A-list drama June 7, 2002 6:26 AM Subscribe
Matt Welch hauls Ty Webb to the woodshed. A few weeks back, Matt wrote an article for Reason magazine, in which he discussed his observations of the Nader campaign on election night 2000. Ty has twice now claimed the story is but a figment of Matt's imagination. Matt is none too happy about the accusation. Apologies? Explanations? And when we are personally involved in the subject we're discussing, what is/should be our duty to get all the facts before posting?
Having not followed the debate until now: this is what we in the l33t community refer to as 'getting 0wned', and Mr. Welch has certainly done a thorough job of it. Congratulations to him. Confidential to Ty Webb: Let us know what crow tastes like.
ZING!
(That said, even with all the vitriol batted around on MetaFilter, I'm not certain a defamation lawsuit is inevitable. If it does happen, however, it seems more likely that it would originate from someone who isn't a member and/or doesn't understand the nature of this particular beast.)
posted by Danelope at 7:01 AM on June 7, 2002
ZING!
(That said, even with all the vitriol batted around on MetaFilter, I'm not certain a defamation lawsuit is inevitable. If it does happen, however, it seems more likely that it would originate from someone who isn't a member and/or doesn't understand the nature of this particular beast.)
posted by Danelope at 7:01 AM on June 7, 2002
Matt also caught Ty violating guidelines by self-posting, which no one apparently noticed at the time.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:24 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by ljromanoff at 7:24 AM on June 7, 2002
Danelope -- I totally agree that any lawsuit would probably not originate by a member (at least I hope not), but by some outsider who is informed of a post.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:31 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by pardonyou? at 7:31 AM on June 7, 2002
Ty Webb is a consistently intelligent and inspiring poster - I rarely agree with him but he makes me enjoy disagreeing with him and is persuasive beyond his political position. He's also funny and original. I believe him. There's a vendetta aspect to this post which makes me stand up for him even more. MetaFilter members should be judged on their record and, as far as I can see, his record is faultless.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:53 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:53 AM on June 7, 2002
Miguel: vendetta seems too strong, pardonyou has every right to make this post and bring it to the attention of the community. Allow Ty Webb to stand up for himself first, in regards to Matt Welch. As members of this community, right now all there is to question is the self-linking aspect. In my opinion.
posted by bittennails at 8:04 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by bittennails at 8:04 AM on June 7, 2002
Miguel, you believe Ty's accusations that Matt wasn't at Nader's election-night HQ? Even when Matt has published articles with time-by-time updates from the HQ? I mean, I have no vested interest in any of this, nor do I know any more than anyone else, but I can't really see how Matt made all of it up. Especially since almost all the details in the linked article can be verified by someone with a videotape of the stage at the HQ...
posted by delfuego at 8:04 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by delfuego at 8:04 AM on June 7, 2002
MC: "There's a vendetta aspect to this post ..."
Which post? My post? If so, I assure you that's not the case. As I indicated above, I was more than willing to give Ty the benefit of the doubt. But if he's being reckless with his facts, he deserves to get called out for it.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:09 AM on June 7, 2002
Which post? My post? If so, I assure you that's not the case. As I indicated above, I was more than willing to give Ty the benefit of the doubt. But if he's being reckless with his facts, he deserves to get called out for it.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:09 AM on June 7, 2002
while i have no opinion the accusations against ty, i have to say that the comments on welch's blog post sound really vindictive and immature. i can see the vendetta aspect from that perspective.
really interesting post, pardonyou?. thanks.
posted by pikachulolita at 8:14 AM on June 7, 2002
really interesting post, pardonyou?. thanks.
posted by pikachulolita at 8:14 AM on June 7, 2002
the comments on welch's blog post sound really vindictive and immature.
Not to me. He's just been publicly accused of fabricating his reporting. If Ty Webb's comments were to be believed, Welch's career would be over -- it's that serious an accusation. Think about it.
(Ty Webb's first comment, while a bit indignant, is OK -- if he didn't see Welch, he didn't see him. But his second is reckless and irresponsible; Ty Webb's indignation seems to have got the best of him. He owes Welch a public apology and a clarification -- unless he can somehow demonstrate conclusively that Welch truly wasn't there.)
posted by mattpfeff at 8:29 AM on June 7, 2002
Not to me. He's just been publicly accused of fabricating his reporting. If Ty Webb's comments were to be believed, Welch's career would be over -- it's that serious an accusation. Think about it.
(Ty Webb's first comment, while a bit indignant, is OK -- if he didn't see Welch, he didn't see him. But his second is reckless and irresponsible; Ty Webb's indignation seems to have got the best of him. He owes Welch a public apology and a clarification -- unless he can somehow demonstrate conclusively that Welch truly wasn't there.)
posted by mattpfeff at 8:29 AM on June 7, 2002
matt welch is wearing a cowboy hat, and like all other cowboys, he cannot tell a lie. ty, are you wearing a cowboy hat? i didn't think so.
posted by moz at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by moz at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2002
I think the only thing that could actually prove Matt Welch was at Nader HQ, and not hearsay reporting, or just making shit up would be a picture of him there.
Not that I'm saying he wasn't there, but, y'know.. someone saying "I was there," even if it is in print, isn't really proof, now, is it? Given the amount of false reporting that goes on in print (fake informants, false credentials, fake situations), and concerning otherwise 'well-respected' and syndicated writers.. well, give me a photo and I'll say "Ty - you dummy."
Until then, Matt Welch, first off, annoys the fuck out of me for his condescending little "Metafilter kids" comment - since I'd wager over half of the regulars are the same age or older than he is. The whole 'warblog' thing is annoying, too - but I won't get into it. From his bio, he seems to think 2,500 hits a day on his weblog makes him an authority when all he does is freelance for some crappy magazine.
Hmm.. that sounds kind of harsh. Ok, ok.. I'll take that crappy comment back. But, like most psuedo-wannabe journalists, he throws around more opinion and editorializing than anything else.
posted by rich at 8:53 AM on June 7, 2002
Not that I'm saying he wasn't there, but, y'know.. someone saying "I was there," even if it is in print, isn't really proof, now, is it? Given the amount of false reporting that goes on in print (fake informants, false credentials, fake situations), and concerning otherwise 'well-respected' and syndicated writers.. well, give me a photo and I'll say "Ty - you dummy."
Until then, Matt Welch, first off, annoys the fuck out of me for his condescending little "Metafilter kids" comment - since I'd wager over half of the regulars are the same age or older than he is. The whole 'warblog' thing is annoying, too - but I won't get into it. From his bio, he seems to think 2,500 hits a day on his weblog makes him an authority when all he does is freelance for some crappy magazine.
Hmm.. that sounds kind of harsh. Ok, ok.. I'll take that crappy comment back. But, like most psuedo-wannabe journalists, he throws around more opinion and editorializing than anything else.
posted by rich at 8:53 AM on June 7, 2002
I think the only thing that could actually prove Matt Welch was at Nader HQ, and not hearsay reporting, or just making shit up would be a picture of him there.
Well, that picture might yet show up. But I suppose that someone could still argue that a picture taken at, say, 8:45 PM, wouldn't be evidence that Welch was there at 10 PM, because after all, he could have slipped away before that time.
Taken to the logical conclusion, you'd need a surveillance camera on Welch or any other reporter 24 hours a day if you were to to feel 100% confident that he was where he said he was.
While there have been several high profile cases of journalists faking all or parts of their stories, I'm much more ready to believe that Welch reported from Nader's campaign for two months and that he was at headquarters on election night. Working for Change was hiring him to produce reports over that time: if he simply never showed up at any of the campaign stops, this would have been found out pretty quickly. And I really, really doubt that Welch would skip out on *election night*, for God's sake. That's the payoff night for all the work he'd put into it so far.
Besides, neither Nader nor any of his official spokespeople have claimed that Welch was not there. I'm not going to give a lot of credence to the word of a single volunteer (who may not really know what Welch looks like: that cowboy hat photo probably doesn't reflect what Welch typically looks like) ... especially when Ty hasn't yet shown us a picture proving that *he* was there on election night :-)
(Re the "MetaFilter kids" crack: yeah, I'm older than Welch, too, but I don't have my panties in a knot over this. He's been accused of lying and lashed out with a bit of stupid sarcasm. It's not a big deal.)
posted by maudlin at 9:34 AM on June 7, 2002
Well, that picture might yet show up. But I suppose that someone could still argue that a picture taken at, say, 8:45 PM, wouldn't be evidence that Welch was there at 10 PM, because after all, he could have slipped away before that time.
Taken to the logical conclusion, you'd need a surveillance camera on Welch or any other reporter 24 hours a day if you were to to feel 100% confident that he was where he said he was.
While there have been several high profile cases of journalists faking all or parts of their stories, I'm much more ready to believe that Welch reported from Nader's campaign for two months and that he was at headquarters on election night. Working for Change was hiring him to produce reports over that time: if he simply never showed up at any of the campaign stops, this would have been found out pretty quickly. And I really, really doubt that Welch would skip out on *election night*, for God's sake. That's the payoff night for all the work he'd put into it so far.
Besides, neither Nader nor any of his official spokespeople have claimed that Welch was not there. I'm not going to give a lot of credence to the word of a single volunteer (who may not really know what Welch looks like: that cowboy hat photo probably doesn't reflect what Welch typically looks like) ... especially when Ty hasn't yet shown us a picture proving that *he* was there on election night :-)
(Re the "MetaFilter kids" crack: yeah, I'm older than Welch, too, but I don't have my panties in a knot over this. He's been accused of lying and lashed out with a bit of stupid sarcasm. It's not a big deal.)
posted by maudlin at 9:34 AM on June 7, 2002
Welch is totally within his rights, imagine how you would feel if someone casually accused you of fabricating an important part of your journalistic career? It isn't outside the realm of possibility that someone might make such a thing up, but the evidence against him is nil, and the evidence for him is plentiful.
posted by cell divide at 10:00 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by cell divide at 10:00 AM on June 7, 2002
My response to Welch is here.
re: posting a self-link. It was done more out of a desire for blunt peer-review than for anything else. I haven't done it since then, I realize it's unacceptable. Apologies.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:21 AM on June 7, 2002
re: posting a self-link. It was done more out of a desire for blunt peer-review than for anything else. I haven't done it since then, I realize it's unacceptable. Apologies.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:21 AM on June 7, 2002
I think everyone should hug, kiss, and make up and apologize for characterizing people who weren't involved in the whole situation, anyway, in a bad light.
As it is, I don't care if Welsh was at Nader's HQ or not. But of course he is within his rights to address challenges to his integrity (note, I am not saying it is journalistic integrity, but integrity in general).
It's just in a challenge like this, a bit more has to be offered as proof than self-written assertions. Any journalist should know that. Given Welch's choice of publication medium ('warblog') I tend to not give as much credence to statements he may present as fact without second hand sourcing.
As for Ty.. well, he could have phrased his whole accusation better, as well, as opposed to the off-handed 'you weren't there you stinker' kind of remark he gave. If there were ten people in a specific room and he knew all of them, fine, state that.. if there were people there that he didn't know.. well, I find that highly likely and he shouldn't be so quick to discount someone's presence .
posted by rich at 10:31 AM on June 7, 2002
As it is, I don't care if Welsh was at Nader's HQ or not. But of course he is within his rights to address challenges to his integrity (note, I am not saying it is journalistic integrity, but integrity in general).
It's just in a challenge like this, a bit more has to be offered as proof than self-written assertions. Any journalist should know that. Given Welch's choice of publication medium ('warblog') I tend to not give as much credence to statements he may present as fact without second hand sourcing.
As for Ty.. well, he could have phrased his whole accusation better, as well, as opposed to the off-handed 'you weren't there you stinker' kind of remark he gave. If there were ten people in a specific room and he knew all of them, fine, state that.. if there were people there that he didn't know.. well, I find that highly likely and he shouldn't be so quick to discount someone's presence .
posted by rich at 10:31 AM on June 7, 2002
Matt Welch...isn't he that red-headed guy on the Daily Show?
posted by rushmc at 10:56 AM on June 7, 2002
posted by rushmc at 10:56 AM on June 7, 2002
Ty Webb is a consistently intelligent and inspiring poster
I know you've been away a while, Miguel, but you are displaying an appalling lack of research. I suggest you read him a little more carefully before laying on one of your patented endorsements.
posted by rushmc at 11:00 AM on June 7, 2002
I know you've been away a while, Miguel, but you are displaying an appalling lack of research. I suggest you read him a little more carefully before laying on one of your patented endorsements.
posted by rushmc at 11:00 AM on June 7, 2002
I dunno, Matt's "Metafilter kids" crack struck me as exactly the kind of snide backhand move mainstream writers use when they make fun of blogs. That he'd resort to a condescending generalization when he felt threatened by a single poster makes me wonder just how different his mindset really is from the anti-bloggers in the press. Yuck. (And does he really expect MeFi'ers to cross-check every assertion here? Or just the ones that involve him?)
Ty's "blunt peer-review" defense is equally revealing. "I'll secretly post my own work and see what reactions I get" is different from "Check out my k00l site and let me know what you think!" how again, exactly? You knew MeFi's rules, Ty, and yet you deliberately broke them. Double yuck.
posted by mediareport at 2:20 PM on June 7, 2002
Ty's "blunt peer-review" defense is equally revealing. "I'll secretly post my own work and see what reactions I get" is different from "Check out my k00l site and let me know what you think!" how again, exactly? You knew MeFi's rules, Ty, and yet you deliberately broke them. Double yuck.
posted by mediareport at 2:20 PM on June 7, 2002
i don't know much about this Ty fellow, but i have known Matt Welch for over 10 years and can vouch that if he's going to make something up and then get paid to write dozens of articles about it, something tells me that he wouldn't make stuff up about BEING AT RALPH NADER HQ - think about how ridiculously nerdy that concept is.
welch is a serious professional journalist that has just shown what can happen when you find yourself surrounded by lying politicians and slanderous accusers-- crap can get made up about you despite logic, reason, or pure fact.
i say Ty's apology was amazingly weak considering the bs that he threw on welch's good name and reputation.
on a side note, if you don't respect his writing, his blog, his not-so-secret side project, the fact that he started a newspaper in Prague that ran for many years, or the fact that Dick Riordan has welch on his short list for consideration to run riordan's pet project: a new LA newspaper aimed at competing against the Times-- welch has a smoking hot french wife who's quite a journalist herself.
he was also the original bass player for the hottest band in LA.
if ty wants to refute any of that, i'd like to see him try. this time, why dont you do a little research first, bro.
and dont get hung up on the "kids" line, some of welch's best friends post on metafilter nearly every day.
posted by tsarfan at 2:28 PM on June 7, 2002
welch is a serious professional journalist that has just shown what can happen when you find yourself surrounded by lying politicians and slanderous accusers-- crap can get made up about you despite logic, reason, or pure fact.
i say Ty's apology was amazingly weak considering the bs that he threw on welch's good name and reputation.
on a side note, if you don't respect his writing, his blog, his not-so-secret side project, the fact that he started a newspaper in Prague that ran for many years, or the fact that Dick Riordan has welch on his short list for consideration to run riordan's pet project: a new LA newspaper aimed at competing against the Times-- welch has a smoking hot french wife who's quite a journalist herself.
he was also the original bass player for the hottest band in LA.
if ty wants to refute any of that, i'd like to see him try. this time, why dont you do a little research first, bro.
and dont get hung up on the "kids" line, some of welch's best friends post on metafilter nearly every day.
posted by tsarfan at 2:28 PM on June 7, 2002
My apology was for failing to make a distinction that Welch himself failed to make in his article. I had read his article, had accepted that he was at the election night event at NPC, and honestly did not intend to assert otherwise. The way he wrote it made it seem as if the election night event took place at Nader HQ, which it did not. It took place at the National Press Club.
I do not apologize, however, for asserting that his charge "young staffers, on the orders of campaign headquarters, were frantically devising multiple formulas to "prove" that Nader didn't cost Gore the election," is false. Welch has been contacted about this, and has agreed to publish a clarification of the paragraph as well as a response from one of the Nader campaign's researchers.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:41 PM on June 7, 2002
I do not apologize, however, for asserting that his charge "young staffers, on the orders of campaign headquarters, were frantically devising multiple formulas to "prove" that Nader didn't cost Gore the election," is false. Welch has been contacted about this, and has agreed to publish a clarification of the paragraph as well as a response from one of the Nader campaign's researchers.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:41 PM on June 7, 2002
and dont get hung up on the "kids" line, some of welch's best friends post on metafilter nearly every day.
So? Despite Welch's argument at his site that he uses "kids" "as a neutral term, with a shade toward condescension-free endearment," it doesn't take much of that revolutionary Google magic to learn the opposite is true. Welch uses "kids" most often in a disparaging, condescending way:
"The anti-globo protest kids"
"the Seattle kids and their scatter-brained protests"
"beleaguered little anti-globalization-turned-anti-war kids"
"let us now give a raspberry to the Opinion Journal kids"
"What did the Spring Street kids [LA Times] do with all that extra time?"
"Those charming kids over at Indymedia"
I'd argue that condescension is inherent in the term, particularly when describing a group of people you don't know whose opinions you're disagreeing with. There are occasional neutral appearances, but it's obvious that most of the time Welch is not "condescension-free" when he uses it. He's sneering and dismissive.
That he also describes his readers as "kids" is another matter, although whether it says something primarily about him or the world of "WAR BLOGS" (I agree with rich, btw) is unclear at press time.
posted by mediareport at 6:27 AM on June 8, 2002
So? Despite Welch's argument at his site that he uses "kids" "as a neutral term, with a shade toward condescension-free endearment," it doesn't take much of that revolutionary Google magic to learn the opposite is true. Welch uses "kids" most often in a disparaging, condescending way:
"The anti-globo protest kids"
"the Seattle kids and their scatter-brained protests"
"beleaguered little anti-globalization-turned-anti-war kids"
"let us now give a raspberry to the Opinion Journal kids"
"What did the Spring Street kids [LA Times] do with all that extra time?"
"Those charming kids over at Indymedia"
I'd argue that condescension is inherent in the term, particularly when describing a group of people you don't know whose opinions you're disagreeing with. There are occasional neutral appearances, but it's obvious that most of the time Welch is not "condescension-free" when he uses it. He's sneering and dismissive.
That he also describes his readers as "kids" is another matter, although whether it says something primarily about him or the world of "WAR BLOGS" (I agree with rich, btw) is unclear at press time.
posted by mediareport at 6:27 AM on June 8, 2002
He kids.
posted by crunchland at 6:54 AM on June 8, 2002
posted by crunchland at 6:54 AM on June 8, 2002
(not that I read his blog, or even heard of the guy before yesterday.)
posted by crunchland at 7:09 AM on June 8, 2002
posted by crunchland at 7:09 AM on June 8, 2002
*sung to the tune of "I'm a Toys R Us Kid"*
I don't wanna grow up,
I'm a MetaFilter kid,
there's 14,000 members here that I can play with!
More posts, more links, more news,
it's the biggest weblog there is!
I don't want to grow up,
because then if I did,
I wouldn't be a MetaFilter kid!
posted by iconomy at 9:17 AM on June 8, 2002
I don't wanna grow up,
I'm a MetaFilter kid,
there's 14,000 members here that I can play with!
More posts, more links, more news,
it's the biggest weblog there is!
I don't want to grow up,
because then if I did,
I wouldn't be a MetaFilter kid!
posted by iconomy at 9:17 AM on June 8, 2002
Dust-up over, mediareport. Go home.
Or are you going to start taking on all condescending single-word slights of MeFi, everywhere? If so, be my guest. I'm sure it will keep you occupied.
After all, one must never be sneering and dismissive of the Holy Metafilter. That would be mean.
posted by dhartung at 9:29 AM on June 8, 2002
Or are you going to start taking on all condescending single-word slights of MeFi, everywhere? If so, be my guest. I'm sure it will keep you occupied.
After all, one must never be sneering and dismissive of the Holy Metafilter. That would be mean.
posted by dhartung at 9:29 AM on June 8, 2002
Dust-up over, mediareport. Go home.
If you think a thread is over, dhartung, there's a simple solution.
Stop reading.
I'll post what I like, thanks.
posted by mediareport at 11:48 AM on June 8, 2002
If you think a thread is over, dhartung, there's a simple solution.
Stop reading.
I'll post what I like, thanks.
posted by mediareport at 11:48 AM on June 8, 2002
I'd argue that condescension is inherent in the term, particularly when describing a group of people you don't know whose opinions you're disagreeing with.
I wouldn't read into that too much. i use the word quite a bit and only with people or groups of people i like.
in the last two weeks alone i've referred to ken layne and tim blair as 'the cool journo kids" and the makers of my beloved blogging software as "those crazy pyra kids," in various blog posts. in both cases it was completely affectionate. blogger and layne had just sent me some not-insignificant traffic, so i don't think they or anyone that read the post could or would have interpreted it in a hostile manner.
so either you're right and i owe them all a massive apology or the word really demands context and means different things to different people. if welch were really dismissive of metafilter, he'd ignore it altogether, no?
re: sneering at metafilter (which I don't think welch was doing) - i make fun of my college alma mater and manhattan all the time, in part because i love them both. people that expend the energy to gripe about metafilter obviously feel very strongly about it - even if it's a love/hate relationship - and that, in itself, is a testament to the overall strength of the community. if people are sneering at metafilter, it implies some level of actual significance in what happens here.
posted by lizs at 2:59 PM on June 9, 2002
I wouldn't read into that too much. i use the word quite a bit and only with people or groups of people i like.
in the last two weeks alone i've referred to ken layne and tim blair as 'the cool journo kids" and the makers of my beloved blogging software as "those crazy pyra kids," in various blog posts. in both cases it was completely affectionate. blogger and layne had just sent me some not-insignificant traffic, so i don't think they or anyone that read the post could or would have interpreted it in a hostile manner.
so either you're right and i owe them all a massive apology or the word really demands context and means different things to different people. if welch were really dismissive of metafilter, he'd ignore it altogether, no?
re: sneering at metafilter (which I don't think welch was doing) - i make fun of my college alma mater and manhattan all the time, in part because i love them both. people that expend the energy to gripe about metafilter obviously feel very strongly about it - even if it's a love/hate relationship - and that, in itself, is a testament to the overall strength of the community. if people are sneering at metafilter, it implies some level of actual significance in what happens here.
posted by lizs at 2:59 PM on June 9, 2002
mediareport: two guys got into a fight in the street. The cops came, separated them, and they apologized to each other. As you discuss it on the sidelines, you make a big deal out of the fact that one of the guys in the fight, while they were both angry, slighted your group (say, called them all "dumb"). Is this a valuable approach, or not?
posted by dhartung at 10:31 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by dhartung at 10:31 PM on June 9, 2002
I love you,lizs. Now that I've shown some positive feelings, I have every right to call you a "stupid, ignorant bitch" right? I mean it in a good way, I swear. In fact, the only people I call "stupid, ignorant bitches" are people that I like and respect. I promise.
lizs, you are a "stupid, ignorant bitch". Whoever could infer that I was being hostile towards you? Just checking.
posted by ttrendel at 12:31 AM on June 10, 2002
lizs, you are a "stupid, ignorant bitch". Whoever could infer that I was being hostile towards you? Just checking.
posted by ttrendel at 12:31 AM on June 10, 2002
Except that it's probably not inaccurate to call a large number of metafilter users "kids." It's sometimes easy to forget that the person you're discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a 15-year-old.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.)
posted by crunchland at 5:23 AM on June 10, 2002
(Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.)
posted by crunchland at 5:23 AM on June 10, 2002
It's very interesting that this thread has devolved from a discussion of Ty Webb's possible libeling of Matt Welch into a condemnation of Welch's use of the word 'kids'. So MeTa.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:41 AM on June 10, 2002
posted by ljromanoff at 6:41 AM on June 10, 2002
tsarfan:
on a side note, if you don't respect his writing, his blog, his not-so-secret side project, the fact that he started a newspaper in Prague that ran for many years, or the fact that Dick Riordan has welch on his short list for consideration to run riordan's pet project: a new LA newspaper aimed at competing against the Times-- welch has a smoking hot french wife who's quite a journalist herself.
I have seen the Death of Weblogging, and it's a bunch of sycophantic fuckwits doing free publicity for whoever the idiot mainstream press seems to be paying attention to at the moment.
Earth to webloggers. Get over yourselves now please. It's so sad that a bunch of clueless egos run amok get so much undeserved attention. You were probably the guys that got your asses kicked on a daily basis by the jocks in high school, right?
posted by mark13 at 8:15 AM on June 10, 2002
on a side note, if you don't respect his writing, his blog, his not-so-secret side project, the fact that he started a newspaper in Prague that ran for many years, or the fact that Dick Riordan has welch on his short list for consideration to run riordan's pet project: a new LA newspaper aimed at competing against the Times-- welch has a smoking hot french wife who's quite a journalist herself.
I have seen the Death of Weblogging, and it's a bunch of sycophantic fuckwits doing free publicity for whoever the idiot mainstream press seems to be paying attention to at the moment.
Earth to webloggers. Get over yourselves now please. It's so sad that a bunch of clueless egos run amok get so much undeserved attention. You were probably the guys that got your asses kicked on a daily basis by the jocks in high school, right?
posted by mark13 at 8:15 AM on June 10, 2002
It's very interesting that this thread has devolved from a discussion of Ty Webb's possible libeling of Matt Welch into a condemnation of Welch's use of the word 'kids'. So MeTa.
There doesn't seem much to discuss until Matt posts his response to Ty's explanation, which seemed reasonable to me.
lizs: I really don't have a beef with "MeFi kids" so much as the protected, insular, condescending tone I see in a lot of "war blogs," Matt's among them. 1) Matt's consistently negative use of "kids" to disparage folks whose politics he disagrees with (particularly those who think there's a better way to globalize the planet) and 2) the ad hominem, circle-the-wagons reaction to criticism from the audience at his site both fit perfectly with what I've seen of "war bloggers," and both are interesting.
And I'm still amazed Reason let Welch make those accusations without giving the unnamed Naderites a chance to respond.
posted by mediareport at 8:49 AM on June 10, 2002
There doesn't seem much to discuss until Matt posts his response to Ty's explanation, which seemed reasonable to me.
lizs: I really don't have a beef with "MeFi kids" so much as the protected, insular, condescending tone I see in a lot of "war blogs," Matt's among them. 1) Matt's consistently negative use of "kids" to disparage folks whose politics he disagrees with (particularly those who think there's a better way to globalize the planet) and 2) the ad hominem, circle-the-wagons reaction to criticism from the audience at his site both fit perfectly with what I've seen of "war bloggers," and both are interesting.
And I'm still amazed Reason let Welch make those accusations without giving the unnamed Naderites a chance to respond.
posted by mediareport at 8:49 AM on June 10, 2002
You were probably the guys that got your asses kicked on a daily basis by the jocks in high school, right?
Yes, and now we run the world! Bwahahahaha!
posted by kindall at 9:11 AM on June 10, 2002
Yes, and now we run the world! Bwahahahaha!
posted by kindall at 9:11 AM on June 10, 2002
mark13:
are you high? you quoted my paragraph where i invited you to see that he is a well-rounded professional journalist who has done more before 30 than you'll probably ever do in your lifetime-- and you try to use that paragraph to deem him as nothing more than a Blogger?
i dont see your point.
and, for the record, it's hard for jocks to beat our asses when we were on nearly every team ourselves which is why welch can write from some experience when writes for espn, sportsjones, and others, dumbass.
welch was in a tougher high school conference than i, in that he grew up in Lakewood, CA, whose neighbor to the north is Compton and neighbor to the southwest is Long Beach-- both known for their gang activity and breeding ground for some of the best athletes in the country... if not the best.
but no, just like in writing, music, or picking up chicks, noone is kicking our asses at anything, especially unfocused, unlearned, grapsing nits like you mark.
so please try again, and next time read the quote before you try to use it against someone. or better yet, stick to the topic which was Ty Webb calling Matt Welch a liar for not being at Ralph Nader's HQ when, in print, Welch had written where he was all that night.
posted by tsarfan at 9:59 AM on June 10, 2002
are you high? you quoted my paragraph where i invited you to see that he is a well-rounded professional journalist who has done more before 30 than you'll probably ever do in your lifetime-- and you try to use that paragraph to deem him as nothing more than a Blogger?
i dont see your point.
and, for the record, it's hard for jocks to beat our asses when we were on nearly every team ourselves which is why welch can write from some experience when writes for espn, sportsjones, and others, dumbass.
welch was in a tougher high school conference than i, in that he grew up in Lakewood, CA, whose neighbor to the north is Compton and neighbor to the southwest is Long Beach-- both known for their gang activity and breeding ground for some of the best athletes in the country... if not the best.
but no, just like in writing, music, or picking up chicks, noone is kicking our asses at anything, especially unfocused, unlearned, grapsing nits like you mark.
so please try again, and next time read the quote before you try to use it against someone. or better yet, stick to the topic which was Ty Webb calling Matt Welch a liar for not being at Ralph Nader's HQ when, in print, Welch had written where he was all that night.
posted by tsarfan at 9:59 AM on June 10, 2002
tsarfan, what is relevant about the fact that Welch grew up in a neighborhood that adjoins Compton? What is relevant about the fact that he has a "smoking hot french wife?" Who cares what band he used to play bass for?
Frankly, I'd never heard of the guy before this little dust-up, and based on the samples of his writing linked here and on his blog, would be just as happy to never hear of him again. It's a small point, perhaps, but I have a difficult time taking seriously as a journalist someone who can't spell correctly. However smoking hot his wife may be.
The commentary over there, on the other hand, I find rather entertaining. Score a point or two for mediareport, anyway; not so much for the 'kids' thing (about which, well, who cares) as for the other questions Welch conveniently ignores.
posted by ook at 1:14 PM on June 10, 2002
Frankly, I'd never heard of the guy before this little dust-up, and based on the samples of his writing linked here and on his blog, would be just as happy to never hear of him again. It's a small point, perhaps, but I have a difficult time taking seriously as a journalist someone who can't spell correctly. However smoking hot his wife may be.
The commentary over there, on the other hand, I find rather entertaining. Score a point or two for mediareport, anyway; not so much for the 'kids' thing (about which, well, who cares) as for the other questions Welch conveniently ignores.
posted by ook at 1:14 PM on June 10, 2002
ook, since you asked, i will respond.
mark13, who obviously doesnt know welch any better than you do, tried to paint him as not only a "Blogger" (as if thats derogatory, somehow) but as a victim of jocks who beat his ass in hs (again, as if that was some terrible personality trait.)
i was simply stating that welch was neither of these. that he grew up in a highly competitive sports region where he was able to deal with tough characters on-and-off the field and not only hold his own, but succeed. which isnt bad for a long haired whiteboy.
what is relevant about the hot babe wife and the bass player bits were to show that he isnt just your pasty faced whiney politico hack with no life other than the typer.
but do you really care?
read mediareport all you want, and ignore welch if you want, it'll be your loss. the point of this whole thread was that Ty Webb got his feelings hurt because Welch outed him and his volunteers and when Webb retaliated with some lazy slander, Welch proved him wrong.
it should have ended with a Webb apology, but it didnt. now it's diminished to you trying to diss people for not using spellcheck on a bulletin board and trying to show that that means that the guy isnt a decent reporter.
this is why people call you "kid."
posted by tsarfan at 2:17 PM on June 10, 2002
mark13, who obviously doesnt know welch any better than you do, tried to paint him as not only a "Blogger" (as if thats derogatory, somehow) but as a victim of jocks who beat his ass in hs (again, as if that was some terrible personality trait.)
i was simply stating that welch was neither of these. that he grew up in a highly competitive sports region where he was able to deal with tough characters on-and-off the field and not only hold his own, but succeed. which isnt bad for a long haired whiteboy.
what is relevant about the hot babe wife and the bass player bits were to show that he isnt just your pasty faced whiney politico hack with no life other than the typer.
but do you really care?
read mediareport all you want, and ignore welch if you want, it'll be your loss. the point of this whole thread was that Ty Webb got his feelings hurt because Welch outed him and his volunteers and when Webb retaliated with some lazy slander, Welch proved him wrong.
it should have ended with a Webb apology, but it didnt. now it's diminished to you trying to diss people for not using spellcheck on a bulletin board and trying to show that that means that the guy isnt a decent reporter.
this is why people call you "kid."
posted by tsarfan at 2:17 PM on June 10, 2002
what is relevant about the hot babe wife and the bass player bits were to show that he isnt just your pasty faced whiney politico hack with no life other than the typer.
I think it's great that Welch is such a hot-French-wife-having, bass-playing Hemingway character and all, but this fanboy stuff just makes me want to fish for a reason to dislike him. Would it have been OK to diss Welch's reporting if he was more of a nerdy wallflower?
posted by rcade at 2:31 PM on June 10, 2002
I think it's great that Welch is such a hot-French-wife-having, bass-playing Hemingway character and all, but this fanboy stuff just makes me want to fish for a reason to dislike him. Would it have been OK to diss Welch's reporting if he was more of a nerdy wallflower?
posted by rcade at 2:31 PM on June 10, 2002
Somebody sure does have a fan.
posted by crunchland at 3:11 PM on June 10, 2002
posted by crunchland at 3:11 PM on June 10, 2002
Wait, so now 'kid' is derrogatory? This thread is really confusing me. What sports did Welch play, is my next question. This is just because I am interested, not because it will prove that he's any one thing or another.
This is kind of an ugly thread but it's also super-funny! Meta-Journalist spats are just as hilarious as weblogger spats, and when you combine the two... pure sweetness.
posted by cell divide at 3:16 PM on June 10, 2002
This is kind of an ugly thread but it's also super-funny! Meta-Journalist spats are just as hilarious as weblogger spats, and when you combine the two... pure sweetness.
posted by cell divide at 3:16 PM on June 10, 2002
as previously stated, ive been a friend of matt's for years. are friends also fans? probably. usually, i would think.
welch played all the big sports, baseball, basketball, football. now he plays tennis a great deal, which worries me.
but rcade brings up a point that is at the heart of many of the threads that run through metafilter: why do people here feel like they need to find reasons to dislike people?
welch wrote about nader, pissed off whineboy, whineboy slandered, welch nailed him for it. how come welch ends up having people try to find reasons to dislike him and Ty gets to slither off into the tall grass with a a lame pissy quasi-apology?
btw, "kid" is derogatory when i use it.
posted by tsarfan at 4:05 PM on June 10, 2002
welch played all the big sports, baseball, basketball, football. now he plays tennis a great deal, which worries me.
but rcade brings up a point that is at the heart of many of the threads that run through metafilter: why do people here feel like they need to find reasons to dislike people?
welch wrote about nader, pissed off whineboy, whineboy slandered, welch nailed him for it. how come welch ends up having people try to find reasons to dislike him and Ty gets to slither off into the tall grass with a a lame pissy quasi-apology?
btw, "kid" is derogatory when i use it.
posted by tsarfan at 4:05 PM on June 10, 2002
lizs, you are a "stupid, ignorant bitch". Whoever could infer that I was being hostile towards you? Just checking.
anyone that would interpret "kid" to mean "stupid ignorant bitch" probably needs several years of therapy and a few hundred hours of anger management courses. i agree that there's some room for interpretation, but jesus christ, not *that* much room.
posted by lizs at 4:09 PM on June 10, 2002
anyone that would interpret "kid" to mean "stupid ignorant bitch" probably needs several years of therapy and a few hundred hours of anger management courses. i agree that there's some room for interpretation, but jesus christ, not *that* much room.
posted by lizs at 4:09 PM on June 10, 2002
welch wrote about nader, pissed off whineboy, whineboy slandered, welch nailed him for it.
Tsarfan, your friendship with Matt is preventing you from seeing the point. First, what Matt "wrote about Nader" has not been established as true, since he's offered no evidence for his charges except his own word, offered in a book review. The idea that he'd have waited until now to make such a serious claim, without giving the Naderites a chance to respond, is such an odd departure from standard journalistic procedure that it made Matt's version of events start to stink a little. We'll know more after he takes time to reply.
Second, Ty Webb has offered a reasonable explanation for his confused attack on Matt. Despite what it says at the top of his election day piece, Matt was not at "Nader HQ" that night; according to Ty, he was only at the party at the National Press Club. Counting 18 hours backwards from what Matt said was a "morning-after press conference" (let's guess 8am in the absence of hard data) still puts Matt among the Naderites, watching them manipulate the numbers -- "Even before the first preliminary exit poll data crossed the wires" -- at around 2pm. Ty says this is impossible, as all staffers were at campaign HQ, not the Press Club party, at that time.
If Ty's statement is true, then one of the statements Matt is making has to be wrong. It's looking like his easiest way out is to claim he got the "18 hours" wrong. Clarifying the approximate time at which he saw the alleged egregious violation of truth would be nice. But a reasonable person already has enough to understand why Ty said Matt wasn't there -- a charge, btw, that Ty has apologized for (neither Matt nor Ken "Sue the jackass!" Layne have acknowledged that apology). And you seem to still be laboring under the delusion that the only possible explanation is that Ty maliciously "slandered" your buddy. That's just plain not true, which you'd see if you stopped letting your emotions get in the way.
It's possible that Ty is lying or mistaken when he says all staffers were at Nader HQ in the afternoon. But you don't know that; at this point, none of us do. All you're going on here is bias. Why don't you try contacting some Nader staffers if you really want to know the truth? Or don't you really want to know the truth?
posted by mediareport at 6:50 PM on June 10, 2002
Tsarfan, your friendship with Matt is preventing you from seeing the point. First, what Matt "wrote about Nader" has not been established as true, since he's offered no evidence for his charges except his own word, offered in a book review. The idea that he'd have waited until now to make such a serious claim, without giving the Naderites a chance to respond, is such an odd departure from standard journalistic procedure that it made Matt's version of events start to stink a little. We'll know more after he takes time to reply.
Second, Ty Webb has offered a reasonable explanation for his confused attack on Matt. Despite what it says at the top of his election day piece, Matt was not at "Nader HQ" that night; according to Ty, he was only at the party at the National Press Club. Counting 18 hours backwards from what Matt said was a "morning-after press conference" (let's guess 8am in the absence of hard data) still puts Matt among the Naderites, watching them manipulate the numbers -- "Even before the first preliminary exit poll data crossed the wires" -- at around 2pm. Ty says this is impossible, as all staffers were at campaign HQ, not the Press Club party, at that time.
If Ty's statement is true, then one of the statements Matt is making has to be wrong. It's looking like his easiest way out is to claim he got the "18 hours" wrong. Clarifying the approximate time at which he saw the alleged egregious violation of truth would be nice. But a reasonable person already has enough to understand why Ty said Matt wasn't there -- a charge, btw, that Ty has apologized for (neither Matt nor Ken "Sue the jackass!" Layne have acknowledged that apology). And you seem to still be laboring under the delusion that the only possible explanation is that Ty maliciously "slandered" your buddy. That's just plain not true, which you'd see if you stopped letting your emotions get in the way.
It's possible that Ty is lying or mistaken when he says all staffers were at Nader HQ in the afternoon. But you don't know that; at this point, none of us do. All you're going on here is bias. Why don't you try contacting some Nader staffers if you really want to know the truth? Or don't you really want to know the truth?
posted by mediareport at 6:50 PM on June 10, 2002
I think I was pretty specific about my apology. Welch incorrectly referred to the National Press Club as "Nader HQ" numerous times, when in fact Nader HQ was a small federal style row house at Mass. Ave and 15th NW. When I said he was "not there," (at Nader HQ) I was correct.
But let me be specific about this: above and beyond the contradictory recollections of time in Welch's piece, the statement: "young staffers, on the orders of campaign headquarters, were frantically devising multiple formulas to "prove" that Nader didn't cost Gore the election," is false. It is a fabrication. As I wrote above, he has been contacted about this.
It is unfortunate, and my mistake, that I provided him a shred to grab on to by not making the distinction between Nader HQ and NPC that, again, he himself failed to make. Yes, Welch was at the election night event. As I wrote above, I never intended to assert otherwise. For him to threaten libel over this issue, while ignoring the main one, is pitiful and quite revealing.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:25 AM on June 11, 2002
But let me be specific about this: above and beyond the contradictory recollections of time in Welch's piece, the statement: "young staffers, on the orders of campaign headquarters, were frantically devising multiple formulas to "prove" that Nader didn't cost Gore the election," is false. It is a fabrication. As I wrote above, he has been contacted about this.
It is unfortunate, and my mistake, that I provided him a shred to grab on to by not making the distinction between Nader HQ and NPC that, again, he himself failed to make. Yes, Welch was at the election night event. As I wrote above, I never intended to assert otherwise. For him to threaten libel over this issue, while ignoring the main one, is pitiful and quite revealing.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:25 AM on June 11, 2002
I think I was pretty specific about my apology.
You were; sorry for muddling that part.
For him to threaten libel over this issue, while ignoring the main one, is pitiful and quite revealing.
So's the length of time it's taking him to respond, especially since he's now once again posting analysis at his site. "Sue the jackass!" gets increasingly moronic with each passing moment; Welch wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Is apologizing allowed in WARBLOGISTAN?
posted by mediareport at 1:27 PM on June 11, 2002
You were; sorry for muddling that part.
For him to threaten libel over this issue, while ignoring the main one, is pitiful and quite revealing.
So's the length of time it's taking him to respond, especially since he's now once again posting analysis at his site. "Sue the jackass!" gets increasingly moronic with each passing moment; Welch wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Is apologizing allowed in WARBLOGISTAN?
posted by mediareport at 1:27 PM on June 11, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by pardonyou? at 6:34 AM on June 7, 2002