Over the past year and a half, Liza's little blog empire has been growing remarkably. Daily Gotham really took off thanks to several highly contentious Brooklyn issues (development issues, arson issues, race issues, and some particularly divisive primaries). For me it was a pretty dizzying rise that included quite a few heated exchanges between the DG editors/writers and other bloggers, political organizations and partisans of particular campaigns. At the end of it, we were credited with (perhaps given TOO much credit) defeating a Congressional candidate who raised $1.8 million and had assumed he would win as the only white candidate in a majority black district where the black vote was split among several black candidates. At the end of it we also had earned the respect of many who at first hated us. The president of one local club we took on who coined the phrase "I'd rather be flogged than blogged" after we took her club to task for disenfranchising a large group of new members recently welcomed me onto the board of the same club. Gatemouth, a local NYC blogger who really slammed us at first, wound up having us as his defenders when he was attacked. One State Senator we have slammed claims to be a loyal reader.
So, somehow, and I really am somewhat clueless how we did it, we became noticed on DG in a very short period of time. Put another way, we were successful.
During that whole time I spent far more time on DG than Culture Kitchen. But Liza asked me to be a managing editor for CK. Since then, through the efforts of Liza and the editors, CK has been growing as well. And has been noticed.
Some of the places where we (DG and CK together) have been either publicly recognized, interviewed or otherwise been treated as a real player include the NY Times, other NY papers, BBC radio, Pacifica radio and even some pretty impressive people over in Britain. Again, we have, in a very short time, been successful. We have gained some fame and along with it infamy.
By and large I am quite pleased with what we have done. But, we recognize this is merely the beginning and we have a lot more growth ahead of us. We have tried expanding the diverity of both sites. I have tried recruiting more women to DG and more men to CK. For whatever reason, we still ge more men at DG and women at CK. Fine. Them's the group dynamics. We have recruited a diversity of ethnicities, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Many we recruit never join. Many who join don't actively participate. But some do. And by and large I am thankful for every reader and even more thankful for every participant.
But...as any community grows tensions can emerge. Personalities conflict. And agendas conflict. That is, in fact, part of what makes a community like this grow. I think people like an edge from time to time. But sometimes the tensions that emerge interfere with the community dynamics as a whole. Then what?
It is the job of the editors of this site to make sure all runs smoothly and if something is happening that interferes with the community dynamics, we have to intervene. And keep in mind we consider tensions in general to be not only an unavoidable part of community dynamics, but a desirable one because it brings in readers.
But some things just don't work and we do need to exercise control from time to time. But let's look at how CK and DG work. They are pretty much free form communities. As editor I don't edit much. As managing editor I don't manage much. I recruit, I publicize and I participate. And I spend a lot of time doing all of these. Liza put a HUGE amount into this. Those of us who are editors do as well. Huge amounts of effort go into making DG and CK what they are and making them grow.
When someone comes along who disrupts the community as a whole, we have to consider what it means for the community. We have happily had and allowed extremely heated debates. But sometimes people do and say things we just don't find acceptable.
What are those unacceptable things? Well, these sites don't really have detailed rule books. Nor do we have detailed editorial policies. But I think there are some basic, obvious, common sense things our readers and participants have to consider when they post here and when problems occur.
First and foremost, we are all here as Liza's guests. She makes these sites. They are hers. You and me and everyone else are guests. Liza doesn't mind if we get unruly sometimes. But come on. When you are a guest you really should show a certain appreciation for your host and recognize that this site is NOT YOUR SITE. It is Liza's site. What does that mean? Well, if Liza doesn't like something you are doing, she's the boss. She can kick you out and that is her right. If you want to be boss, make your own blog. She puts the effort in, she gets final say. I would say that is the most important rule here. If Liza were a poor host, people wouldn't come here. But even good hosts have to set some rules and when your host sets some rules, you don't argue. You respect your host. What's wrong with that?
Second, editors do have as part of their job maintaining certain standards. We have been asked by Liza to do this. By and large we do not interfere. We may argue, but that is because we are participants first and foremost. We allow, no ENCOURAGE, a diversity of opinion. We even have recruited (gasp!) Republicans. But there are some things we have to intervene in. The second rule is respect the editors. We also put a lot into this, largely let people do what they want, but it really is our job to manage things. Don't accuse us of censorship if we ask you not to do something. We really have let people say just about anything here. If we express, as an editor rather than as merely a participant, a problem with what you say, you need to respect your hosts. We put a lot into this. Far more than you might realize. Give us a break and realize that we have reasons for editorial decisions we make.
What are some of the things we frown on?
Libel. This is legal as well as editorial. If we tell you we think something is libelous, that really is our call. You do not have the right to make libelous statements and it is up to us, as those responsible for the site, to say what may or may not be libelous.
Unsubstantiated statements. If you make a statement, please be prepared to back it up in some way. We may not ask for it, but if we do, we have a reason to. And the more radical the statement, the more we would like to see it backed up. We are read by many people, including politicians, government offices and media. We need to keep a standard of believability and leave the unsubstantiated rumors to Fox Propoganda. Sometimes I overburden my own posts with links. This is because I sometimes make bold statements and want to make sure I back them up. We do expect the same from you. You do not have the right to pull anything out of your ass you want and not back it up.
Offensiveness. Well, actually, we allow a wide range of offensiveness. But, only up to a point. And here is one place we often take close note of responses from other readers. I think almost every one of the rare cases where banning was even threatened, a fair amount of offense was expressed by a wide range of readers. If you offend one or two people, that's normal, though if they happen to be Liza or an editor, that may still be a problem. But if many people, some of whom don't often agree, all agree that you are offensive, THAT will get the editors taking notice.
Directly related to all three of the above, using right wing talking points is a big red flag. Let me use a specific example. Referring to Daily Kos as "Markos and his atheist minions" is not really discussing the role of religion in progressive politics. I fully encourage a discussion of the role of religion in progressive politics and some people I work with have had an entire forum on the subject in NYC. But "Markos and his atheist minions" is a slur, and a right wing talking point and is not really true. Want to say that you think Markos and some people at his site are too hostile to religion and that is detrimental to progressive politics? Fine. I may or may not agree...or may BOTH agree and disagree. But to turn it into a broad condemnation of everything Markos and his site stand for (which incude many openly and proudly religious people and which has included helping elect many openly religious politicians) is not the same thing.
Also related is the circular firing squad. Most of us here have some common goals. We should always keep those common goals in mind when we post. Vendettas are not helpful. Al Gore, John Edwards, Markos, Hillary Clinton...they are all part of what we have to work with on the left. We can criticize and disagree, but to attack to a degree that will create lasting animosity and interfere with later cooperation is not really acceptable. After the primary we probably need to get together. And we will almost certainly need to work with people like Markos. Criticism is all part of the process. Criticism and heated disagreement are fine. Attacking someone on a level that will prevent future pulling together is something that cripples the left almost routinely. I, for one, refuse to cripple the left over the 10% we disagree when we can pull together (at least after the primaries) regarding the 90% we do agree on. During primary season we argue over the 10%. But never forget that those you are fighting with now are still your allies regarding the 90%. Forget that too often, and we do consider it as contrary to the purposes of this site.
So, be factual, back up what you say, don't be too offensive, and don't be so vehement in your disagreements that you forget our common ground and our common goals. And remember that this site belongs to Liza and works because of lots of effort from Liza and the editors.
One last thing. Discussions of race, ethnicity, diversity, sexism, gender, homosexuality, etc? We love them. We have made them a big part of what we do. We have very much enjoyed making our rich, white, liberal neighbors squirm over these issues. So don't accuse us of taking stands because we are racist or sexist or whatever. It just isn't so and such accusations are likely to be viewed as evidence of trollishness.
I hope this clears up more than it muddies. I think it is mostly common sense. And in no case is an editor going to refuse to discuss a threatened ban. But we do expect people to accept that we CAN ban you if we feel it is necessary and to recognize that we very seldom ban and never without considerable consideration and discussion. So responses to a warning that include accusations of censorship won't impress.
I will end by noting this is MY perception. I invite the other editors to add their own perceptions.
[1] | 
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6]