Editor Mulligan
By Mitch Berg
The Minnesota Monitor – the two-year-old lefty flak site supported by the “Center for Independent Media”, which initially set up shop in space shared with George Soros’ “Media Matters for America”, and is currently floated by a bevy of lefty organizations, has rebranded itself The Minnesota Independent. Was it because of a desire to put their past – dubious ethics, shoddy, giggly fratboy/sororitychick-level reporting, plunging traffic [or merely stagnant; the source was unclear on exactly how slow things were, over there], their long dissembling masquerade as an “independent” operation until the truth leaked out – behind them?
I’m inclined to think not; the changes seem to be all cosmetic (of which more below); all but one of the Center for Independent Media’s operations are now named “…Independent”, though.
On the upside: The new design is better. Forget politics for a moment. The graphics are different, sure – but big whoop. I’m a usability guy; graphics are for kIdZ with Photoshop. But give credit where it’s due; the site’s overall interaction design is a huge improvement (and I am pretty remorselessly clinical about this sort of thing, since income trumps politics every time). And the old, frustrating, utterly opaque comment engine seems to have been finally, unlamentedly flushed. I presume the new one is better, but I don’t know; I haven’t left a comment yet. Either has anyone else in a while, from the looks of it.
Unchanged; the staff, the relentless sunshine-up-the-trousers DFL flakkery, and of course the “Code of Ethics“.
Anyway – welcome to the big world, “MinnIndy“.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am
So, we have MinnDy here. Where Mork?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Don’t change your blog roll. Using their old name linked to MinnPost makes the dig even better.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Given their rather anemic SiteMeter traffic, it sure doesn’t seem like a wise investment.
I get a kick out of the “stories” that say “so-and-so didn’t respond to calls from Minnesota Monitor/Independent/Whatever.”
Who would? It would be like calling back a telemarketer, or responding to spam e-mail.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
MinniSoros Moneytor is now MinniSoros Indigestion?
Got it.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:18 am
left a little note at the Minnibrain site –
Independent? Does this mean George Soros and his galaxy of front organizations is no longer paying for your sandbox? I doubt that…I think this is an attempt at re-branding to keep the inattentive from noticing the fact that the writers and content here are a bit to the Left of Castro/Lenin/Mao. Wait a minute, “who trained in the ethical reporting of breaking news”. “The fact-based approach of traditional journalism.” “The new name serves to emphasize our mission of independent thinking and to emphasis (sic) the distinction between what we’re about and the ways of corporate, profit-driven media.” My mistake. You’re apparently re-launching as a satirical site, ala The Onion. Keep up the good work, comrades!
June 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Mitch,
Where is your code of ethics?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
You might try searching Shot in the Dark for the word Ethics.
Technorati’s good… and Goggle will help you too, Peev.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Hi peevish!
Do you have a ‘code of ethics’?
Do you publish it on your blog?
If you do, then don’t be surprised when people compare what you do to what you have said you will do.
If you do not, then you know from experience that publishing a ‘code of ethics’ is not a requirement for a blog.
Your question should have been:
“Mitch, Do you publish a code of ethics?”
and not foolishly assume that he has one somewhere.
This ground has been covered before, and you were involved in the conversation. :-/
Troy
June 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
No kidding, Peev.
We’ve been through this before; even though I have not published a “code of ethics”, I follow one. Even though the MonDy has one, they walk all over it.
By the way, under what code of ethics is “commenting about one sock puppet identity from the cover of another sock puppet identity, as if they are different people, to create the misleading impression that you are commenting on a third-party issue” considered kosher?
You may answer the question at any time, here.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Since when does a blog need a code of ethics?
I’ve been blogging since 2002, and I consider it the one area of my writing life that DOESN’T have a code of ethics, and hopefully never will.
Poop. Fart. Dog nut sac.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
If anyone would like to see my code of ethics, please leave a comment in any topic on my blog so that I may promptly delete it there by violating your right to Freedom of Speech.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Say, peeve\leftover\penema\whatever you’re calling yourself today?
Which one of your pen names deal with your code of ethics?
Does it just kind of get decided depending which name you choose at any given minute, or whether you are using one name to back another up?
June 9th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
BTW, peeve\leftover\penema\whatever you’re calling yourself today.
Do you collect a Soroscheck© for each version of you? Man, that’s a lot of pennies, isn’t it!
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Is Peev’s commentor another Peev handle?
On Penigma:
Comments by Hasslington
http://www.blogger.com/profile/14497133578018375157
“Your final paragraph is appropriately shiver-inducing, and yet it is written in a poignant manner. That paragraph is an example of a type of good writing that we don’t often see anymore. We’re worse off for not seeing it often, so we’re better off for seeing it here. Thanks.”
😆
June 11th, 2008 at 12:03 am
We’re worse off for not seeing it often, so we’re better off for seeing it here. Thanks.
And some sick people get their kicks out of bondage and ball gags. It takes all kinds, I guess.