Well, we can certainly hope so. I’m inclined to think that it has already begun to break down, with enough examples from both sides of the aisle to suggest that civil political debate in the blogosphere and dead tree press probably has a half life of one week.

The blogosphere, because of its sheer volume and anonymity, is more likely to invite incivility in commentary than the daily press, where letters to the editor require real signatures.

The problem, for political columnists, is how to decide when passionate criticism crosses the line to become personal attack; or is likely to be interpreted as such. And there’s the rub, we are so intractably  attached to our core political views that we are likely to take a vigorous attack upon them as personal slurs.

The best we can do is remember that what we write for internet publication never goes away, never wraps the fish, never lines the parrot cage.

Fort Buckley summed it all up recently: Google Never Forgets.

Rather than take up comment space on Hugh Holub’s excellent post, I’m going to offer my two cents here.

First, an observation about anonymity. Here I agree with Brodesky; it’s a curse. It is especially objectionable in comment threads, where people are able to get away with comments that they would be ashamed of if properly identified.

For all of the supposed anonymous blogging that Brodesky complains of he seems to know quite a bit about who’s blogging where. Here at TC.com most of our bloggers actually sign their blogs and the identity of those who don’t is pretty much an open secret.

One of Brodesky’s major criticisms of the blogosphere is that bloggers don’t do what responsible reporters do: get both sides of the story. Getting “both sides of the story” is what makes real reporters reliable and unbiased.

Maybe so, but it frequently leads to a failed obligation to get at the truth.

Here’s an example:

Too much political reportage takes the form of reporting candidate Jones’s assertion that Social Security is broke and candidate Smith’s claim that Social Security is funded until  the end of time. Is this enough? No. If this is your story you have failed the reader. You haven’t made any attempt to determine which one is right; or if the debate is grounded in contradictory assumptions such that the candidate exchange is simply empty.

Your story my be ‘unbiased’ but it’s less than useful. You have simply reported two opposed biases: Mr. Jones’s truthiness and Mr. Smith’s truthiness. Wow.

Art Jacobson

Data Port: Open to All

It seems it’s time (again) to remind readers of  The Data Port’s policy on comments.

The Data Port does not censor, ban, or delete comments. The only exception might be if you chimed in with links to “genuine replica watches” or potions to renew my “vigah.”

If a post reveals a writer as some sort of troglodyte just emerging from a long winter’s nap…and surprised to find the world as it is… it will be evident to readers. On the other hand an opposition comment may be so illuminating as to change minds.

As regular readers must know I don’t intrude into the comment thread. I’ve had my say now you have yours.

I’ve been asked to post an occasional “open thread.” I have no objections in principle to open threads but I don’t think that’s the job of The Data Port. Perhaps you should take it up with our editor, Mark Evans.

In the meantime may I suggest starting your own column here?

Finally, everyone who has ever followed The Data Port knows that I oppose anonymous posting. I’ve always been proud to be a John Hancock sort of guy.  If what you have to say is worth posting it’s worth taking responsibility for. I’m through kicking at that particular net, though, since anonymous  posting, snarks and all, are accepted practice.

I’m Art Jacobson and I approve this message.