My $.02
Original post is at Wide Open.
____________________________________
I’m delegating most of my thoughts on what has to be seen, barring divine intervention, as the end of this particular “Wide Open” experiment, but not the end of wide-open experimentation, to Jill, who said it all (WLST link) pretty darn well.
If you want my perspective on yesterday’s and last evening’s events, go here.
If you want to see, or care about, the standards I’ve imposed on myself to ensure credibly perceived blogging, go here. I don’t expect others to reach the same conclusions I have about abstaining from political contributions, but I really do think that we’re going to have to wrestle with what disclosures readers routinely have a right to expect from those who choose to make them, whether it’s on proprietary or co-op blogs. I also find it odd that several of those who are seemingly obsessed with having conflict-free, fully-disclosed politicians, and who seem to concentrate their fire on those who aren’t from their party, don’t seem to have a problem with keeping their own potential conflicts of interest from their readers.
This post isn’t as much a resignation as it is an observation that the whole thing has sort of blown up, and it looks like there’s nothing left to resign from.
As with Jill, I have nothing but nice things to say about Jean Dubail and Chris Jindra, and thanks to all who visited Wide Open, moreso to those who commented there.
I do believe that somebody’s going to make this type of thing work (don’t ask me to define “this type of thing”). A Buffoon of the Month congressman, a newspaper that didn’t anticipate the potential pitfalls, and a bit of impetuousness have prevented that from happening at WO.
Looking forward, we’re still at our homes (me, Jill, Jeff, and Dave).
And there’s a Carnival of Ohio Politics to catch up on.
Of course, I don’t know the goings-on in the PD newsroom, but I might guess that you could’ve stayed on until some lefty replacements were found. Either way, your integrity and logic shine on this post and in this decision, even though I’m usually to the left of your commentary. Good luck to you, sir.
Mark
Comment by MarkJablonski — October 31, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Well said, Tom. Thanks for giving this a shot. We all had high hopes it would work, but I agree with your final assessment. All the best,
Wendy Hoke
Comment by Wendy Hoke — October 31, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Tom, it is not so sad to see what happened. You all gave it a great shot, the experiment was worthwhile, and it probably worked better than you guys think at the moment. Everybody involved learned something, which is why experiments are conducted. The Wright Brothers fiddled and faddled for years before figuring out how to make a machine fly with a man in the pilot’s seat.
Also, blogs and newspapers don’t have the same kind of audiences, or purposes.
Comment by Bill Sloat — October 31, 2007 @ 8:37 pm