Public Please

I read Robert G. Kaiser’s Live Analysis: Iowa Caucuses Returns, a “caucus-night conversation about the Iowa results.” Robert Kaiser asked us to post comments or suggestions, but Kaiser censored my comment/suggestion. Here’s what I submitted to Kaiser’s cherry-picked conversation on the Washington Post website:

“I was barred by top Obama staffers from displaying a hand-made sign that said “Peace Is Good” at an Obama rally at Georgia Tech. Ironically, Obama gave a speech calling for peace and unity and political participation. Are Iowans voting for Obama because they think he embraces civil discourse and progressive politics, and if so, why?”

Why did Robert Kaiser, an associate editor at the Washington Post, decide to block my comment/question?

Why was my comment/question deemed an unacceptable post?

Was it because he received too many posts? If so, his site did not disclose the total number of submissions, or the fraction that were filtered out.

Moreover, he found time to congratulate himself:

“Bethesda, Md.: I don’t have a question. I would like to compliment and thank Mr. Kaiser for the most intelligent and accessible sustained discussion of political issues I’ve seen this year.

Robert G. Kaiser: Are you my cousin? Or a childhood friend? (I grew up in Bethesda.) Thank you! ”

Perhaps, Kaiser did not trust the veracity of my claims, that I actually was censored at a public rally by Barack Obama?

Well, this couldn’t be a legitmate reason for Kaiser to censor my comment because he posted and expressed gratitude over another unverified report:

“Iowa City, Iowa: Sorry guys, but in my caucus I saw the Obama people bullying poor Richardson’s diehards–terrible, not alway polite and nice. Iowans feel passionately about their candidates. This was messy politics and it was very amazing. The state has invested so much time and energy in this event. And are you really going to let someone get away with this comment about Clinton? “She’s a divisive, polarizing figure who gets most of her support from people who toe the Democratic party line.” Please. Her caucus corner was full of men, women of all ages, with notable turnout from the gay community. What was missing was teenage men. I do think Clinton made a mistake by providing refreshments for her corner — it just wasn’t Iowan — not sure how to explain it. But it is much more complex than “divisive.” Isn’t that what people always say about strong women?

Robert G. Kaiser: This is really terrific. Thanks to you for thinking of us to file this report. ”

I am writing this article to document another act of unreasonable censorship. My comment/question was relevant, polite, and inquisitive. Robert Kaiser chose to ignore my post. He chose to exclude me from a putative public discussion, one which he privatizes through his editorial control. He made an editorial decision to censor me. I would like to know why. So I will write him and send him a link to this post. It’s important for everyone who is committed to democracy to support reasonable public discourse. We deserve to have a chance to voice our views in a reasonable fashion, especially in an online digital space, one where the costs of public expression are minimized and the ability to search and browse such expression is maximized.

We must challenge mainstream media to report the facts and public opinion because we constitute public opinion. We are the public. We the people decide who gets elected. As a reporter, Robert Kaiser has a civic duty to let our voices be heard. We cannot allow the media to exclude our diverse views. We cannot allow Robert Kaiser to only rely on polls which do not demonstrate any deliberation. It’s sad but true, polls do not reflect the complexities of political discourse; they do not reflect healthy deliberation or sufficient rationality. Polls format and frame questions without recourse to revision or nuance. It’s unfortunate that Robert Kaiser broadcasts the predictions of pollsters with more deference than the views and perspectives of readers like you and me.

He censored me without justification, and so he has censored us. We have no idea who else he has censored. He chose the comments to show. He framed the discussion by choosing the comments to publish. And he did all of this using a format that appears open and discursive. But we are not fooled. We know that Robert Kaiser and the Washington Post dictate the terms and content of our conversation, and that in so doing, they engage us with half-measures and weak democracy. We are sensitive to spin, and we can smell it all over Robert Kaiser’s analysis wrapped in “conversation”.