Blogged
by Alex Hinton

"I got blogged!"

As blogging explodes, such idioms are fast entering everyday speech, a marker of our times just as "you've got mail!" marked the late 1990s.

There are more than 10 million blogs active on the Web, with thousands more appearing each day. As they proliferate, more of us are getting blogged. "Blogged" is a passive term, suggesting a lack of agency in the moment, an act revealed in the past tense.

For some, being blogged can be exciting and fun, a momentary step into the public light and warmth of an e-community. For others, it calls to mind another phrase that begins "I got...."

I got blogged recently after writing an op-ed that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor about the 30th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge revolution.

The op-ed considered the lessons we might take away from the Cambodian genocide as we now live in a world of war and terrorism, and warned about the dangers of fanaticism, political paranoia, torture, stereotyping, euphemistic language, displacing responsibility and desensitization. By learning from the past, I argued, we could become "more self-aware, humble, tolerant and ... willing to act in the face of evil."

Given the current political climate, it's not surprising that the essay elicited strong messages of both support and disagreement, but I was surprised by the abrasive tone of a few of them. Then a likely source suggested itself.

One of the messages indicated the piece had been picked up by Power Line, perhaps the most popular conservative blog, averaging more than 69,000 visits a day. Power Line, run by three lawyers, has the distinction of being named "Blog of the Year" by Time, largely because of its role in raising doubts about the authenticity of the documents involved in the "Rathergate" scandal.

The post about my op-ed, written by Paul Mirengoff (a.k.a. "Deacon"), one of the Power Line trio, was entitled "A Very Sick Professor." According to Mirengoff, my op-ed argued that the US government's war on terrorism was "causing us to become like the Khmer Rouge." It described my purported stance as "obscene" and "off-the-chart lunacy," while noting that I was "far from the only leftist to have compared Bush to Hitler." It concluded: "The hatred of folks like Hinton for the US knows no discernible bounds."

The posting had the amusingly over-the-top tone of a North Korean propaganda tract. However, it's disturbing that such a well-regarded blog would publish a post that not only distorted what I'd written, but did so in a hateful and dehumanizing manner.

This was precisely the sort of thing my op-ed warned against. Mirengoff's use of an illness metaphor ("A very sick professor") was particularly unsettling; this sort of language pervades the ideological rhetoric of hate groups and has been taken to its extreme by those who have incited genocide.

Not only is such language dehumanizing, it legitimatizes attacks on another person or group since, by implication, illnesses are threats to the health of the body politic. It was precisely this sort of authorization that was likely behind the vitriol of a few of the messages about my op-ed, which echoed the tone and content of Mirengoff's blog.

It was particularly disheartening to find such things written by a lawyer who, one would hope, would adhere to a higher set of ethical principles and hesitate before maligning another person (nowhere, for example, did I compare President Bush to Hitler nor indicate that I hated the United States). Mirengoff completely missed the point off my op-ed.

More broadly, the Power Line post raises several important ethical questions about blogging. First, should there be a bloggers' code of ethics? Blogs are particularly fascinating because they blur the lines between the public and the private, occupying an intermediary position not subject to ordinary standards that govern public speech and writing.

For political bloggers such as the Power Line trio, who presumably aspire to a sort of journalistic credibility and would like to avoid charges of hypocrisy, a code of ethics is crucial as they criticize "mainstream media" for their shortcomings. Perhaps the blogs deeply committed to ethical blogging could post or provide a link to the code of ethics to which they subscribe. One site, Cyberjournalist.net, has already proposed such a code, based loosely on a journalistic code of ethics. Alternatively, political bloggers might form a professional association and develop their own set of ethical guidelines and an ethics awareness program.

Bloggers committed to ethical blogging and voluntary self-regulation could then display a related insignia on their site — just as businesses signal that they are members of the Better Business Bureau. Debates about these issues have begun, but a great deal more discussion is needed. Honesty, accuracy, accountability and humaneness are among the key issues that should be considered.

Second, to what extent, if any, are political blogs like Power Line beholden to special interests? Do they serve as paid consultants to political groups? Do they receive contributions from political campaigns? Who are their advertisers? If such political bloggers criticize mainstream media for bias and influence, they would do well to reveal any financial relationships that might skew their own blogging. Power Line does not provide such information (at least not in a readily visible place) though the blog's broad political orientation is suggested by the ads it accepts, which display slogans like: "Annoy a Liberal," "COUNTER THE LIBERAL AGENDA!" "ACLU: Enemy of the State" and "PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER."

Nick Coleman, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has hammered Power Line for failing to disclose fully its political ties, arguing that, while the blog portrays itself as an independent alternative to mainstream media, Power Line has close ties to the Minnesota Republican party and to the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that recently gave an award to Rush Limbaugh.

In a Dec. 29 column, Coleman called the Power Line trio "reliable partisan hacks" who pursue a right-wing agenda cooked up in conservative think tanks funded by millionaire power brokers. "They should call themselves Powertool," he writes. "They don't speak truth to power. They just speak for power."

Power Line, which has had a series of sharp exchanges with Coleman and Jim Boyd, the Star Tribune's deputy editorial page editor, responded vigorously to these suggestions of influence.

Still, concerns that political blogs might serve as fronts for political campaigns has grown enough that the Federal Election Commission has considered requiring more disclosure. But the government would not need to interevene if bloggers self-regulated by adopting a code of ethics that required such disclosure.

And, third, just as we must be sure to defend the free speech of bloggers, so too should we consider how to protect the rights of the blogged.

For, they are, by the nature of blogging in a disadvantageous position. The blogger controls the blog, so the blogged has little recourse to counter a libelous blog. For political blogs, in particular, a commitment to rigorous fact-checking might prevent some of the problems. When Power Line and other blogs make this type of a mistake, they would do well to note it on a prominent corrections page. Such blogs might consider providing some sort of forum, such as a "rebuttals" link, for the blogged to respond to the accusations of the blogger — much in the way that some blogs provide space for commentary and newspapers and magazines accept critical "letters to the editor."

A commitment to providing such recourse — as well as to fact-checking, making corrections and avoiding libel and dehumanization — could also be incorporated into a bloggers' code of ethics, providing a degree of protection to the blogged.

Lacking such alternatives, I did three things after I got blogged by Power Line. First, I wrote this essay. Second, I established my own website with links to my original op-ed, Mirengoff's blog, and this essay. And, third, I sent an e-mail message to Mirengoff voicing my objections to his blog, particularly his use of an illness metaphor.

Not surprisingly, instead of an apology I received a curt reply in which Mirengoff stood by his blog and demanded that I refute his accusations.

In response, I invited him to a debate in a neutral written forum. I'm still waiting for a reply.

Alexander Hinton is an anthropologist and author of "Why Did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide." E-mail him at alexlhinton at hotmail dot com.

— graphic by Chip Van Dyke (comics at chipv dot com)

Blogged... Again!
(June 2, 2005)

Shortly after I completed this essay, I discovered that Paul Mirengoff had written another over-the-top piece in response to my op-ed entitled, ironically, "Argument by Metaphor: The left may lack substantive heft, but it's not short on figures of speech."

The irony stems from the fact that Mirengoff frequently deploys hyperbolic metaphors to bolster his attacks on the left, as illustrated by his use of a dehumanizing illness metaphor to characterize me.

I pointed this out — as well as some of the many distortions, inaccuracies, and fatuous arguments in Mirengoff's piece — in a May 25 letter to the editor of The Daily Standard.

Unfortunately, the Standard only published a portion of my original letter. I post the longer, unedited letter to the editor — which the Standard passed along to Mirengoff — at the end of this postscript.

I was not surprised to find that, instead of responding to my piece in a professional venue where he would be bound (at least theoretically) by a journalistic code of ethics, Mirengoff blogged me again on Power Line.

Mirengoff's second post, "An Odious Comparison Turns to Mush," is like his first blog and his piece in The Daily Standard — it's full of misrepresentations and oversimplifications.

He claims that I have backpedaled in my argument by reasserting his distortions of my op-ed and then claiming, when I point out these inaccuracies, that I have "backed away" from my original argument. Not only does Mirengoff himself hypocritically employ a rhetorical strategy of "argument by metaphor," but he also frequently engages in "argument by distortion."

He complains that "people like Hinton hide behind metaphor" while he hides behind misrepresentation and hateful metaphors.

There are many other examples of his pattern of arguing by distortion as I pointed out in my original essay in Flak Magazine and in my letter to the editor of The Daily Standard. I'll conclude with two illustrative examples.

First, Mirengoff asserts that I have not responded "by citing facts and making a genuine argument" to his criticisms of my original op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor. However, as I note in "Blogged," I sent Mirengoff an e-mail message inviting him to formally debate any of these issues in a neutral written forum (but not his blog where he controls how the debate is framed and will always get more print space and the final word).

Second, Mirengoff claims that he never said that "critiquing desensitization and the dehumanizing use of stereotypes and euphemisms is a bad thing." (This is clearly implied in his "Argument by Metaphor" piece.)

Then, in a short piece posted the following day, entitled "Dhimmitude, Hollywood-Style," Mirengoff states:

Diana West writes about how the television show "24" knuckled under to pressure from the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and, if I'm reading Diana's piece correctly, converted a plot line about an Islamic terrorist cell into a tale of moral equivalence in which ex-US military personnel are the bad guys.

Perhaps they were afraid that the Professor Hinton's [sic] of the world would complain about euphemisms, stereotyping, and desensitization.

Here, Mirengoff transforms me into a type ("the Professor Hinton's [sic] of the world"). His typologizing of me aside, Mirengoff is correct about one thing: I definitely believe that we should think critically about how Muslims and Arabs are depicted in the media and entertainment industries.

Mirengoff again reveals his view that thinking critically about euphemisms, stereotyping, and desensitization is a bad thing. Would he make the same statement about critiques (by the "Professor Hinton's [sic] of the world") of how other groups, particularly Native Americans and African-Americans, have historically been portrayed in our country?

Once again, Mirengoff's blogging demonstrates why a bloggers' code of ethics is so important. Such a code would, one would hope, encourage people like Mirengoff to think more deeply before they use hateful language and engage in a rhetorically flashy "argument by distortion" that lacks substance. Let me reiterate that I'd be delighted to debate Mirengoff in a reputable printed forum — ranging from Flak Magazine to The Daily Standard — about the various issues upon which we have clashed.

We might start with Mirengoff's claim that the United States, in contrast to the Khmer Rouge, has "(1) promptly investigated abuses and alleged abuses of foreign prisoners, (2) directed powerful and unceasing criticism at our government regarding these abuses and all other aspects of the war on terrorism, and (3) liberated the citizens of two countries from the modern regimes that most closely resemble the Khmer Rouge." All of these assertions are extreme oversimplifications of US policy in the war on terror.

As in the past, I don't expect a serious reply to my invitation. More likely, I'll get blogged . . . again.

The long version of my letter to the editor of The Daily Standard

To the Editor,

I would like to draw your attention to a number of distortions and inaccuracies in Paul Mirengoff's May 2 essay, "Argument By Metaphor: The Left May Lack Substantive Heft, but it's not Short on Figures of Speech."

Mr. Mirengoff uses an op-ed I wrote in the Christian Science Monitor, "Lessons from the Killing Fields of Cambodia — 30 Years On" as a platform to launch a diatribe against "the left," arguing that my op-ed illustrates how "the left" lacks "substantive heft, but [is] not short on figures of speech." This title is ironic, given that, in the Power Line Blog that served as a basis for his essay in the Daily Standard, Mr. Mirengoff described me using a disease metaphor: his blog was entitled "A Very Sick Professor".

Evidently, Mr. Mirengoff believes that it is fine to use this type of fatuous "argument by metaphor," one that is commonly found in the ideological rhetoric of hate groups. I have responded elsewhere about the ethical shortcomings of his hateful blog, and I will not repeat his mistake of using a single example to make sweeping generalizations about an amorphous political entity ("the left" or the "the right").

Mr. Mirengoff's "journalism of assertion" involves the use of a decontextualized series of quotations to manufacture an argument — in doing so he distorts what I originally said. His first paragraph is typical. He asserts that I am warning that that "our government's prosecution of the war on terror may be causing us to resemble the Khmer Rouge" and that "The chief lesson, according to Hinton, is that we risk heading down 'their path to evil' through our conduct 'right now in the war on terror.'" Anyone who reads my original op-ed will see that this summary misrepresents my argument.

My op-ed, published to mark the 30th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge rise to power, was intended as a reflection on what lessons we might take away — both as individuals and as citizens — from this historical period of war and terror since we, too, are now living in a time of war and terror.

This is not a "bizarre analogy" but an attempt to learn from history. One can study genocide and still take away lessons that are useful to understand ourselves and the world in which we live — even if genocide is not taking place. Nowhere do I say that the United States is now engaging in or about to perpetrate genocide. Nevertheless, there are some important resonances between the two historical periods that warrant our consideration as individuals and citizens.

I discuss four of these resonances: the risks of an overzealous sense of certainty that can lead to intolerance and fanaticism, the dangers of political paranoia that can lead to the abuse of the rights of others, the use of torture which typically yields unreliable information and leads us to abuse both the rights of other human beings and our fundamental values, and the increased prevalence of certain social/psychological processes that facilitate the harm of others. Nowhere do I say there is a "chief lesson," as Mr. Mirengoff contends. Instead, I argue that, by learning about the past we may come to better understand ourselves and the world in which we live.

My piece concludes that "such understanding can help us become more self-aware, humble, tolerant, and let's hope, willing to act in the face of evil." Most people I know — both conservatives and liberals alike — would consider this a laudable goal.

Mr. Mirengoff conjures up the bizarre assertion that I "think we are coming to resemble the Cambodian mass murderers" because we "are not always politically correct." As proof, he quotes from a subsection of my op-ed where I note that, by studying perpetrators, we "catch reflections of ourselves. Most of us have, at some point, used stereotypes and euphemisms, displaced responsibility, followed instructions better questioned, succumbed to peer pressure, disparaged others, become desensitized to the suffering of others, and turned a blind eye to what our government should not be doing. These sort of things are going on right now in the war on terror."

Yes, I believe that these things are happening in the war on terror — just as they are operative in our everyday interactions with other people. (In fact, Mr. Mirengoff's use of a disease metaphor and disparaging comments about me provide an example of what I'm talking about.) No, this doesn't mean we have become genocidaires. To reiterate, we "catch reflections" of ourselves in the past and try to learn from them. Apparently, Mr. Mirengoff believes that critiquing desensitization and the dehumanizing use of stereotypes and euphemisms is a bad thing — an assertion of "political correctness" to quote another fatuous phrase Mr. Mirengoff deploys.

Mr. Mirengoff's article is full of such facile associations and misrepresentations. I will conclude by noting a few other glaring examples.

Mr. Mirengoff states that, in my discussion, I ignore how the United States has toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes and "held free elections for the liberated citizens of both countries." As a scholar of political violence and genocide, I am more than happy to be rid of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, I believe that that way in which we went about toppling Saddam Hussein was wrong. The more appropriate time to bring him to justice would have been in the 1988, when he was gassing the Kurds, or in the 1991 gulf war when he had clearly violated international law. The way in which we overthrew Saddam Hussein lacks this strong legal and moral justification and was short-sighted, resulting in unnecessarily high numbers of not just US military/coalition casualites and injuries but also those of Iraqi civilians, which are largely ignored by the US government and media.

Mr. Mirengoff's rhetorical assertions also overlook the fact that, during the 1980s, including the time of the gassing in 1988, the United States in fact had ties with and was providing aid to Iraq, which at the time was fighting a common enemy, Iran. Indeed, current US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a special envoy and shook hands with Saddam during the mid-1980s.

The US invasion of Iraq stands in contrast to the action taken against the Taliban, which had a far stronger legal basis in international law. However, Mr. Mirengoff's again glibly overlooks the history of US involvement in Afghanistan, when we allied with various Afghan rebels and radicals — including elements of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden — to fight another mutual enemy, the Soviet Union. If we hadn't abandoned Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Taliban might never have come to power. Again, I am glad that both regimes are gone. However, Mr. Mirengoff's simplistic assertions ignore complex histories.

Let me conclude by noting one last oversimplification that Mr. Mirengoff makes. He implicitly links my argument to Ward Churchill's infamous "little Eichmanns" remark. There is no comparison and Mr. Mirengoff should issue an apology. I suspect he won't since his writings suggest that he sees things through a Manichean prism of black and white, left and right, bad and good. Along these lines, Mr. Mirengoff claims that Mr. Churchill "has become a hero of the far left." I live in the New York area and don't personally know anyone — Republican or Democrat — who thinks Mr. Churchill's analogy was appropriate or views him as a hero. However, conservatives and liberals alike have common cause to defend Mr. Churchill's freedom of speech rights. Mr. Mirengoff needs to provide evidence to support his "hero" remark. Based on his misrepresentation of my op-ed, I doubt he can support his remark in any convincing manner.

It would take a great deal more time and space to unpack each of Mr. Mirengoff's distortions, but the above provides a sense of his journalism of assertion, which would be better served on his Power Line blog since his writings there are unencumbered by a journalistic code of ethics. I suspect that, if he responds to this letter, Mr. Mirengoff will come up with another set of distortions. I'd be happy to debate these issues with Mr. Mirengoff in a neutral written forum — even the Weekly Standard if I am given equal print space. Perhaps Mr. Mirengoff will take this occasion to reassess his journalism of assertion and demonization. I hope so since a reporter can quickly lose credibility — as Dan Rather discovered thanks, in part, to Mr. Mirengoff and his Power Line associates.