Johnny Hildo’s latest target & the complete picture
I haven’t focused on the writings of those who make up the Hildo for a while, but this week’s was an interesting one because it involves the local blogosphere and this blog is referenced in the piece. I wondered if the whole Jason Webber saga would be written about there, and, Bubbles in the swamp does exactly that, complete with a picture of Chris Myers head on a frog body.
I think those who make up the Hildo went a bit far into insult land in their creative writing attempt at journalizing what they believe Chris would write if he kept an online journal, and I’m sure some won’t find it funny at all, some will find it amusing and some will find it very amusing. I was surprised at the pseudo compliment:
Late 2008. “Three time loser as a candidate. My party is thoroughly discredited. My political life is a shambles. My blog is a distant second on the local scene to the Glass City Jungle, just because the moderator over there fancies herself a journalist with some measure of principled decision making. Damn it all, I need something, anything to rebuild from the ashes!”
All humor aside, some good did come out of the whole Webber saga, we started to have a discussion as to where some of us draw a line as far as how far we will go and as more and more people head to the internet there is a clear lesson to be learned from this, that nothing on the internet can be considered private as long as there are those who are willing to post it.
Of course it should be said I don’t fancy myself a journalist, I know some of you disagree with me on that and it’s going to be harder for me to state that now that I’ve actually done my first interview for the Toledo Free Press. Though I could suggest that one interview does not a journalist make…
One of the hardest parts about doing a blog such as this is when it comes to writing something that you know could draw negative attention on someone. Even when you try to be as fair as possible there will be those that take issue with you, it’s extremely difficult at times to make sure you aren’t letting your own personal biases get in the way. There’s no editor or boss to tell you that you are going too far or not going far enough. There is the community of those who comment or read then email, but that’s after the fact and as we all know? Once something is up on the internet? It is very difficult to make it disappear…
I’d be lying if I said there was never a time when I had second thoughts about a post or a comment. That written, it’d be nice if at the end of this all, we ended up being a stronger online community rather than one that ends up demonstrating that we aren’t yet ready for the responsibility that comes with the power you give us. Despite the fun of the polls and the rankings and the contests, I don’t see SwampBubbles or any of the local blogs out there as my competitor, just as I don’t see the traditional media as a competitor. Even when I disagree with what’s written elsewhere, it is another piece of the transparency puzzle where at times each one of us provides something that can give you the complete picture…Like a puzzle it’s up to you to decide where each piece goes or if it fits at all…
I read that yesterday. Amusing. I was always flattered at being ripped in the column. You know you were doing something right.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:12 amI’m surprised any paper would print the drunken, rambling rants of such an angry person.
But that’s the reason I don’t read the City Paper.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:13 amEek…then using that logic I should be afraid I’m doing something wrong Dave.
Kate, I disagree, I read the City Paper and I read all of our local media, I don’t disclude what’s written just because of one column. It’s why I take a little issue with those who try to discount the Sojourner’s Truth or the Toledo Journal automatically or any of our media. Even if there was a clear bias towards one position or another it doesn’t mean that the items covered should be automatically ignored. It’s part of the discussion and right, wrong or indifferent? It’s rarely a position just taken by one person and even when it is? They have the right to say it, just as we have the right to agree or disagree with it.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:40 amWell, as an old newspaper woman – I have a huge issue with the Hildo column and the editorial morals that support the decision to publish an anonymous column of this low caliber.
But as we see across the country – print media isn’t doing well in general.
It may be part of the discussion, but I don’t believe it should be part of the discussion when the author feels the material is so inflammatory that none of them will claim having authored it.
Just a difference of opinion, I guess.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pmI understand the anonymous “poison pen” factor of the discussion, it’s one we face here where many times those who attack the hardest are not willing to put a real name to it. Would I agree with the belief that anything written by an anonymous person has a lessened value compared to those willing to put their name on it? Yep…
March 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pmOdd that the pseudonymous Hildo – who regularly engages in rumor-mongering – would take shots at anonymous posters on SwampBubbles who….rumor-monger. Pot, meet kettle.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pmLisa, I think Johnny needs to hire you to do some fact checking. The Coalition did create the 3 for Change campaign in 2005. At that time Myers was relatively unknown and he ran on the ticket with Fisher and Torres. He did not infiltrate the group but that is another story for another time.
The Coalition did not endorse Myers in the 2007 election. No one was endorsed in 2007. So I think Johnny is either uninformed, intentionally misleading, or smoking something – maybe all three.
It appears that Johnny is calling me a dweeb since I am a member of the Urban Coalition and Johnny is real good at guilt by association. Actually there are some pretty fine minds in the Coalition, but I’m not sure Johnny would recognize an intelligent person if they were in the room talking with Johnny.
Merriam-Webster.com – Dweeb – noun slang : an unattractive, insignificant, or inept person
Dictionary.com – Noun Slang. nerd; wimp.
I may be unattractive and insignificant and certainly I am a bit nerdy being as I like to read, think, and was an “A” student in school and college, but I am certainly not a wallflower. I’m not certain folks would think I am inept and I doubt they think I am a wimp.
My guess is that Johnny is a dweeb and is trying to deflect attention by going after Myers.
Johnny stop hiding and come out to play, but be careful on the playground.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:28 pmGood point Steven, those that make up the Hildo have been wrong on their facts in the past.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pmThat may be the best satirical piece I have ever read. I would have been happy to have given them some inspiration for their secret posts.
BTW I do turn into a prince when kissed
{kiss}
March 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pmI’ll take your word for that Chris.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pmFor the record: That picture was taken before I was kissed so please no one get the wrong impression of what I really look like. At least they could have used a post kiss version where I took on a more human form.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pmHey. Look at it with the glass half full. At least frogs have potential. And all they need is a kiss.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pmchrismyers wrote:
What, you mean like a child molester????? (IMHO)
ps- Chris, *kiss this*
Steven– some frogs do just stay frogs… they can’t be converted
March 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pmLisaRenee wrote:
Which is a logical fallacy commonly referred to as discrediting the source. In plain words, an argument stands on its own merit or not, no matter who says it.
Except, of course, when your arguments are based on facts liberally coated in emotion and end in rhetorical questions? Then they are fine? But only if you know who’s who?
Have I got that right?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:59 pmNot exactly, I’m probably much less emotional than you are Jack, I don’t get flustered or upset by blog comments though rhetorical questions are not all bad at times, though you know they are designed to not need an answer.
You are missing the point and appearing to be taking this too personally. I don’t put as much credibility in comments made by some who are anonymous, that’s not something that I made as I go along, it’s a fairly well established fact that is accepted by many. While there are valid reasons why someone may not want to be identified, there is also a higher level of responsibility that comes with your true identity being known. Therefore, it’s easier to know more about that person’s biases, connections, influences etc., that do come into play. Now, can you develop “relationships” with anonymous people online? Of course and you can feel that you “know” their online persona and find that to be credible or not credible through your experiences with them. That said, there is a higher ratio of insult type comments made by those who don’t identify themselves, because they face less real world consequences. If I make a comment that’s not appropriate, people who know me will know I said it, it could impact real world relationships. If you do? That would not happen.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:19 pmIf you’d like to delve into this, it’s something that has been discussed since the beginning of the internet, it’s been studied, etc. One of the earliest studies I read was from 1999 The relevant part to this discussion and demonstrates how long this has been something that has been debated:
IV. BENEFICIAL AND HARMFUL ASPECTS OF ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATION
March 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pmPeople say or write things under the cloak of anonymity that they might not otherwise say or write. Since anonymity typically frees the sender of a message from fear of retaliation or confrontation, it may encourage either honesty or dishonesty in communication, depending on circumstances (Levmore, 1996). Because anonymity permits communication without retribution, it raises issues of accountability and reliability, and when and why identification should be revealed or concealed. What are the conditions under which people who communicate over the Internet should be encouraged (or perhaps compelled) to disclose their identities, and when should they be allowed (or encouraged) to remain anonymous?
Aside from the fact that Hildo is more humorous and enjoyable BY FAR, I see no difference between “him” and the anonymous editorials published in the Blade.
I think “his” detractors are more frustrated by the fact that they are forced to actually rebut his taunts without having the luxury of just shooting the messenger.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pmBlade Editorials are written at the behest of the Publisher (of any newspaper), generally outlined by senior staff/editors, and then turn over to a more junior writer to flesh out the points. Only, after the chain of command has approved the writer’s work is it published on behalf of the newspaper. The masthead of any paper will reveal the author of any newspaper editorial.
That said, (new dirt!), did you know Chris Myers is Vice President of the Toledo Area Young Republicans?!?!?
I think I see a conspiracy…..!
March 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pm