We don't highlight AlterNet and we don't highlight it for a reason. Outlets that are hostile to free speech receive no linkage love from us. Outlets that harass and attack their own readers, piss us off. Outlets that attack non-adult readers in e-mails alarm and distrub us. We've just described AlterNet.
Rebecca and C.I. were brought into its strange world July 14, 2005. Up until that point, the only connection they had with AlterNet was that PEEK (AlterNet's blog) had The Common Ills on its blogroll and linked to entries C.I. wrote (such as this one on Ann Coulter). British TCI community members found PEEK interesting as an insight into American thoughts and, at their request, PEEK was added to the TCI permalinks/blogroll.
July 14, 2005, Rebecca and C.I. were two of five people to receive an e-mail about what was going on re: PEEK. A young boy (not yet an adult) wrote the e-mail which opened with, "Dear Armando, Bill, C.I. and Rebecca, I offer apologies to all four of you." Why the apology?
Evan Derkacz, an adult, ran PEEK. And that day, Evan felt the 'left' thing to do was to praise right-winger Michelle Malkin in "Best of Blogs." The child (now a TCI community member, and now an adult, known as "West") had pointed out that AlterNet really didn't need to be praising Malkin's who supported illegal detentions, warrantless spying and a host of other xenophobic issues. He offered links to four web sites (The Common Ills and Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude were two of them). For daring to disagree with the almighty Evan Derkacz, West got a nasty note. It informed him his post was being deleted. It informed him he "owed" a public apology to Evan (Derkacz wrote this e-mail). It informed him that if he didn't publicly apologize to Evan Derkacz, C.I., Rebecca, Daily Kos and Liberal Oasis (those were the other two sites West had praised at PEEK) would never be linked to again by PEEK. (Rebecca notes she was never linked to by PEEK to begin with.) "The ball," Derkacz informed West, "is in your court."
What followed was, in West's words today, "groveling" on West's part. As he repeatedly apologized and "groveled," Derkacz made one demand and one threat after another. By this point, not only had Derkacz issued e-mails to everyone posting at PEEK (requesting any "dirt" they had on West -- community members Martha, Colin and KeShawn were among the many who received such e-mails), but he had learned from West that West was just a teenager. Still he persisted in attacking West, in threatening him and in bullying in him. In fact, a bald, pudgy editor at AlterNet quickly joined in the 'fun' of issuing threats to West.
As one attempt after "groveling" after another failed and the day wore on, West finally wrote the four ("Armando, Bill, C.I. and Rebecca") to apologize to them for the fact that PEEK was no longer going to link to them as a result of a comment West had left at PEEK.
The e-mail was also sent to Derkacz who was the first to reply to West. The briefest e-mail Derkacz had written all day read: "I wish you hadn't done that." No s**t, Evan, no s**t.
Rebecca's reaction was to e-mail West for his phone number so she could call him and understand what was going on. Which she did and she also posted "on bullying assholes and don't ever be bullied on my account" that night. C.I. wrote about it that night as well and delinked from AlterNet. (Which delinked from The Common Ills the following day.) And that embarrassing and shameful attack on a teenager demonstrated the 'ethics' of AlterNet probably more than anything else could ever do.
But that's hardly AlterNet's only ethical problem. Many a writer have strongly complained about AlterNet syndicating their writing to weekly newspapers without the writer's permission and without paying the writer any of the monies AlterNet received for the syndication deal. In "Ethics Problems at Alternet" (Narco News), Al Giordano reported:
Narco News has obtained internal documents authored by Alternet director Don Hazen and other Alternet staff members that reveal serious violations of the most basic ethical standards for journalists.
Those violations include:
-- The collection of what Alternet calls "bounty" fees for each story it sells on drug policy issues.
-- Alternet's refusal, when asked, to disclose the nature of those reprint fees.
-- Alternet's hiding the existence of those "bounty" fees from the writers of those articles, when Alternet claims to pay the writers 50 percent of all reprint fees.
-- Alternet's consequent non-payment of funds that, according to its own website, rightfully belong to the writers.
-- Alternet's blacklisting of writers (similar to the NY Times blacklist banning work by leaders of the National Writers Union), including when Hazen fantasizes, inaccurately, that a writer has been the source of information leading to a legitimate labor complaint by another writer.
-- Alternet's cavalier theft, on two occasions, of stories from our own publication, and Alternet's dishonesty in having later claimed that it did not offer one of those stories for sale, when, in fact, it did.
-- Alternet's request to staff members that they use false identities to post "positive reviews" of an Alternet product that is for sale on Amazon.com
By violating these ethical standards, Alternet has abused the trust of readers, writers, funders, client newspapers and the public at large.
Don Hazen has also had run-ins with many other people on the left over differences of opinions. To be clear on that aspect, we have no problem with that. In some instances, we agree with Hazen's taken partially or in full, in other instances we disagree completely; however, we have no problem with his offering a leftist critique of the left and would encourage him to do so more often.
But that probably won't happen. And last week drove home just how useless AlterNet had become. The conversation went something as follows.
Professional Writer: What are you doing?
Jim: I'm online, why?
Professional Writer: Go to AlterNet right now.
Jim: I don't give that site traffic.
Professional Writer: You have to go. They've embarrassed themselves even more than usual. Check it out!
At which point, Jim did and did the following screen snap.
It's a fundraising letter from Hazen which popped up when anyone visited AlterNet. Check out the second paragraph: "Time is running out. We need to raise another $15,000 by this Friday in order to continue this level of coverage through the Fall mid-term elections. Much is at stake. And we want to do our part."
Is that journalism?
It doesn't read like a fundraising letter for journalism? Mid-term elections, much is at stake, we want to do our part.
That's why AlterNet is so damn useless today. Any hopes that it might deliver actual news vanished long, long ago. It doesn't exist to strengthen a left, it exists to put Democrats into office.
The PC article goes to that. You read it and, if you're like us, you wonder what's the point? Digg, a social-site where members rank stories, is being 'manipulated'?
Journolist, involving journalists, was a scandal. Digg?
In the summer of 2004, one of the ideas C.I. either came up with or co-authored was how to control Yahoo News. Using multiple identities, approximately 100 people on the left (probably being seen as at least 600 due to their multiple Yahoo log ins) ranked stories and photos on Yahoo News. Bush with pit stains and looking crazier than usual? Get it to the top of the charts by ranking it a 10. An embarrassing story on the administration? Do the same! That was private citizens coordinating how they could influence what users (of Yahoo News) saw. Private citizens can do that. It's very similar to what PC describes right-wingers now doing at Digg. The scandal aspect of Journolist was always the journalist factor.
AlterNet exists to pump the left's blood, to be a hand-clapping, foot-stomping pep rally -- "We will trounce the Republicans in Friday's game!" It offers about as many facts as a pep rally -- translation, none. It exists not to provide actual news or information but to steer to you towards the voting booth and to steer you towards voting Democratic. Those are two great objectives . . . for the Democratic Party. But don't confuse them with journalism.
