as seen on tv
Senator
In an ideal world, probably not. And I’m anti-censorship, in general.
In my simplistic view, there are two kinds of people. Those who create content, and those who are offended by it. Of course, this is starkly black and white, and there are more than 50 shades of gray.
There’s probably an inherent conflict in tasking someone with being a moderator, if that person has a strong partisan position, posts dozens of times daily, and feels personally threatened every time a viewpoint he disapproves of starts to garner attention. The natural inclination is to respond with personal attacks and ridicule when confronted with an idea you cannot refute on the basis of logic of facts. This is human nature. So is consumption of mega-sized sodas rolling through red lights when no one else is at the intersection. All sorts of things are being criminalized these days.
But then there’s this . . .
Political Jack is a place that should be encouraged, and nutured. There aren’t that many places which solicit and provide a forum for divergent political views in such a free wheeling manner. But PJ continues to struggle to attract a critical mass of “free content providers” (you and me), due to the hailstorm of vituperation and slurs which rain down on ideas which contravene someone’s own cherished partisanship. To some posters, everyone who takes a different starting point, or ends up at a different conclusion, is a complete moron who must be hectored into submission, or chased outright from PJ, because of course “if I disagree with THAT point of view, its for sure that all his ideas are certain to fulfill my stereotypes of the extremists like hjm who are ruining this country”
Moron. Idiot. Slhut. A$$hole. You and your entire gender/religion/party/ethnic group. Go to hell, you’re not wanted. You’re a threat to my smug, insular world view.
After all this, am I signing up to be a moderator? PJ needs them to survive, and thrive. Against my fondest fantasies of a censorship free environment, I have to concede this.
But no – as a moderator I would find myself challenged, and conflicted, constantly patrolling other people’s threads, trying to sniff out every whiff of bullying and bellicose invective. I check the PJ tab on my browser at most 2-3 times a day, during slow bits. I don’t have time to either make 200 posts a day, or review that many from others. At least not until I’m unemployed and mad as hell about it and not gonna take it any more.
PJ is sometimes a nice place. Let’s keep it that way, whether you decide to raise your hand to be a moderator or not (i'm encouraging you to do so, if this is right for you). PJ censorship is minimal, and transparent when it does occur. It’s far more honest than other public spaces (like open salon) where contributors who contravene the editorial orthodoxy are “secretly censored” – they can see their own top posts as if they were published, but the items are hidden from everyone else. Clever, no? PJ’s editors don’t have a political agenda. If you want to be a moderator, you probably need the same approach. I have an agenda, and pursue it without apology or embarassment.
Be a moderator if you’re up to the challenge, and be better at it than I would manage to be.
Full disclosure – this writer majored in lit, with a minor in Cultural Anthropology. She subscribes to the Baltimore Sun, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and The Economist. Can no longer afford the skyrocketing print edition of the New York Times, however.
