What Exactly Did CAP Think Bloggers Do?

22nd December 2008 Charles J. Brown
01:16 pm

What Exactly Did CAP Think Bloggers Do?

I don’t always agree with Matt Yglesias, and frankly, I sometimes find him a bit pretentious. But most of the time, he is a thoughtful contributor to the debate, particularly on foreign policy and transit issues.

On Saturday, he posted some observations on Third Way, which describes itself as “non-profit, non-partisan think tank. . .advancing a 21st century progressive agenda.” He said some nice things about them, but also said this:

But their domestic policy agenda is hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit. There are a variety of issues that they have nothing whatsoever to say on, and what policy ideas they do have are laughable in comparison to the scale of the problems they allegedly address. Which is fine, because Third Way isn’t really a “public policy think tank” at all, it’s a messaging and political tactics outfit.

Apparently, Yglesias’s boss at CAP wasn’t too happy with those comments:

This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects - including a homeland security transition project - and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.

I like CAP. They do a lot of great work. Members of their staff (in a non-CAP capacity) have done a great job of helping the Obama transition be as successful as it has. They have helped build a progressive infrastructure that at last can compete with that built by the right. And as a former NGO executive (albeit of an organization much smaller than CAP), I know what can happen when a staff member goes off the reservation and causes the organization embarrassment. I’m sympathetic with Palmieri’s predicament.

But that doesn’t mean I think she did the right thing.

I once had a staff member who said something on a personal blog that got picked up in conservative media outlets. What he had to say angered some board members and donors. I explained to them that he was not speaking for the organization, and that the organization did not agree with what he had said. But I defended his right to say it, and made it clear that it would not have any impact on his work. And I certainly didn’t go on his blog and issue a clarification.

What Jennifer Palmieri did here was both wrong-footed and just plain wrong. If you have a problem with something someone employed by you says, you take it off-line and you make sure that s/he understands what they did isn’t consistent with your stated policies. You can even issue a statement such as the one she made, albeit either as a press release or in a letter to the offended party.

But the last thing you want to do is interfere with the free speech rights of someone on your staff — especially since what he said is neither inappropriate, hateful, or harmful in any way. It’s opinion. It’s exactly what you hired him to do — it’s not like Yglesias ever hesitated to express his thoughts before he came to CAP.

If Palmieri doesn’t want CAP bloggers to express such opinions, she shouldn’t have blogs. Or she shouldn’t hire folks who are known to have strong opinions. But for crying out loud, she shouldn’t humilate someone just because they did something that you find inconvenient.

In addition, CAP has now created a precedent. What happens the next time one of their bloggers says something that makes someone unhappy? Will this become a regular feature of Think Progress blogs? Will this mean that anyone can demand such a clarification? Or does CAP only do that for friends? Would CAP had done the same thing if Yglesias had made similar comments about the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation? I doubt it.

Palmieri may have mollified her thin-skinned friends over at Third Way, but she just unleashed a major storm on the blogosphere. As a result, both she and Third Way can now count on a level of villification that will make Yglesias’s fairly mild comments look harmless in comparison.

Which, of course, is what they were.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm and is filed under media, politics. It is tagged under technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 6 responses to “What Exactly Did CAP Think Bloggers Do?”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, so come on... let us know what you think.

1 On December 23rd, 2008, Joe Strummer said:
I don’t get this. How did Palmieri “interfere with the free speech rights” of Yglesias? She merely joined the discourse. Who’s being thin skinned, here?
2 On December 23rd, 2008, VJBinCT said:
Joe–She put that post onto Matt’s blog w/o his permission, which she is legally entitled to do BTW, but it is exceedingly impolite, to say the least. Of course Matt can move to another blog host–he has a name people know–but some others may be intimidated enough to self-censor. I agree with you to some extent, that Matt’s First Amendment rights have not been violated, but it sets a bad 1st Amendment-unfriendly environment, at least, at the CAP web site. Bad, bad move.
3 On December 23rd, 2008, Shadowgm said:
Palmieri’s disclaimer creates the impression that Matt is not free to express his views - and that Palmieri’s work day includes ’supervising’ Matt’s work to give her approval or not.

Additionally, Palmieri’s comment works to suppress discussion. If there were factual errors, then that should be settled between Third Way and Matt, not squashed by a bored CEO worried about what her friends might think.

A neutral and independent internet, with voices such as Matt, is part of a healthy community, and the real ‘marketplace of ideas’ - not the sterilized, homogenized mash fed to a docile public by Rush Limbaugh and others. It’s the viral, person-to-person communication that challenges our own views or invites us to look more deeply into a subject, not the pre-packaged truth that’s available at the touch of a dial.

If Matt is wrong, challenge him. But don’t apologize just because he MIGHT have said something that MIGHT offend someone.
4 On December 23rd, 2008, Shade Tail said:
Joe, it is called a “chilling effect”. Rather than hash it out privately, as she should have, Palmieri took it public. Which carries the unspoken but clear threat of public firing and, therefore, humiliation.

In other words, scaring him into staying on the straight and narrow rather than dealing with it professionally. Maybe that wasn’t what she meant to do, but that’s still what she did.
5 On December 23rd, 2008, Richterscale said:
This ‘joining in on the discourse’, quickly reminded me of Ari Fleisher’s ominous words, “all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Bill Mahar was fired for his comments on the war. To think that ABC didn’t cave to white house pressure, is imho, naive.

Jennifer Palmieri’s comments can in no way be construed as ‘discourse’. They were designed as a sign of soft intimidation.
6 On December 23rd, 2008, Ray Duray said:
Virtual pistoleros,

I’m curious. Why is it that every commenter here has decided that they should hide behind an anonymous mask, a pseudonym? Are you people worth reading if you are unwilling to announce to the world who you are? I’m doubting it.

For the record. I believe that CAP is a valuable inside-the-beltway feedsource for information. I do not for one second believe they are as honest as, say, http://www.911truth.org. But telling the truth isn’t the business they are in. What we really need in this country is what Jefferson proposed two centuries ago, i.e. a “revolution” every generation. We are becoming the laughing stock of the planet. Imagine Europeans looking in on this discussion and questioning whether they are going to bet on Wall Street’s rackets. I’d guess they are going to gain in skepticism, but Bernie Madoff makes my odds very long on this bet.

Where’s the reformers in this crowd? Yglesias started doing a good thing by pointing out the obvious. Ms. Palmieri reinforced the view of most cognoscenti that America is hopelessly corrupt and mired in a navel-gazing extravagance of self-delusion from which it will not save itself without some serious adult supervision.

Supervision which, BTW, is certainly not on offer from the Obama Foxworthy Henhouse Cluck-Ster Flock (OFHCSF, aka the Cabinet).

And in the media? Spam sushi, ferchissake? Who knew that Obama was nothing more than a sandwich board for the Hormel Corporation?

Heaven help us. Our government isn’t up to the job of fighting corruption. Sadly, no. The government is the very definition of corruption. Just call the sales department at Hormel for confirmation.

And I stand by my words, Raymond Duray, Bend, OR

“Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.” — J.M. Keynes