A few days ago, I blogged that the TV Decoder, the New York Times blog covering all things television, recently cross-posted the original Michael Cieply piece.
I posted a comment on TV Decoder blog, asking them what Mr. Cieply's sources were in a media blackout and also asking if the NY Times had done a thorough fact check. I said the reason I was asking was because of the chatter I was reading on United Hollywood regarding this and actually posted in my comment a link pointing back to the UH discussion. Like the one I'm going to put here.
The comment was approved, but the link was editorialized and deleted for reasons I don't know why. I do not know what the NY Times standards and rules are for allowing links in a comment.
But, FWIW, it's worth noting that following my comment is a person who identifies themselves as "Citizen Kate". Citizen's Kate's comment contained a link to her YouTube channel and this link was allowed to remain in the comment.
I just posted a follow up comment asking the folks at the TV Decoder blog why my link was deleted. I also asked for a public posting as to what the blog's guidelines are for posting comments so that readers and the blog's participants may know what to expect to happen to their comments after posting.
So far, in my experience, TV Decoder has permitted one comment to feature a link pointing back to another site. But when I posted a comment with a link pointing back to United Hollywood, it was deleted. Draw your own conclusions, but I will wait and watch this blog post to see if a) my follow up comment was approved and b) what they have to say.
It's worth noting that in my follow-up comment on the TV Decoder blog I signed off with the following:
Tanja BarnesSo, I'm curious now if that link will remain or not. I'm also curious what the TV Decoder bloggers answer is to my podcast questions "Legacy notwithstanding, what is the more powerful invention: the Internet or the printing press"?
Oh, and hello TV Decoder bloggers if you're reading this. Please feel free to leave a comment here. My TOU is clearly stated when you go to post a comment but I'll copy and paste it below for everyone's benefit and so that you may know what to expect from me:
"Feel free to comment. I am a proponent of free speech and you may express your thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions relevant to the topic in whatever manner and any language you wish.
Here is my TOU: My goal is to create a respectful and considerate community. You may not post pornography sexually explicit content, racial and/or hateful comments, or anything that violates a copyright. I also reserve the right to delete spam."
UPDATE - 13 February 2008 23:08 -
Well it looks like my follow up comment was approved with the link intact. However, so far there is no formal reply to my question as to what the NY Times' TV Decoder blog's comment policies are. Perhaps they're reviewing it now and maybe they'll post a response later. I'd like to think so. Otherwise, why the hell have a blog if the precepts of Web 2.0 and the promises of new media are not utilized?
A long time acquaintance of mine, Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing.net put it so well when she said: "It's important that newspapers not launch blogs for the sake of launching blogs. There had to be a purpose to other than to have the ability to tell the world that you have a blog. What's the point of interacting with your audience? Is the point just to leave snippy comments on the blogs of your critics? Or is the point of interacting to provide bits and pieces and nuances of information that traditional newspaper reporting doesn't lend itself to?"