We are often accused of bias on social and political issues here at Wallyhood, a charge to which we* delightfully plead guilty. Yes, we have opinions and we’re not afraid to share them!
We hope, however, that we are clear about when we are reporting facts and when we are reporting opinion, and that we give a respectful forum to those who hold different positions.
What would you think about expanding and formalizing this civil discourse on important issues? Here’s what we’re thinking:
Each weekend, we address some social, political or ethical issue that is important to the people of Wallingford. Two designated debaters will collaborate on a blog post outlining their positions on the issue: each debater makes an “opening statement”, is given the opportunity to respond to the others’ opening statement and then finally an opportunity to respond to the response. The debaters will work on this back-and-forth privately in the week leading up to the day the exchange is published, and then the issue is opened for civil debate among all the residents of Wallingford as comments on the post. Hopefully, we all come out of it with a better understanding of the issue as a whole, and perhaps have our opinions refined in the process.
The rules would be simple: some length limits on the original post and respectfully written opinions only.
Would you be interested in reading or participating in this? Does the format make sense? What issues would you like to see addressed?
* If you’ve been taking issue with our use of “we”, see our “Wallyhood We” post from last year explaining.
It’s a step forward that you’re willing to have other opinions on here instead of merely pelting us with your paint-by-numbers orthodox liberal views views.
Weekly is too frequently… Monthly or bi-weekly is probably more workable. The Economist has a nice debating format and you can borrow some concepts from that.
“Debates’ on blogs tend to be troll magnets. I think you folks use your editorial voice responsibly – I’d encourage you to continue to use it confidently.
I thought this blog was really just about what’s happening in Wallingford? There are already way too many opinions on it. Let’s just stick to the facts. If people want a debate, then do it somewhere else.
You know, Charlie…I think you’re right. There’s no shortage of political debates anywhere, so this is probably unnecessary. I personally get annoyed when I read Wallyhood’s political screeds, because they are so boringly predictable and might as well be written by daily kos. But to your point, the better remedy is to stick to talking about things happening in the ‘hood rather than setting up a debate society.
You win the debate, Charlie! No debates!
I’m interested in the views of Wallingford residents, on matters where there’s some reason to think Wallingford residents might have some special insight or perspective. Otherwise, not really.
So when you say “… issue that is important to the people of Wallingford …”, if you mean important to pretty much ONLY the people of Wallingford, then sure! This will be terrific.
If you mean “there aren’t already enough places for people to argue about the standard divisive political issues online” … can’t agree with that. The stuff tends to run on the nasty side, too – you can exert some control over how bad it gets, but it’s hard to make it good.
I think it’s a great idea. I just hope we all can debate the issues like adults, and not get personal. On so many blogs and radio shows, the left and right both act like children with simplistic, bumper sticker mentality and comebacks along the lines of “I know you are, but what am I?”
The country has become so bitterly partisan over the last decade. If we’re ever to heal the divide. I hope we can be intellectually honest. that means we need to listen to people we disagree with and fairly consider their points without knee-jerk party line reactions. For example, I spend more time listening to radio programs iI disagree with, just to better my understanding of people who think differently than me.And then to be willing to concede some valid points, for both sides have them.
Donn, I think it’s difficult to restrict matters of concern only in Wallingford, unless we want another debate about paintings on the road in intersections. For instance, discussion of the homeless shelter obviously started bringing in broader points, discussions about the building at 34th and Stone get into a variety of other issues. But yeah, the debates should start with a Wallingford focus. (So, not a lot of foreign policy, for example) And comments should be vetted not only for being “respectful” but for being on topic.
But hey, yeah, give it a try.
The goal of the blog isn’t just to share news of Wallingford, but to build communication and a sense of community among neighbors, so discussing issues, not just reporting on facts, is “fair game”. While on-line debates do tend to be “meaner” than face-to-face (who would call their neighbor “boringly predictable” if they were talking to them in person!), I think the tone of Wallyhood comment debates tend to be better than your average blog’s.
Rolf, please re-read the part of “respectful” above. If you don’t enjoy this blog or the things that are printed here, just don’t read it. I promise to refund your full subscription fee.
Could be very interresting. While I disagree infrequently with the editor here, allowing diverse views is an interesting nd worthwhile step to generate more understanding among readers.
Kudos
I’ll make you a deal, Wally… I’ll be “respectful” if you cut back on your over-use of “quotation marks”. It’s interesting that you write a note calling for civility and yet you can’t stop yourself from being snide to me in so doing. Hard to take you seriously when you don’t practice what you preach.
Having said that, I limit my remarks to your writing rather than you as a person, as I am sure you are a very likable fellow, indeed, and I enjoy your non-political writing.
all snide aside
civility score:
2 for wallyhood
-2 for rolf
Several people I know of in the neighborhood are aware of Wallyhood, but choose not to participate in the discussions or even read what’s going on because of the Leftist slant.
Here’s a couple ideas.
1)Maybe try to have the main blog articles be more factual and neutral and Wallingford based. Then if the writers of the articles have an opinionated comment, put that in a personal follow-on post. It would also be a better position for your Sponsorship.
2)The use of Smilies in a post is a good way for readers to bring in the attitude, demeanor and the ability to bring some neighborliness to the comments being made.
I think the writers of Wallyhood really under estimate the ability of influence and impact that Wallyhood has on the neighborhood, which also brings a great responsibility. Giving a platform for more faceless, non-personal debates I think would be a mistake. Finding ways to create a more neighborly and personal blog & forum I believe could benefit Wallingford as a pleasant and peaceful neighborhood to live. There’s enough places in this world to piss & moan.
UNITED WE STAND
DIVIDED WE FALL
Write-on Dudes & Dudetts
Steve
My $0.02: I would rather not read “debates,” which I believe are inherently limiting: right out of the chute, the assumption is that issues have two, and only two, points of view.
For the questions and issues in our neighborhood (and just about everywhere else), this seldom appears to be the actual situation, and seeing issues that way doesn’t really foster mutual understanding.
On the other hand, I benefit greatly from discussion that genuinely appreciates and welcomes the diverse points of view of our neighborhood.
So what I would prefer is that Wallyhood not set up a new platform for “debate,” but instead, work toward better representation of the composite picture of an issue…starting with seeing that it likely is not two-sided, but multidimensional. In my view, that would go much further toward effective communication and understanding.
“Leftist slant”
Wow. Some poster’s rhetoric makes it sound like the blog supporting a 5 cent bag fee is equivalent to calling for state ownership of the means of production…
I don’t care if there are debates or not… because if I don’t like a topic, or if a blog (sometimes this one) gets under my skin on a regular basis, I don’t read it. Easy!
My vote is for no debate forum. There’s enough debate on this blog as is. If it’s an issue that is important to Wallingford and it gets reported here, it will get debated if it’s debate-worthy. I personally prefer just hearing about what’s going on in the hood and then checking out the discussions that flow from that.
Well here’s an Occam’s Razor solution. If you want more visitors and more frequent posting in the somewhat dusty forums, allow debate. It attracts trolls, sure, but if properly moderated, it’s a honey trap for discussion. Even a debate about debate here has 17 posts. And I am happy to outnumber and out fact the inevitable onslaught of right wingers it will bring. One of the main problems with American political rhetoric is a discomfort with discussing it, as if it’s religion or sex. It’s not, it’s necessary to the proper functioning of a democracy and we’re bad at it.
Let’s do it.
Thanks again all for this feedback. In particular, I find worrisome / disturbing Steve’s note that there are people who don’t feel welcome here because the “leftist slant” doesn’t fit with their worldview (sorry if I’m misframing, my intent isn’t to diminish this view).
I can’t / won’t retreat from expressing opinion on these pages. I think creating a separation between “politics” and “civil life” and “neighborhood issues” is artificial and unnecessary. How can I report on homeless people causing trouble near I-5 or on businesses closing or on the police’s inability to respond to crime within our neighborhood without acknowledging and addressing that there complex issues around our government’s role in solving these problems, how it raises money to do so and how it spends money to do so?
I hate that the tone of debate has become so toxic in society today. So many politicians lob focus-group-tested phrases like “death panel”, “class warfare”, etc. at each other to score political points instead of delving into genuinely complex issues with the intent of refining their understanding and converging on better solutions. How are we ever supposed to figure things out for ourselves if we can’t talk about them with people we trust in a thoughtful forum?
So I don’t like that there are people who don’t feel welcome here because their ideas differ than mine. That said, I bristle at the suggestion that I’m intolerant of other ideas simply because I don’t share them. In fact, the whole point of the article that spawned this thread is to ensure that ideas that are different than mine get front-page, equal-footed representation to mine. I would think that would be embraced by the “righties” who are annoyed by my “leftist slant”.
Maybe part of the problem is the term “debate”, which as “Neighbor to You” points out, suggests a right vs wrong, us vs. them, win vs. lose dichotomy. It should be a _discussion_, an exchange of ideas. It makes sense to start with people with divergent views to ensure we get good coverage of the landscape of opinion, but if one, the other or both end up changing or modifying their opinion part way through, that’s not considered “waffling” or “losing”, but “using an open mind”.
And for those who really don’t want it, we’ll put a warning at the top: “Read no further, lest ye be riled!”.
So who wants to go first? And what’s a good topic? Feel free to pick one on which you are most assured that my posted opinions most need correcting. (Of course, I don’t have to be one of the “first speaker” participants, either.)
Wally,
Please don’t think I was implying that Wallyhood writers opinions shouldn’t be expressed, or topics should change or that anybody is intolerant. I was only suggesting that the articles start off on a as nuetural position as possible, and then use the follow-on posts for personal beliefs and opinions.It was just a thought as to try and get more of our neighbors involved with the conversations.
Steve
@e30memorial Thanks for the clarification… I was beginning to feel a little guilty. But I think my perspective is valid & that it would be disingenuous to censor myself when I write for the blog. (And that’s why I’m a blogger, not a journalist!)
I welcome voices that differ from mine, of course.
I agree with Steve. Sometimes Wallyhood seems to not make the extra effort to research an article. I realize there is a tradeoff between the “instant” need to post news and the depth of the reporting. However, sometimes it seems that Wallyhood articles take press releases from public agencies and presents them as fact without question or balancing the report.
Just something to try to be aware of during article posts. I believe it improves the value of the report.
Greg, while I agree broadly, I think that wallyhood.org is a service, not a business and I think the simplest way to approach a free, useful and helpful service like this, is “Caveat Emptor” on facts. If I want to research something I am firt made aware of here, I can use any number of tools to do that. If I find something factually incorrect, I can email a correctiona dn the very responsive staff and moderators appear to be happy to update things.
So it’s not journalism and doesn’t pretend to be. The onus is on me, the reader, to make sure I have all the facts, not this nexus of discussion and information.
@Greg — Hmmm. I don’t think that is true at all. I think Wallyhood very rarely ever just prints press releases. They almost always attempt to contact people directly for quotes and information as you can see from scrolling back through the posts. And usually the writers here generally always poke at both sides of most issues, even causing controversy by refuting or questioning information given to them. Maybe you are thinking of MyWallingford.com instead? 🙂
There are definitely folks who treat Wallyhood as a source for factual information. Yes, inaccurate information can be tempered by posting comments, but most would agree that the staff-written material carries additional weight.
With this journalistic power comes more responsibility. The intent of the post was to raise awareness that a little more effort to vet articles would improve the value of the information.
Wallyhood is definitely a business as may be noted by the sponsorship notes at the end of each article, along the side of the page, and sometimes even by the content of an entire article. 🙂
That said, no one expects Wallyhood to be journalism. It is a blog!
Indeed, and of course it doesn’t belong to Wallingford, so it doesn’t really have to be about Wallingford, and for that matter the people who come here for the political punchfest don’t have to even know where Wallingford is.
But I do expect Wallyhood to be journalism, insofar as it clearly takes the role on itself. That doesn’t imply a terrifically rigorous expectation for background research – at least no more than we get from the major local online news outlets, which sadly isn’t a very high bar to clear, but for example I’m kind of down on posting unattributed rumors.
Just posted this note on another thread, but as long as we’re on the “journalism” topic, will here as well: Wallyhood is not like traditional media: it isn’t, doesn’t pretend to be and doesn’t aspire to be. Neighbors sharing their subjective experiences and their opinions about them are not merely allowed, they’re the point. That may or may not qualify as “journalism”. That’s OK by me.
FWIW, in my opinion, even what we consider to be unbiased, objective news sources never are. The New York Times has a slightly lefty-centrist pro-business slant. The Wall Street Journal is right of center, strongly pro-business. The Seattle Times is relatively conservative. NPR is relatively liberal. Fox is arch-conservative. Name a news source that DOESN’T have a bias. Our job as news and opinion consumers is to gather these view points, consider them and develop our opinions as best we can.
From my view, it’s most dangerous when you have bias masquerading as objectivity.
And that is exactly why I quit reading the Seattle Times. They pretend they are reporting facts, but they have an agenda and a major bias that they do not admit to. I consider the Stranger to be more reliable than the Times because 1) they are up front about their biases and 2) they admit when they are wrong. The Times does neither.
I have no issues with anything posted on this blog. I know it is a blog, and I feel all of the bloggers have been open about their own biases and limitations. I also feel the blog itself is open to commentors from all parts of the spectrum, and that additional viewpoints have been welcomed by the blog administrators, though perhaps not by all the commentors. Personally, I appreciate finding out about events or issues that are going on in my community, even if I myself am not participating or experiencing those same issues.
This is an awful idea. It will be like reading the seattle times comments…
It shouldn’t get like the Seattle Times. My experience is that most of the trolls in the Seattle Times comments section are from places at least 25 miles from Seattle who’re determined to comment on how much they object to our Babylonian lifestyles.