When You Can’t Compete, Destroy
It's been apparent for some time now that traditional media has felt increasingly hostile toward blogs. Some of the media reports about blogging have been dismissive, some crude attempts to denigrate the practitioners, some downright insulting and some fundamentally clueless about the nature of blogs and bloggers. Today I heard of an incident that represents a whole new tack. Personally destroy a blogger by writing a hit piece on him.
Bill Hobbs has been a fairly large presence in the blogosphere. I haven't read him in a while, but used to be an almost daily reader. It seems he used some questionable judgment and posted a crude, stick figure cartoon on his site that showed Mohammed holding a bomb with a crude caption. I, myself, would not have put something like that up, but I also have been pretty clear about my stance on free speech. Nothing much comes of that for a time.
Then a long-time Democratic operative named Mike Kopp happened upon the cartoon and gleefully posted about it, pretending high moral dudgeon. Kopp also made sure to publish where Hobbs worked. Hobbs did apologize and removed the cartoon. Kopp later posts that he is quite proud of what he has accomplished. With one of the most smarmy, self-serving plateful of stereotypical rubbish I have had the misfortune to have read.
Enter John Spragens, a writer of a political column on the Nashville Scene. This past Wednesday, he put out a column making sure that he mentioned Hobb's employer four times in the space of a short column. He also made any number of sanctimonious pronouncements about Hobbs and his actions. He also fearlessly published a screen shot of the cartoon. Just out of curiosity, Mr. Spragens, did you also publish the Danish cartoons?
And Bill Hobbs ended up resigning his job. I doubt it was by choice.
Congratulations, Mr. Spragens and Mr. Kopp. Working together you have ensured that someone with a family lost his job. You've ensured that one of your enemies was taken down. You've also ensured, with absolute certainty, that at some point one of your friends, supporters or even possibly yourselves will be subjected to the exact same treatment. You've also shown exactly how hateful politics and journalism have become.
Hobbs did something in his private life that had nothing to do with his public one, you two gentlemen (and I use that term in the very loosest sense), ensured that Hobbs' private and public lives were conflated. You got him. You must be very proud indeed.
UPDATE: Here's a post from someone much closer to the events in question and who knows many of the people involved.
UPDATE: Story from the Tennessean on this.
UPDATE: I made the prediction above that this would result in the exact same treatment. I rest my case. How's it feel, Mr. Spragens?
UPDATE: Roundups here and here. Glenn Reynolds' thoughts here.
UPDATE: 4/20/2006 – And Spragens is, indeed, proud of what he did.
Blogosphere, PC Run Amok, Personal Thoughts, Politics | Gaius April 15, 2006
Other Links to this Post
-
Volunteer Voters — April 16, 2006 @ 12:34 am
-
Never Yet Melted » Cartoon Jihad Strikes Down Nashville Blogger — April 17, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 15, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Please drop the persecution meme. Hobbs was absolutely idiotic if he didn’t realize what he put on his blog could harm his career. People being fired for stuff they say on their blogs is nothing new. We all live in a fish bowl called the Internet and have to deal with it.
A number of reporters have been canned for stuff they out on their personal blogs. I made certain to alert my editors to my new blog, thanks to examples such as this one:
http://www.nbc10.com/news/6667658/detail.html
Fired Reporter Says Blog Meant As Joke
Reporter and copy editor Matt Donegan was fired on Tuesday from the weekly Dover Post after his boss was made aware of the blog by a producer from a radio talk show — who found out about it from a caller. Donegan’s blog was located on myspace.com.
The blog includes a complaint about Donegan’s black neighbors partying late on the evening before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. He said on the blog he believed King’s assassin was awakened by black people on the night before he killed King. But Donegan denies that he’s a racist . . .
By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
Bradley,
Do you not think there is a problem with going after someone like this? It is bad all around. I would not have published it, and I think Hobbs did not do a good job on the comments thread. But this was a hit, pure and simple and was politically driven.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 15, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Gaius,
Would you be as outraged if this were a Republican operative attacking a liberal Democrat?
By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Yup. You assume I am a Republican.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 15, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Gaius,
To directly answer your question, I have absolutely no problem with going after someone like that. Hobbs’ debacle was the consequence of his own inability to see the consequences of his actions. I think the technical phrase for this is “felony dumb.”
You seem to think what happened to Hobbs is something new, a reaction of the MSM to blogs. It may be new to you, but controversies surrounding personal blogs and employers’ reactions to them have been going on for years. Hobbs is just one subset.
You wrote:
“Hobbs did something in his private life that had nothing to do with his public one, you two gentlemen (and I use that term in the very loosest sense), ensured that Hobbs’ private and public lives were conflated.”
Hobbs’ exposed his private views in the most public forum imaginable. This is the source of the conflation. Tip: If you want something to remain private, don’t put it on the Internet!
I’ll use myself as an example. I waited a long time before establishing a blog, in part because of the horror stories of people getting fired for saying something impolitic. (And partly because I didn’t want to have a blog just to say I had one.)
But the Internet is increasingly important to the news business, and there’s no way to learn something better than by doing. So I decided to take the plunge. I have seen how Cathy Seipp has done just fine, even though she was initially hesitant about having a blog. It has helped her in writing, and interacting with her fans.
Knowing of the potential pitfalls, I notified my editors Thursday of what I was doing, and gave the link to my site. I emphasized that I would be careful, and make sure the site did not purport to represent the views of my employer.
And if I delve into any questionable territory, I’ll be sure to notify my bosses.
Gaius, this is simply common sense. No employer likes to be blindsided by unfavorable publicity because of an act of their employees.
The response I got — “cool.”
My fears were mostly my imagination. As long as I am reasonably careful, there shouldn’t be any problem. And having no goalie in the form of an editor looking over my shoulder inspires a certain caution in and of itself.
If Hobbs had only showed the same modicum of common sense that I did, he’d still have his job today.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 15, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
Gaius,
Just saw your reply. Sorry for my assumption.
I still can’t feel any sympathy for anyone who did something that stupid.
Take that reporter who got fired for his blog comment. My first thought was that he was an utter moron. Of all people, I’d expect a tech-savvy young reporter to know what trouble some ill-chosen statements on the Internet could bring. Yes, I am sorry he lost his job, but he brought it on himself. Same with Hobbs.
Reporters and political operatives above all should know that everything they do in the public sphere will be scrutinized and can be held against them. I certainly keep this in mind, and won’t whine if my own words get me into trouble.
By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Bradley, you have your opinion, I have mine. I don't like a lot of what I'm seeing these days. This is one of them.By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Bradley, Please read the whole post I linked to above (first update) then read his two other posts on the same topic. See if that changes how you feel about this.By he, April 16, 2006 @ 8:19 am
What about personal responsibility?!?! Or is that only for the destitute?
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 8:23 am
Hobbs is responsible for what he wrote. The others are responsible for what they did to make it into an issue.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 16, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Hi Gaius,
I went back and reread your post, links and updates. Sorry, but I can’t feel much sympathy for this “Regular Joe” whom you coddle. The consequences of his action was easily foreseeable. You treat Hobbs like an imbecile when you defend him.
This graf from Flank Two Position is particularly ridiculous:
“Is the world a better place because Hobbs may have to sit at his dinner table with his family (which as I recall includes two children), look them all in the eye and tell them about all of this, with the addiitional baggage that he may have a hard time finding another job for quite a while?”
Cue the violins. I need to get my hanky.
Hobbs did something extremely stupid, and he learned a hard lesson — if you don’t want to share something with the rest of the world, don’t put it on the Internet!
If Hobbs were some kid who just didn’t know any better, I’d feel much more sympathy for him. But this is a grown man who has taken on the responsibility of raising a family. That demands maturity. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be big on personal responsibility?
And of course, commentators like Riehl have to drag in the inevitable persecuted conservative line:
“Some conservative bloggers are crying foul. While no one can know Spragen’s mind when writing the piece, his history, extending back to his high school years, as a liberal activist and Spragen’s involvement in at least one previous protest which resulted in the resignation of a college colleague in a political context will do little to reassure conservative bloggers this wasn’t a political hit job, as opposed to simply journalism. Additionally, some writings of Spragens’ call into question his sudden attention to polite rhetoric in media, including blogs.”
How pathetic. Yes, a political activist torched Hobbs. But nothing would have happened had Hobbs not first doused himself with gasoline.
No, Gaius, Hobbs does not makes a very good victim. He’s a right-wing version of Ward Churchill.
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Disagree, Bradley. Ward Churchill lied to get his position, Hobbs did not. You and I know that however large Hobbs’ audience was in the blogosphere, it is miniscule compared to the audience of the MSM. The analogy of using a bazooka on a fly is apt.
That Spragens is now being subject to the same retroactive digging is exactly why this is bad for everyone involved.
By chez diva, April 16, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Bradley,
Gauis isn’t coddling the reporter who was forced to resign because of the stick figure drawing of Mohammed. He disagrees with Hobbs but Gauis is right in defending free speech. As Voltaire has been credited with saying :
“I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death
your right to say it”.
I disagree with Markos, and the newly famous Maryscott of “My Left Wing” but I would defend their right to say what they please – even if it includes rants or expletives in place of debate. I don’t care what they say or how they say it only that they can freely say it.
I think what Hobbs did was tasteless but he should not have been “fired” for what he does at home on his own time. His employers punished him for an activity that took place outside of work. If that is allowed to stand what will come next? Employers firing employees because they smoke, drink or over-eat at home? How about firing someone because they are gay or promiscous or because they worship Scientology, solely because the employer doesn’t espouse those same views?
Employers should keep their nose out of their employees private lives. Those who support what happened to Hobbs or Dooce (the first “famous” blogger to be fired for her blog) will one day find themselves at the receiving end of a pink slip because the day will come when their “away from work” behavior will be scrutinized and subsequently punished by their employers.
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
BTW, Bradley, if you haven’t visited Chez Diva, you should. She has a classic exchange with a feminist site. I think you’ll enjoy it.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 16, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Hi Gaius and Chez,
I shall certainly visit Chez Diva, after this longish post. Thanks.
Chez Diva’s belief that “employers should keep their noses out of employees private lives” is one that I generally agree with. However what is on the Internet is by definition not private. There is no more public forum imaginable than the Internet.
“I think what Hobbs did was tasteless but he should not have been “fired†for what he does at home on his own time.”
Personally, I agree. A sincere apology might have been sufficient. But that decision is not mine or yours, it is the employer’s. Also, Hobbs didn’t do this at home. He did it in cyberspace.
My main point has always been that Hobbs acted in an extraordinarily stupid manner by not checking what his employer might think of his Mohammed cartoon. Either he didn’t think his employer might have a problem with it (a sign of carelessness or stupidity) or he knew the university would object and hoped it wouldn’t be noticed (a sign of even greater stupidity and lack of consideration for his employer).
“His employers punished him for an activity that took place outside of work. If that is allowed to stand what will come next? Employers firing employees because they smoke, drink or over-eat at home?”
Some employers are indeed firing people who smoke, or charging them more for health insurance, because of the cost in health benefits. And as I pointed out, this was not done “at home”.
“How about firing someone because they are gay or promiscous or because they worship Scientology, solely because the employer doesn’t espouse those same views?”
I certainly don’t agree with those kinds of firings. But these are different kinds of cases than Hobbs’. He took an ill-considered public action that was obviously controversial without notifying his employer. Morover, there are laws against workplace discrimination on grounds of religion and to a lesser extent, sexual orientation. So again, your examples are not comparable.
Let’s get back to the theme of the BCB post: that conservatives are now being targeted in a new and unfair manner for their personal Web site postings. I have shown that people getting fired for what they put on their Web sites is nothing new, and that it doesn’t happen only to conservatives. Certainly, a liberal Democrat who posted a cartoon of Jesus throwing a bomb would be just as vulnerable to an attack from a Republican conservative operative.
Everybody needs to think about what they put up on the Web. There are lots of people who put all sorts of embarrassing personal stuff on their Web sites — at least it will be embarrassing and potentially job-limiting when prospective employers come across them.
And in my own profession, news reporters are often subject to severe restrictions. Some news outlets require their employees to ask for permission to have blogs, some don’t allow the practice at all. I am fortunate that my paper doesn’t have such onerous restrictions. The operative phrase at my paper is is, use your common sense.
And this common sense applies in all settings, not just the Web. It is to be expected, for example, that a reporter who covers politics should not go around announcing his or her political affiliation or endorsing a candidate. A politics reporter in Florida, Buddy Nevins, was recently taken off his beat after he announced at a Republican meeting that he had joined the G.O.P., and said he would be voting for a particular candidate in an election.In a similar context, some reporters who took part in antiwar protests were fired.
With all this background in mind, I am acting carefully with my own nascent blog. I told my editors of my proto-blog, told them I would be careful to state this is my personal site, that I would use discretion, and would ask them if anything seemed iffy. Had Hobbs done the same thing, he’d still have his job.
All of this is blindingly obvious to me. But not, it seems, to everyone.
Now for Chez Diva!
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Bradley,
Because it has happened (and likely will again) does not mean it is right. You’re a journalist and I think you’re seeing it from a journalist’s perspective.
Meaning nothing personal at all here (and I mean that), this is not a profession I have had a real high opinion of in a lot of years now. One of the reasons I dislike the profession is because of the “gotcha” mentality that has become the major driving force in journalism ever since Watergate.
While I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in decency, and this attack is beyond what I personally can tolerate. While I would not have posted the same thing as Hobbs, I do not know what he was thinking at the time, so I do not presume to judge him. As I said I used to read him, but haven’t in a while now. When I did read him, I thought he was quite good and very rational.
So lets agree to disagree on this one.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 16, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Hi Gaius,
Agreed!
BTW, I went to Chez Diva and read the WashPost story on angry liberal bloggers. I left a comment about the story, which didn’t prove what it claimed.
On that note, one of the things I like about your site and Cathy’s is the civil tone set by the site operators. Cathy has an understated, humorous way of responding to attacks that make her look reasonable and recoil on the attackers.
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
Thanks, Bradley. I try (can’t promise always) to keep it civil. These are my opinions, that’s what blogging is.
By chez diva, April 16, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Between Easter and the dreaded Income Tax paperwork I haven’t had a chance to respond to comments or even write back as I would have liked to. So thanks Gauis and Bradley for your comments over at chez Diva.
Bradley, regarding Hobbs I feel that what happened to him was unjust and reactionary. His employer knew full well for quite a while what Hobbs was blogging about, they only forced him to resign because of the “hit” piece by Spragens.
As I said earlier, I don’t like what he did but he does have a right to express himself outside of work. What happened to Hobbs, sends a chilling message to other bloggers – that they had better be careful and watch every word they write as to not offend anyone. They should also take care to stay out of the media spotlight because that will make them easier targets for “journalists” like Spragens.
Bradley – I replied to your comment at chez Diva regarding the WaPo article.