian-born and Brooklyn-bred? -with phrases like "have done gone lost their minds", there must be a little Southern in your woodpile.

Ann sure could have used some.

Finally, there turns out to be a bloggy connection to the Sweet Cherry bust. It was reported by one Karol in a fairly lame right-wing weblog called Alarming News. Apparently a group of “conservative girls”, one of whom may or may not have been said Karol, went slumming at Sweet Cherry three weeks before it got busted.

Her strikingly stupid buddy Jessica was also along on the excursion, and wrote about it disingenuously in her own weblog. She framed the whole thing as “Question: How do you know you and your three nearest and dearest girlfriends just walked into a shady strip club in Sunset Park, Brooklyn?” She gives several answers, mentioning thrilling depravities like the bullet holes in the windows, tee hee. A more truthful answer would be that if you’re down in that neighborhood at night, you know damned well what kind of establishment it is before you ever walk in.

They write better than you do. And are probably much smarter.

Thank God Nick Denton has cured us all of blog purity.

Ann got whacked around quite a bit on LGF, said blogger being one of the founders of OSM (now PJM). Nothing was done to put the brakes on that particular spanking, so that may account for some of the bad blood. I've seen a good deal of classless posting from PJM's side as well. Tim Blair has already washed his hands of the whole thing. So it's not all that one-sided. (Ann is outnumbered here, and while I have no stakes on either side, I do tend to root for the underblog.)