The Feedback Loop

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:15 AM

If you publish these days, you get e-mail. That's the way it goes.

Some is positive or provocative, some is negative or nasty. Some brief, some endless. Some the heartfelt sentiment of the writer, some blog-generated rants by folks who pretty much say the same thing and may not have read what you wrote, keying instead about a mocking description of what someone said you wrote.

Well, that's life. I enjoy the feedback--most of it, anyway, although it sometimes reaches a volume where no human being, at least not one who has to make time for eating and sleeping, could read it all. If you don't like sharp feedback, you can go write on a cave wall.

Otherwise, welcome to the electronic age.

In the last few days I've been overwhelmed by the response I've gotten to my first-person piece about the devastation in New Orleans and the media's challenge in keeping the story alive. I've gotten hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, from people who live there, grew up there, have family there and have volunteered to help hurricane victims there. I've also gotten mail from around the country from folks who are just concerned about the NOLA situation. Some of those with a personal connection to the city have written me long, thoughtful, passionate letters about the losses that they or family members have suffered, about feeling abandoned by the media and the rest of the country, and other aspects of the crisis. There's a viral aspect to this as well, with people forwarding my piece to all their friends, some of whom have written to me as well.

It is impossible not to be touched by many of these messages, and I've tried to write back to everyone I can.

I've been on the receiving end of not-so-flattering waves of mail as well, so I know the pluses and minuses here.

I bring all this up because Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has written a piece about getting 3,499 e-mails in response to his pan of Stephen Colbert's Beltway performance, a column that itself is generating plenty of blogging:

"Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn't funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was -- as was most of the press, I found out -- George W. Bush's lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap.

"It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever 'it' may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.

"What to make of all this? First, it's not about Colbert. His show has an audience of about 1 million -- not exactly American Idol numbers. Second, it marks the end of a silly pretense about interactive media: We give you our e-mail addresses and then, in theory, we have this nice chat. Forget about it. Not only is e-mail too often a kind of epistolary spitball, but there's no way I can even read the 3,506 e-mails now backed up in my queue -- seven more since I started writing this column ."

I will confess that the worst part about some attacking e-mails is not the "you are an idiot" genre, but the ones that assume you have an agenda, a sack full of ulterior motives and you're in bed with fill-in-the-blank.

At Daily Kos, Georgia10 takes exception to Cohen:

"The whole angry left myth is a copout, an escape-hatch for those who are confronted by fact and choose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than the message. It's a cowardly tactic that originated on the radical right (see Malkin and the moonbats); lately, we have seen its use on the rise in the traditional media. It is, indeed, a pathetic diversionary tactic. Instead of addressing the substance of the critique, those who use the easy-out 'angry left' defense avoid addressing the true issue at hand.

"This obsession with form over substance is the hallmark of political analysis these days. Instead of addressing the substance of Colbert's critique, Cohen's first column obsessed over the form of its delivery. And now, he wastes a second column whining about the tone of emails he received, instead of addressing the substance of his readers' complaints. The nature of the modern medium ensures that any critique by internet users -- conservative and liberal alike -- will be massive, unfiltered, and instantaneous.

"And it will always be effortless to cherry-pick intense or inappropriate comments or emails and use them to dismiss an entire dissenting view as nothing more than the angry rants of a disillusioned group."

There's an angry right, too, you know.

Public Eye guy Vaughn Ververs also enters the fray:

"At the risk of running this topic into the ground, it follows my argument that the blogosphere is risking marginalization if it is perceived as a cauldron of anger rather than a repository of thought-provoking conversation. How that perception is fostered is up for discussion-- many bloggers would argue that those in the MSM focus only on the tone of the discussion at the expense of the more valuable contributions . . .

"I think Cohen's view of interactivity as a 'silly pretense' shows a thin skin and is an example of severe over-reaction. But those pounding on the gates of the old media establishment should ask themselves how best to get in, to establish themselves as an important part of what should be a real conversation.

"Journalists are notoriously thin-skinned and averse to the kinds of criticisms they level at others. Fair or not, that's the reality of the situation. How bloggers deal with that reality is up to them. Journalists ought to be able to deal with criticism of their work regardless of how that criticism is voiced. The fear is that, in dealing with personal attacks, wild charges and 'verbal sewage,' they will stop listening altogether and news organizations will pull back their nascent attempts at participating in the conversation. That would be a loss for all."

Oh no. Not another new poll claiming that Bush is at a new low. Wait, this really is a new low, 31 percent in the New York Times :

"Just 13 percent approved of Mr. Bush's handling of rising gasoline prices. About a quarter said they approved of his handling of immigration, as Congressional Republicans try to come up with a compromise for handling the influx of illegal immigrants into the country.

"The poll showed a further decline in support for the Iraq war, the issue that has most eaten into Mr. Bush's public support. The percentage of respondents who said going to war in Iraq was the correct decision slipped to a new low of 39 percent, down from 47 percent in January. Two-thirds said they had little or no confidence that Mr. Bush could successfully end the war. . . .

"About two-thirds of voters said he did not share their priorities, up from just over half right before his re-election in 2004. About two-thirds said the country was in worse shape than it was when he became president six years ago. Forty-two percent of respondents said they considered Mr. Bush a strong leader, a drop of 11 points since January."

Yow. So much for the notion that he had hit bottom.

Slate's John Dickerson sticks it to Nancy Pelosi:

"Elizabeth Dole sounded desperate last week. Trying to inspire dispirited Republicans, the head of the party's Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote a fund-raising letter urging the GOP faithful to rally, because if Democrats seize power they will 'call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush.' It's a sad truth of politics that if you can't inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them.

"But then along came House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to say that, yes, Sen. Dole is exactly right. In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite-a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults.

"Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure."

In football terms, you don't want to give the other team incendiary quotes they can hang up in their locker room.

"When Russ Feingold called for censuring the president a month ago, it seemed like a smart political move precisely because he wasn't a Democratic party leader. He was speaking for a vital wing of the party but allowing Democratic leaders to distance themselves from him. But Pelosi is the Democratic leader. Republican claims that Democrats would launch a wave of investigations like the GOP-style ones of the 1990s suddenly seem credible. Those GOP inquiries reached their absurd apogee when Rep. Dan Burton shot a pumpkin in his backyard in an at-home investigation into former Clinton adviser Vince Foster's suicide."

By the way, how absurd is it that Republicans are warning that Democrats might do what they themselves did a few years ago in terms of irresponsible investigations?

"It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power, but it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you're trying to launch your policy agenda."

Do presidential candidates, ah, lack good career options? The New Republic's Noam Scheiber raises the question:

"Of all the unpersuasive spin you hear from political aides about why their current/former/future boss isn't interested in running for president, this line from former Gore strategist Tad Devine strikes me as most laughable. Here's how The Wall Street Journal reports it:

"My expectation is he's not going to run in 2008, says Tad Devine, a top Gore strategist in 2000 who hasn't spoken with him lately. 'He's in a really good place, and he's succeeding fabulously. Why would he want to walk away from it all?'

"Good point! After all, the people who run for president are normally down-on-their-luck types who've washed out of multiple jobs and are just hoping to land some generous government benefits and three square meals a day . . .

Aha! A New York magazine writer guilty of plagiarism!

Well, intentional plagiarism, as explained in this letter to Romenesko :

"New York spokeswoman Betsy Burton explains: 'With the endless stories about the Kaavya Viswanathan case, and thinking about the plague of plagiarism, we decided to write a piece about plagiarism that is plagiarized.

" 'David Edelstein, our film critic, conceived of this idea and tracked down 20 articles on the subject of plagiarism pegged to various scandals. Then he did a big cut-and-paste job and wrote a denunciation of plagiarism that is roughly 99% plagiarized. (The first and last lines are the only original things in the entire piece.) The words are those of Samuel G. Freedman, Ruth Marcus, Jack Shafer, Malcolm Gladwell, various bloggers, and reporters from the Boston Globe, New York Times, and others. A section was also taken from Thomas Mallon's well-known study of plagiarism, Stolen Words. The idea is that we're putting the piece out there and seeing how long it will take anyone to notice.' "

I'm very ticked off at not having my words plundered. I've written more about plagiarism than any of those people!

Does Rosie O'Donnell strike anyone else as an odd choice for "The View?" National Review's Myrna Blyth is, shall we say, not a big fan:

"These days Rosie is not shy about giving her opinion.

Last year she told Geraldo Rivera that George Bush 'is basically a war criminal. He should be tried at The Hague.' Not very moderate.

"Rosie was the host of her own daytime talk show for six years, before she quit five years ago. When Rosie first appeared on daytime TV, she had a very different persona. She palmed herself off to her audiences as just your typical single, working mom who cared about cooking, kids, and crafts. Of course, not many single working moms are multimillionaire lesbians with bodyguards for their kids and a political point of view similar to Michael Moore's. Those were the days when she claimed to the audience almost daily that she really, really, really had a crush on Tom Cruise.

"Yes, she was supposed to be the 'Queen of Nice' and the audience bought it. Of course, Rosie was helped by a shrewd PR team and a plethora of women's magazines which put her on their covers, gushed over her presumed good nature, and pretended that Rosie in her dark man-tailored suits was just a bit tomboyish. Rosie here's her blog, (she doesn't use capital letters) has got her fans. I just wonder whether those who don't like her will switch channels.