I had some hope for MM.  And still perhaps a little hope – about half the writers seem to make it seem possible – but when I get attacked for sincere opinion, and told its because I want to make a buck, I just have to laugh.

Chet

I had some hope for MM.  And still perhaps a little hope – about half the writers seem to make it seem possible – but when I get attacked for sincere opinion, and told its because I want to make a buck, I just have to laugh.

Chet

Great job.

Whether I have a bias or not, I raised a valid point.  The best response you come up with “your biased”.  OK.  So I am.  But you have not addressed the substance of my concern, which is true.

My website and in a number of sources I make it clear that I'm a political consultant, focusing on moderates and conservatives.  Am I obligated to, before every blog post or comments, to repeat, oh, by the way, I'm a political consultant and here's a detailed history?  Come on.  You knew from response one at the top what I do – why didn't you raise this concern above when I first raised the concern?  And so what if I want future clients – or friends – or just as a matter of principle, to receive fair coverage?  Why do you refuse fair coverage?  My bias may frame why I raise the concern, but it is independent of the logic of the concern I raise.

Ms. Apo-Joynt – Are you the editor?  If so, I invite you to give me a phone call.

Perhaps, if you are holding me to that standard of disclosing my possible future clients, MichiganMessenger should, before every blog post, put a disclaimer on it noting its own bias and not just possible future clients, but its current funding sources.

I'm a pretty reasonable guy if you've ever talked to me, but I have to say, this is absurd.

This thread has now veered quite a way from the topic and does not further analysis of the same.

Actually, providing such a link may not change my reading habits, but it makes it available and shows an effort on your part to achieve some balance.  And my selectivity is more likely to be do to my wide ranging reading habits and simply “missing” something, so if you put the link in there, it would give me the ability to go back and review it. Even a newspaper (the physical version) can't expect its readers to read every article.

And at the least, what I suggested would remove the avenue of criticism.  If a story is a part of series, you'd think even without the link you'd mention its part of a series.

I doubt that you support a particular presidential candidate (I don't support a candidate on the Republican side, probably for the same reasons you don't).  From what I know about the funding and purpose of the network of sites similar to MM, you are an advocacy site for a general umbrella of ideas, which, could be labeled, “progressive”.  Nothing necessarily wrong with that.  But you will try to sell (not for money, but to circulate it) your work to the MSM as unbiased and nonpartisan, which is the purpose of your ethics page, and I'm just here to make the record clear whenever you deviate from your own principles.  Maybe over the course of time you can convince me that I'm wrong, and you are not “just another advocacy site”, and that certainly wouldn't impune all the work you do anyway (certainly the work of Ed Brayton has its upsides, and Ms. Melzer hasn't been unfair when the subjects have incorporated divergent viewpoints), but so far that is the way I see it overall.

And I visit all kinds of sites – MSM, non-MSM, sites I agree with, or disagree with, sites with good product, and sites with bad product.  While you may be serving a “different constituency,” I still may have an interest in covering you or them myself, or simply understanding you or them.

Secondly, we note you are very selective about what you comment upon (or respond to) at this site.  Providing a link to any other article that you've already passed up is not likely change your reading habits, or your criticism for that matter.

Lastly, you are mistaken about this being “another advocacy site”, as mistaken as others are in claiming we are supporters of one particular presidential candidate.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are not happy with the product at the site, by all means, visit MSM sites that produce product with which you are more comfortable.  We may simply be serving a different constituency of which you may not be a member.

I'll point that most readers don't read EVERYTHING you produce, and each article is a vessel.  For example, I come to many internet sites for the first through a google alert — although I'm a semi-regular here, I can't conceivably catch everything.

Finally, that doesn't answer the Knollenberg end of my concern.

Look, if Michigan Messenger wants to admit up front its just another advocacy site and eschew its claim to journalism, I have no problem.  But don't criticize me for holding you to that.  I'm not even asking here that you “quote Knollenberg” in a  Peters profile piece — I wouldn't do that.  Just that where candidate website links are given for one all the known candidates site links are put in a sidebar box at the least.  And maybe cross-links to your other profiles.  that's a standard MSM practice, and for MSM with websites, I've actually had other editors acknowledge forms of the idea or offer up their own ways of adding clarity when I raise similar issues on different articles (you're not the only media source I've criticized, but I do limit myself to criticizing sources that claim the mantle, and its not personal, by any means).

I'll point out that you made no such complaint about Brandon's previous profile on Skinner.  One might think you have a preferred Democratic candidate.