If you haven't gotten a chance to look at the ridiculous Dorgan smear on the Front Page, go drop by, and be sure to read the comments. It's a classic example a knee jerk reaction to a story that is complicated at best without taking the time to determine whether any wrongdoing was done, or even implied. RNC couldn't have done a better job. And while I find the area of gambling and tribal donations fascinating, and it might be well-worth my time to write a primer on it in preparation for all the Abramoff stories that are coming out soon, that will require research, time, thoughtfulness, etc. For now, I just couldn't resist a knee jerk reaction piece.
So, here are some basic concepts to apply prior to slamming Dems or even (gasp) Republicans as corrupt or unethical. Yes, I actually believe Republicans deserve some benefit of the doubt. I don't think it does much good to participate in unfounded rumor-mongering of GOP ills. There are enough actual GOP ills to go around, and one is likely to be taken less seriously if one cries the proverbial wolf. Besides, there's also that "we're better than them" thing.
1.) Check your Sources
- By now, kossacks should have a pretty shrewd idea of certain key phrases and journalists that are not to be trusted. If it looks like a Republican talking point, it just might BE a Republican talking point.
- Read the entire article before commenting on the guilt of the parties in the comment thread. Diarists have a tendency to slice up the juiciest grafs for their block quote. Sometimes this is intentional, sometimes not. Even when you're making a good faith effort to convey the meaning of the article in question, the practice of cut and paste means you have to make a choice about what's the essential point you're trying to make, and because you've read the entire article, it's easy to overlook the distorted picture resulting from cuts.
- Try to find a second source. This will give you that necessary five minute "calm down" time prior to posting your knee jerk reaction, and will add to the credibility of your post when found.
2.) That obnoxious innocent before proven guilty thing:
I am not so hard-lined as to suggest there can't be breaking news and that we should hold ourselves, especially in comments, to the standard of the New York Times. However, a couple of notes.
- People like Byron Dorgan, Harry Reid, and Tim Kaine, who suddenly appear out of nowhere to be implicated in wrongdoing deserve the benefit of the doubt, do they not? Ask yourself: what is the reasonable explanation for this BEFORE jumping on the giant flashing corruption bandwagon. You will be amazed both at how remarkably easy this is, and how quickly it stops the spread of virulent heresay comments that you're embarassed for later.
- In scandals like the Abramoff scandal, it is absolutely ridiculous to paint all elected officials receiving money from Indian tribes with the same brush. It is unfair to suggest that any elected receiving money that turned out to be from Abramoff is de facto involved in wrongdoing without any perusal of their record and previous support for tribal and gambling interests. It is pretty damn easy to find out whether someone has a history of support for this cause. If they have such a history, it should be prominently noted on said diary, as it vastly changes the context of any donation. I feel that this is done primarily because tribal interests do not have the constituency choice groups do among kossacks, but remember that tribal interests traditionally have a good deal of Democratic support.
3.) Kos is not always right.
Neither are any of the front-page posters. Likewise, Armando is not always wrong, neither are any of the front page posters.
4.) Be aware of the Consequences of Your Statements
- Remember that each time you say something negative about someone, it has an averse negative reaction on their campaigns, donations, general enthusiasm among the base, etc. It's being the guy who talks trash in the locker room. Sure, TO can play football, but who needs that kind of background drama. There is a problem with unity in the Democratic Party. Your comment is furthering that problem. Does that mean the party should be immune from criticism? Of course not. But at least think about that prior to speaking. At least, before throwing virulent crap out into the ether, ask yourself, is this important enough to bring disunity into the party and in general be THAT guy?
- Remember the goal. Our goal is to elect Democrats. I am sorry if I do not have much patience to those of you who would prefer this goal to be bitch about Democrats. Sorry. But I don't. Does that mean we should blindly defend a corrupt member in our midst. No. But should we blindly condemn people without any introspection or examination of the facts at hand? No. Why should we do red state's job?
So, there you are, my very first meta-diary. And I do mean it about taking the time to write a gambling diary in the coming days. It is a worthy topic, and should be necessary reading material to everyone in the coming months.