Sunday, March 30, 2008

An Editorial Response...

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
It's been nine months and over 200 posts since BarkBackNews was started, and until this point I have never felt compelled to respond directly to a posted comment, but the following words are just too much to ignore. It was posted yesterday. The response follows.

Posted by Shadowdancer:
"Scott, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, you have completely lost my respect when you started (sic) insulting, what seems like a random people each post, that only shows that you ran out of intelligent FACTS and are now running on BASELESS and arbitrary views. There is also another choice, perhaps you are just stubborn and cannot admit when you are WRONG. There is only one last thing I can think of it being and that is that you are using your subscribers just to make the sponsors happy and stir up controversy. Whatever the reason, this site seems less like the thought provoking debates you had started with, and seems more like the insane ramblings of deranged psychopaths."


I can only imagine that Shadowdancer is referring to the two contentious main topics that have dominated the conversation over the past month or so--the primary battles between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the possible naming of Colin Powell as John McCain's running mate. During this time there have been 13 BarkBack posts concerning these topics. In those posts, the ONLY personal attacks and name-calling that have taken place on this site have been posted by YOU Shadowdancer. It was YOU who referred to a contributor who attacked no one in his post as a "self-righteous pompous ass" that should "examine the meaningfulness of his life." That contributor rebutted you without a single insult or nasty comment. Now you respond to my post concerning the potential of re-votes in Michigan and Florida (an article in which the only negative words in the entire piece questioned a double-standard on behalf of the Obama campaign) with baseless accusations of constant insults and arbitrary views.

I have NEVER insulted a SINGLE contributor or edited the views of anyone who takes their time to post on BarkBackNews. What exactly are the "arbitrary" views that you speak of--ones that don't happen to agree with your own? Exactly what "Intelligent Facts" have you provided to the conversation-- that you can recount how many medals Colin Powell has won, or call someone else a "pompous ass"--or better yet--a "rambling psychopath?"

*Editor's Note-
Another note concerning the coverage of the two aforementioned topics: The 13 posts/articles in question contain five pieces on General Colin Powell (three positive/two negative) and eight concerning the nomination battle between Senators Obama and Clinton--four pro-Clinton/four pro-Obama.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

2 comments:

Shadowdancer said...

Scott, perhaps you missed a few of the previous posts –

“So, he is either a fool or a war criminal accomplice. Pick one.”

“even Republicans, get weak at the knees around the Schmoozer-in-Chief (and that's a compliment -- he's damn talented), but I know quite a few moderate Republicans who are sane, rational people ... yet they go absolutely apeshit when Hillary's name is mentioned”

“Equating Hillary with Laura Bush is also lame”

“almost-Pavlovian rage”

“Who fucking cares about these two losers? I'm voting for Pat Paulson.”

Then you have Mike Harts response to my comments, he said he, “had to use insults to get through to members of the GOP”… Now I don’t know what you consider insults or personal attacks, but obviously they’re far different from mine. Also, how would he know if I’m a republican or a democrat? And saying that “GOP’s only respond to insults” borders on racism (prejudice, narrow-mindedness, discrimination.), a topic I’m sure you wouldn’t choose to endorse.

Another thing you should be aware of is the fact that you tend to be one-sided; instead of giving your viewers the facts and leaving them to make their own opinions. Anyway, I merely tried to point this out in my previous posts. Perhaps you didn’t take it as it was meant, as I can fully appreciate that written thoughts are harder to understand then face-to-face conversations. As for what I posted I stand by every word I wrote.

Scott Cavanagh said...

Shadowdancer:
I could not have made my own case any better than you did in your response.

Of the seven quotes you pulled for your rebuttal (four or five of which are TOTALLY harmless) not a SINGLE ONE is from a BarkBack post--all are selectively pulled from the open comments section, and NONE of them were from me. Of those seven, only two even appeared anywhere on the actual page, and one (the fool or war criminal line) was followed by the posting of your ENTIRE rebuttal the next day (you remember--the Pompous Ass--post).

What's even more galling is that your last example from M. Hart's response to your attacks was never even taken out and posted on the page (by my decision)to keep things balanced and avoid any more personal crap. That's why none of the other comments you mentioned were ever posted to the page! Another note: In his rebuttal, Mr. Hart did not even say that he had to use insults to get through to a Republican, he responded to you calling him a pompous ass by saying that GOP members had to resort to name-calling when faced with the facts. Yes, I guess he called you a Republican, without knowing for sure. Well Shadowdancer, if someone calling you a Republican or a Democrat, or a Libertarian for that matter, without your permission registers as an insult--then the bloggin' game might be a little rough and tumble for ya.

On the topic of balance, our presidential coverage has been specifically and deliberately balanced, with McCain actually receiving more positive column inches than either Hillary or Obama. This despite a readership that leans heavily to the left.

I also DEFY you to find a single article or post where I attack anyone's record without the backing of facts and do not provide those facts (generally with direct links)in abundance.

As far as laying out the facts and letting people make their own decisions--this is a news and political blog--not CNN. The airing and swaying of opinions is pretty much the whole point.

Talk to you soon.