Monday, May 11, 2009

Question: is there freedom of speech on this blog?... answer: sort of

One thing that amazed me after I started blogging was how many people want me to censor comments.

Almost every day, some anonymous reader will post something like this:
"Kevin, do you agree with both the 1:51 post? You host this blog and I wonder if this is what your about. Just curious."
Do I really need to answer that? Here's the answer: no, I don't agree with every comment. And I don't delete comments I disagree with. (But there isn't total freedom of speech here, because I delete profanity, spam, plus I usually delete personal attacks... so you can't say anything you want.)

As a result the comments section is a wild west of opinion.

Which seems to bother lefties.

My message to those of you who want me to impose a speech code here -- you'll have to deal with different opinions or you'll have to go somewhere else.
.
.
.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

I believe this is called a moonbat smack down.

Anonymous said...

1:51 Post
==============
In fact, you have the nerve to tell some one they should get a life but don't deserve the one that they have.

Let me tell you something troll. Where I am from if you were dumb enough to say that to someone, you'd be a dead lifeless body before you knew what hit you.
------------------

I don't know what is to not agree with. There are a lot of places if you said something like that to a stranger you'd get a bullet in your head for your effort.

Anonymous said...

The problem the "lefties have," ol' kicked-to-the-curb journalists, with the conservative comments are that most are filled with hateful words and thoughts.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that McClatchy Watch has outlived it's usefulness for those employees that just wanted information on their employment.

Since things are at a lull right now, there is really no reason for any current employee to be here.

There is also no reason to "defend" working for where you do as it only provides fodder for the idiots and will fall on deaf ears for those who should really see it.

Here is to hoping that IF it comes time for another "round" that we can get an information site up that is just that...INFORMATION.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that McClatchy Watch has outlived it's usefulness for those employees that just wanted information on their employment.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

That's not the bottom line. That is your line.

The bottom line is, you don't get to dictate what or who is heard. A lot of people in the business don't comprehend how that is possible, but it is.

Lot's of great information comes from here and I find it very useful for finding out what my paper will not tell me.

I just sort through and filter out the rants and tantrums and pick the pearls that my publisher refuses to print.

Good job MW.

Anonymous said...

I guess you too are not one of our brightest and should likely have gone out in one of the previous 3+ rounds, however because of your seniority you were kept on as a wasted expense.

The statement says that this site has outlived its' usefulness for employees THAT JUST WANT information on their employment status and I have to agree.

Information about typos, perceived wrong doings, and rants has no value to your employment at McClatchy does it?

Plus, if you feel that way then why would you continue to work for them? Low moral standards I guess?

Anonymous said...

The statement says that this site has outlived its' usefulness for employees THAT JUST WANT information on their employment status and I have to agree.



Apparently it is you that isn't too bright. The site was never FOR employees THAT JUST WANT information...


Actually no, I was kept on because I have only been there two years so they pay me less and are afraid that I will sue because I am a minority.

Why do I stay? Free money man. All I got to do is bullshit all day, say yes to everybody and be offended whenever possible. Type a few lines about a ball player or two and collect my money.

Anonymous said...

***Which seems to bother lefties.***

I believe that it was a "rightie" who threatened on MW yesterday to kill someone who said something he didn't agree with.

Anonymous said...

5:22 has it right. Plus, the deleting of profanity laden comments is not uniformly applied. Such comments from right-wingers often go untouched.

Anonymous said...

No this site was never intended to be one devoted to "employees".

It happened into that status when there was no other site available out there that had information about layoffs.

The statement above is that the site has lost THAT part of its' usefulness. It never had any real usefulness for current employees.

I tell you want, let me know who your boss is and I will make sure you are let go by the end of the day regardless of your race.

Anonymous said...

That is right 6:12 and the same idiot reposted the same thing at 3:32. Glad to see you approve of this Kevin and since I asked you the question then I appreciate the answer. Hope you like the direction your going in now. I'm sure you and the Goebbels retard will be happy together. Hell he posted 6 out of the 8 comments here.

And as for putting a bullet in my head you reject, your not man enough. Your just another internet coward....

Anonymous said...

I tell you want, let me know who your boss is and I will make sure you are let go by the end of the day regardless of your race.



You should already know.

Anonymous said...

And as for putting a bullet in my head you reject....



Where did anyone say that?

Anonymous said...

JUST LIKE HERE, TYPICAL LIB THINK, JUST ASK JOHN EDWARDS STAFF

Report: Edwards Staff Planned to 'Blow Up' Campaign Over Affair

Members of former Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign reportedly devised a "doomsday" strategy over his affair with Rielle Hunter in which they would destroy his bid for office.

Several unnamed former campaign officials said they had prepared a plan in which they would sabotage Edwards' campaign if it appeared he would secure the Democratic nomination, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reported on Sunday.

"They were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign -- they were going to blow it up," Stephanopoulos said.

The strategy was apparently put together in secret in December 2008 after months of denying rumors that Edwards was having an affair with a woman and had also fathered a child with her.

The revelation comes as Edwards' ex-mistress is reportedly interested in seeking a paternity test for her 1-year-old daughter after Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, sparked fresh questions over whether the father might be her husband.

The former North Carolina senator and presidential candidate denied being the father of Frances Quinn Hunter during a TV interview in August. But Elizabeth Edwards, in an interview on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" that aired on Thursday, didn't sound so sure.

Anonymous said...

They were Democrats first,...

...and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign

And just like here, A party of principles...

Anonymous said...

Just like a typlical lib.

Edwards staffers were OK with fundraising on the campaign donors as long as they the staffers were being paid, and as long as the campaign failed.

The fundraising was on the basis of “we are in this to win”. If this isn’t mail fraud and wire fraud, it comes right to the line

Anonymous said...

MNI FREE SPEECH, OR FREE PASS TO NUT-JOB NANCY

Pelosi Gets Roasted on Waterboarding Revelations

Pardon me for being surprised that people are shocked to find out that Speaker Pelosi is a typical politician. Regardless of whether one thinks waterboarding is torture, the verdict on Pelosi’s record on torture is in: she’s an accomplice by choosing to remain silent, ironically outed by the director of national intelligence of the administration she worked to get elected.

DNI Dennis Blair has put together a list of CIA briefings of members of Congress related to torture, or “enhanced interrogation techniques,” whichever term you prefer, including waterboarding. The document reveals that on September 4, 2002, Speaker Pelosi was briefed and given “a description of the particular EITs that had been employed” on high-level al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.

It is now widely acknowledged that one of these “particular EITs” used on Zubaydah was waterboarding, putting him in an elite class of only three detainees to have had the technique used on them.

This doesn’t exactly square with Pelosi’s recent statement: “We were not — I repeat were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” Oops.

Pelosi’s spokesperson, Brendan Daly, has responded to the CIA document by saying that “the briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used.”

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that McClatchy Watch has outlived it's usefulness for those employees that just wanted information on their employment.

Since things are at a lull right now, there is really no reason for any current employee to be here.

There is also no reason to "defend" working for where you do as it only provides fodder for the idiots and will fall on deaf ears for those who should really see it.

Here is to hoping that IF it comes time for another "round" that we can get an information site up that is just that...INFORMATION.

*****************************

Your absolutely correct ! It is a shame that due to the personal attacks to those currently working and those recently laid off Bee folks the site misses out on tons of insider gossip and information.

Without the insider information the blog is jst another boring name calling political site.

Anonymous said...

***But there isn't total freedom of speech here, because I delete profanity, spam, plus I usually delete personal attacks... so you can't say anything you want.***

Kevin, you really need to re-examine your priorities. You say you delete profanity, spam, and (usually) personal attacks. But it's OK to threaten to kill someone?
(And for what it's worth, I've voted for every Republican presidential candidate except one since I started voting in 1980.)

Anonymous said...

****But it's OK to threaten to kill someone?****

Where was that threat? The only death threat I recall is from raving moonbat last week that threatened to get rid of anybody promoting anti-Obamababoon dissent.

John Altevogt said...

I suspect that the threat to eliminate someone's job for their personal beliefs is far more credible than any threats of violence against posters of any stripe.

Anonymous said...

Failure to edit is a failure of responsibility.

Kevin is like the landlord of a brothel who looks the other way. He reaps the rewards of sin and hatred but disclaims all responsibility.

No one minds the conservatives. It's the bile and racism that make this site notorious and literally unbelievable.

John Altevogt said...

And for all the critics I just sent Keith an example of how The Star treats its critics (well, at least the editorial bored, the regular journalist blogs are pretty cool)

Anonymous said...

No one minds the conservatives. It's the bile and racism that make this site notorious and literally unbelievable.

----------

Anon 8:30, this is a very perceptive comment of yours.

John Altevogt said...

So none of you folks are familiar with the hate campaign against Francis Semler at The Star? This is a blog that gets a few thousand hits a day. The Star allegedly gets millions of hits and spews bile and venom on a regular basis. So spare me your tender sensibilities.

McClatchy Watch said...

7:54 -- "But it's OK to threaten to kill someone?"

You're making stuff up.

(I went through this -- was it with you? -- a few months ago when some goofball claimed there were threats against Obama in the comments... turns out the goofball had taken a phrase out of context in one comment and twisted it to mean what wasn't intended.

Anonymous said...

"Which seems to bother lefties."

I'm a leftie but a reasonable code of conduct doesn't bother me. Please don't paint with such an impersonal and broad brush. It comes off as mean-spirited and small minded.

-Amy

Anonymous said...

***So none of you folks are familiar with the hate campaign against Francis Semler at The Star? This is a blog that gets a few thousand hits a day. The Star allegedly gets millions of hits and spews bile and venom on a regular basis. So spare me your tender sensibilities.***


What relevance does any alleged hate campaign by the Star or anyone else have to how this blog is conducted? If hate on the Star is wrong, isn't hate on this blog?

Anonymous said...

Thanks Kevin for claering this up. As i said in another thread. The agenda of this site is very transparent.

Will blogs replace traditional news medium? I would say no, this blog is a perfect example of why it will never be a replacement.

to all my fellow employees out there whom came here for information and have gotten cought up in this crap, my advice is to move on. No matter what you say,it will not make a difference as these folks are out to upset you and thats it.

this site is not a place for conservitives,libs,news,or anything usefull to any normal person.

Kevin wants you to come here so the trash can belittle you for humor. A lot of us have tried to reason with the folks here and have gotten no luck.

so do what kevin has asked, leave and find another site that actually has real news.

Pg1News said...

Very interesting.

John Altevogt said...

I would love it if some of the real McClatchy folks came here and did try to reason with us. However, none seem to want to when it actually gets around to posting. Instead we get insults and meaningless posts that contribute nothing.

The closest thing I've seen is Any's response on this thread. I would also point out that I entered in several lengthy responses to anything that even resembled a dialog only to have them ignored and the same tired old drivel repeated again a week or so later.

For Amy, I don't support hate campaigns of any stripe. But don't come on here and trash people who have an almost microscopic audience to the one McClatchy claims to have with hands that are filthy from the hatemongering spewed from the rags McClatchy produces.

We've been criticized for not silencing those who go overboard on our side, well, show us how it's done. Send me a copy of the letter you write condemning The Star for it's hateful and deceitful campaigns against Francis Semler, Kay O'Connor, Linda Holloway (hmmmm, lots of women in this list) and Phill Kline.

Take them to task for badmouthing reform candidates while they endorse drunken judges and crooked congressmen.

Chew them out for allowing the left in Kansas City to loot the foundations and charities and turn them into fronts for their political and personal agendas.

Then come back and tell us how wrong our comments are.

Anonymous said...

This is definitely a McClatchy slander campaign. They came in here telling someone that they had no right to live, then claims of "death threats" that didn't happen. Threads flooded with this blog sucks comments and when that doesn't work they throw in the Racism claims.

Someone really needs to start posting IP addresses of these clowns.

Anonymous said...

***I went through this -- was it with you? -- a few months ago when some goofball claimed there were threats against Obama in the comments... turns out the goofball had taken a phrase out of context in one comment and twisted it to mean what wasn't intended.***

Well, most "goofballs" (your bias is showing) might interpret this as a threat: (MW yesterday) "Where I am from if you were dumb enough to say that to someone, you'd be a dead lifeless body before you knew what hit you. If there was ever an IP that needed posting right now, it is yours."

Anonymous said...

Well, most "goofballs" (your bias is showing) might interpret this as a threat:

========
If you interpret that as a threat, then you are a stone cold idiot who needs a dictionary.

If you walk up to someone in a lot of places and inform them that they do not deserve to live, they're likely to take that as a threat and do unto others before done unto them.

That is just good sound advice to keep your "D$%K SUCKER" shut before someone does it for you.

He should send you a bill since you're not smart enough to know it yourself.

Anonymous said...

11:33:

Is that you, Dave? Or is it the guy who posted the threat yesterday? Or are both of you the same?

Anonymous said...

***Send me a copy of the letter you write condemning The Star for it's hateful and deceitful campaigns against Francis Semler, Kay O'Connor, Linda Holloway (hmmmm, lots of women in this list) and Phill Kline.***

Translation: The newspaper reported what they said and did, as well as what others with different opinions said about them.

Anonymous said...

A code of conduct might not be bad. There's so much uninformed, inflamatory and truly alarming talk in this blog's comments (3:32 a.m. is openly talking about murder. Isn't this the same kind of thing the Columbine kids were talking about?) that I've been drifting away from it, after following the good coverage of the layoffs.

Brooks Brothers doesn't seem to want to be associated with this blog either... and I bet if someone told the other businesses whose ads rotate on the front page what goes on in the comments, they'd disappear just as quickly. You guys are just... scary.

Anonymous said...

From Strunk and White, p. 1:

A common error is to write "it's" for "its," or vice versa. The first is a contraction, meaning "it is." The second is a posessive.

It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas.

Anonymous said...

3:32 wrote-

"I don't know what is to not agree with. There are a lot of places if you said something like that to a stranger you'd get a bullet in your head for your effort."

?Really where? or is this another cyber threat? boo

John wrote-
"So none of you folks are familiar with the hate campaign against Francis Semler at The Star? This is a blog that gets a few thousand hits a day. The Star allegedly gets millions of hits and spews bile and venom on a regular basis. So spare me your tender sensibilities"

John, nobody cares what you have to say. You were rejected for a reason...

11:33 wrote-
"That is just good sound advice to keep your "D$%K SUCKER" shut before someone does it for you".

The blogger of this site clames that he takes out profanity and name calling, any child would tell you what the above quote means. Its double standard. The ownder of this site has lied. the content of this site is questionable, the facts lost...

Anonymous said...

That's because Kevin agrees with this type of behavior. I'm all for contacting the advertisers on this blog and letting them know what kind of site this is.