SFF Net separates from SFWA

This is interesting news in light of the number of professional writers who have quietly been leaving SFWA:

Steven Gould, President of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and Jeffry Dwight, President of Greyware Automation Products, Inc. announced that they are severing the formal ties between the writer’s organization and the legacy SFWA discussion discussion boards still hosted at SFF Net (a Greyware service).

Gould said, “SFF Net was the host of SFWA’s online home for many years. We are incredibly grateful for the years of support from Jeffry and his team. When SFWA moved over to managing its own domain at sfwa.org in 2009, the organization continued to maintain the old discussion boards for a transition period. The SFWA board of directors were discussing the appropriate time to separate when I received Jeffry’s email on the same subject.”

Dwight said, “SFF Net initiated this separation. We have no immediate plans to shut off the private.sfwa hierarchy, nor to remove access from those who already have it. SFF Net will continue to offer discussion areas to professional writers, but based on each individual’s writing credentials rather than membership in SFWA or any similar groups. Our goal is for the transition from sff.private.sfwa to sff.private.pro to be both gradual and gentle, so that no one is disenfranchised.

It’s a smart move by SFF Net. Being tied to SFWA prevented non-SFWA writers like me and many others from participating on SFF Net’s formerly active pro writing forums. And many of the most experienced writers who were already there simply never migrated to the SFWA forums, which were mostly infested by the activist junior members who don’t actually write or publish much science fiction.

It won’t be surprising if within six months, there are two- or three-times as many pro writers active at SFF Net than there are in the SFWA forums. Even though their individual credential requirements will probably be more stringent as well. And thus SFWA’s slide into further irrelevance begins….

UPDATE: This book feature from SFWA.org says it all about the modern SFWA. It’s now the Romance Writers of America’s little league.

FEATURED BOOK: “Post-apocalyptic biopunk romance from the RWA RITA Award nominated author of GHOST PLANET. Coming from Tor in April 2014.


The problem of engagement

Toni Weisskopf, the Baen Books editor and one of the voices of sanity in traditional SF/F publishing, provides her perspective on the inevitability of war between the rabbits of Pink SF/F and the rationalists of Blue SF/F in a guest post at Sarah’s place:

The latest fooforaws in the science fiction world have served to highlight the vast cultural divide we are seeing in the greater American culture. SF, as always, very much reflects that greater culture.

It is also nothing new. When fandom was first starting there was the “Great Exclusion Act” when a group of young, excitable, fanboys attempted to spread their political/fannish feud propaganda at the first Worldcon in New York, and were not only prevented from doing so but not allowed back into the con. All fandom was aflame with war! (The fact that this line is a cliché is also a clue that fandom is not, and never has been, a calm peaceful sea of agreement.)

The reason we have a fandom to disunite now, is because calmer heads prevailed. Bob Tucker in particular, with intelligence and humor, led fandom to the idea that it ought have nothing to do with greater world politics, but should concentrate on the thing we all loved, that being science fiction. (Mind you, his sympathies were with the ones who were excluded, but he was able to overcome his own political inclinations for the best of fandom.)

The fact that fandom as an open culture survived more than seventy years is a testament to the power of that simple, uniting concept. That we are once again looking to be rift by a political divide was perhaps inevitable. But as fandom has grown, expanded and diluted itself, we may have won the überculture wars and lost our heart.  We have not been able to transmit this central precept to new fans. Geeks are chic, but somehow we’ve let the fuggheads win.

And, from my observations, this is an inevitable consequence of the creation of any kind of fandom, from tattoos to swords to us. There is a thing people like. Thing people make initial contact with each other to discuss things and thingishness. At some point a woman (and it’s usually women, no matter what the thing) organizes gatherings, and thing fandom grows bigger and better. At some point, the people who care not about things, but merely about being a big fish in a small sea, squeeze out the thing people. Sometimes thing fandom just dies, sometimes it fissures and the process is recreated. So the fuggheads always win. The only question is how long can we delay their inevitable triumph?

Forget delaying them. I agree with what she is saying about the inevitability of the attempted infiltrations, but I very much disagree that their triumph is inevitable. We don’t have to let them in. We don’t have to let them oh-so-helpfully volunteer to make things easier for us and take those weighty responsibilities off our shoulders.

And most of all, we don’t have to sit back and lament the fact that they’ve taken over and ruined the organizations and institutions that we used to love. We can walk away without looking back, leave them to their inevitable implosion, and build new and better ones. But we have to learn from the failures of our predecessors. When the bureaucrats and the activists and the whiners start in with their usual routine about access and fairness and reaching out, we need to kick THEM out, not foolishly listen to them and let in the destroyers.

Don’t throw pearls before swine. Don’t attempt to engage rationally with madmen and fools.


#SoButthurt

The humor, it simply refuses to stop happening:

The outcry over LonCon’s decision
to ask controversial British talk show host Jonathan Ross to host the
Hugos just won’t end. After a week filled with accusations of bullying
and harassment on all sides, a new wave of backlash swept the sci-fi community Thursday evening after one noted author used the wrong Twitter hashtag…. The convention apologized to everyone and apparently satisfied no one: First to Ross and his family for the harassment they received, then to those who were upset that Ross was chosen, and to those who were upset he would not be hosting. Additionally, the convention seemed to abjure full responsibility for the decision, claiming that “we did not consult widely or promptly enough within our own Committee or with external parties.”

This seems to contradict a now-private statement by one committee member that she argued with the chairs for days over their decision, and resigned in protest after gathering that the decision was not up for debate.

Many members of the sci-fi community felt the apology rang false and accused LonCon of catering to Ross (and to celebrity author Neil Gaiman, who Ross claimed asked him to host). Others blamed easily-offended Americans for the brouhaha, despite the time zone difference. And still others blamed social media for causing the whole situation to spiral out of control.

Social media has continued to drive the debate in the days since Ross’s withdrawal, and it has predictably catalyzed the latest turn of events. Perhaps as a result of what writer Chuck Wendig called “social PTSD,” last night, bestselling fantasy author Patrick Rothfuss, known for his Kingkiller Chronicle series, asked the community to simmer down:

    Um, guys? Can we all stop being dialed-to-11 offended about everything? Then being offended that people are offended we’re offended? Please?
    — Pat Rothfuss (@PatrickRothfuss) March 6, 2014

    @wilw I know these conversations are important. But it feels like I’m awash in an endless sea of butthurt all the time these days. #SoWeary
    — Pat Rothfuss (@PatrickRothfuss) March 6, 2014

Twitter user Rose Fox took the hashtag and issued a sarcastic response:

    You know what I’m #SoWeary of? Talking about “being offended” like it’s a bad choice. As though there’s something wrong with giving a shit.
    — Dandy McFopperson (@rosefox) March 7, 2014

Rothfuss may have just been trying to soothe the community. Instead, he drew a number of raised eyebrows as the sci-fi community weighed in.

    .@PatrickRothfuss That’s a good attitude to take toward one’s own behavior, but a problematic one to apply to less powerful folks. + @wilw
    — P Nielsen Hayden (@pnh) March 6, 2014

    .@PatrickRothfuss + You or I can get a lot of instant attention to a problem if we choose. Most people have to raise their voices. @wilw
    — P Nielsen Hayden (@pnh) March 6, 2014

    @pnh @PatrickRothfuss @wilw And even when we do, we’re called shrill, or hysterical. See the hash tag #iaskedpolitely
    — Beth Bernobich (@beth_bernobich) March 7, 2014

The ironic thing is that the freak show these freakshows put on is more entertaining than anything they write. FAR more entertaining. Someone used the wrong Twitter hashtag? LET THE PURGING BEGIN!!!!

It’s more than a little amusing to see the Tor editor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, leaping in and wagging his finger as he desperately tries to stay on the good side of the rabid rabbits. It’s only a matter of time before they turn on him and McRapey, their best efforts to disguise the fact that they are Powerful White Men notwithstanding. McRapey can lie low and wear dresses, and Nielsen Hayden can cleverly feign marriage to an amphibious abhuman to try to hide the fact that they possesses alabaster male sex organs, but eventually someone is going to notice.

I would add #freakshow to this post, but since I’ve already added #SFWA, that would be redundant.


Sounds just like SFWA

What is happening in Birmingham, England is pretty much what happened over the last 20 years at the SF/F publishers, and what is happening right now in SFWA:

Islamic fundamentalists are allegedly plotting to convert Birmingham schools so that children are taught according to strict Islamic codes by ousting teachers through a dirty tricks campaign and replacing them with radicals. The city council and the Birmingham Mail have received documents which purport to show that jihadists – or those fighting against non-Muslims – are targeting schools and orchestrating false allegations against staff, including non-Muslims, in an operation dubbed Trojan Horse.

The SFWA knows all about false allegations; it has an entire report full of them. Notice that even on Wikipedia, the SFWA action is falsely reported.

“In June, Beale used the SFWA Twitter feed to post several controversial links to his blog, in which he called an African-American author a “half-savage” and an editor a “fat frog.”. After complaints from members, in August, the SFWA Board announced that they were expelling Beale as a member due to violations of their by-laws. Beale posted a letter from the SFWA president to his blog.”

Let’s count the errors:

  1. I used the @swfaauthors feed, not the official SFWA one. They are two different Twitter accounts.
  2. I did not post several controversial links to my blog. I posted one link and it contained nothing controversial. It was the blog post that was controversial, not the Tweet.
  3. The SFWA Board did not announce that they were expelling me. They did not name the member expelled in their announcement. As Locus Online correctly noted, I was the one who announced my expulsion.
  4. The SFWA Board did not announce I was expelled due to violations of their by-laws. The SFWA Board did not give any reason for the expulsion of the unnamed member expelled.
  5. To be complete, I referred to N.K. Jemisin as “an educated, but ignorant half-savage, with little more understanding of
    what it took to build a new literature by ‘a bunch of beardy old
    middle-class middle-American guys’ than an illiterate Igbotu tribesman
    has of how to build a jet engine” and I stand by the assertion. I also pointed out that she is a liar.
  6. In addition to her resemblance to an overweight amphibian, I also observed that Teresa Nielsen Hayden is “grotesquely malformed” and does not appear to belong to the same species or phylum as my wife.

The SFWA are irreligious fundamentalists, they just happen to be softer, squishier, and more cowardly than the Islamic variety. And this is why diversity is always and everywhere doomed. Let one rabbit in, and its priority is always to get another rabbit in there with it. Once accomplished, the breeding begins. And when they feel they have sufficient numbers, they begin forcing all the not-rabbits out.


SF Fandom is “cleaning house”

It’s a pity to see that someone who writes pretty good neo-Lovecraftian pastiches, who wrote the brilliant Accelerando, should nevertheless show himself to be so deeply and profoundly absurd with regards to politics, public relations, and simple civility:

So today Loncon 3 announced that Jonathan Ross would be toastmaster at the Hugo awards this August in London. And lo, twitter melted down in outrage for some reason.

I agree with Farah Mendlesohn (who resigned from the committee over this choice) that he’s a very bad choice for Hugo toastmaster.

My reasons for thinking this differ slightly from hers.

Regardless of Mr. Ross’s personality and track record, it is clearly the case that he has a history of scrapping with tabloid journalists, then being quoted out of context.

The problem I see is that while fandom is in the process of cleaning house, inviting him — or anyone with a controversial media profile — to be Hugo toastmaster is like rolling out a welcome mat at the Worldcon front door that says “muck-rakers welcome”. There’s a lot of muck to be raked, even before we get into Daily Mail photographers stalking cosplayers: just look at the recent SFWA fracas (plural), the Jim Frenkel/harassment scandal at Tor, and so on.

Worldcon should be safe space for fans, and inviting a high profile media personality who has been targeted by the tabloids is going to cause collateral damage, even if nothing happens, simply by making many fans feel less safe.

We’re seeing a huge explosion of anxiety on twitter right now. If Ross is toastmaster, I can predict that at least one major Hugo nominee/past winner who was planning to be there won’t be present at the ceremony, because Ross has past form for using women with weight issues as the butt of his humour. She says she doesn’t feel safe, and I believe her: I wouldn’t want to be there in her shoes (and I’m an ancient has-been who hasn’t been on the shortlist for a couple of years, now, so I’m unlikely to be in the front row). I don’t like seeing my friends mocked, so I probably won’t be there either. And this is regardless of whether the mockery would come from the toastmaster, or the tabloid journalists in the back of the audience.

The sad fact is, however well-behaved Mr. Ross is on the day, inviting him into a pulpit that has been misused in the past is sending a really bad signal. (And anyway, what happened to our community’s supposed newfound commitment to diversity? Isn’t it about time we had a toastmaster who wasn’t a white privileged male? Someone like, say, Jane Goldman?)

The amusing thing is that even AFTER the debacle was concluded and Ross declined the invitation, Stross believes it was good to have hounded him from the event:

His appointment was probably a bad move, but the way he was hounded out was, in my opinion, much worse.

Would you rather the Hugo ceremony went ahead with a toastmaster trailed by tabloid journalists looking for scandal, with half the nominees missing (either because they were afraid of the toastmaster, or out of solidarity with those who were afraid, or out of fear of the tabloid press), under a cloud of ill-tempered back-biting about privilege and contempt for minorities?

It’s better to get it out of the way right now, the same day that the bad decision was made public, than to wait.

Keep in mind that Johnathan Ross’s politics are much closer to theirs than to mine, but that didn’t prevent them from chasing him out too.  It’s no wonder most of these creepy little people live hand-to-mouth, afraid to leave their safe spaces. They are literally too stupid and frightened to go out and make a living among normal people. In the end, it’s Us vs Them. K-selection vs r-selection. Fit vs fat. The sane population vs fandom.

If you have to ask, then yeah, you’re probably on the list to be ideologically cleansed too.

So be it. I went to one SF convention once, back in 1996. Needless to say, once was more than enough. One fan came up after a panel and told me I didn’t look like an SF writer. After glancing looking around, I couldn’t disagree with him. I had to resist the urge to ask him: “why, because I’m healthy?”

Speaking of the Hugo Awards: Warbound for Best Novel!


The implosion continues

Fresh from embarrassing itself by naming Redshirts last year’s best novel, the weird little people who are running this year’s Hugo Awards have managed to chase off the biggest media figure ever to pay them any attention. Keep in mind that Jonathan Ross is basically the equivalent of the British David Letterman; he hosts one of the biggest talk shows in the country.

    I have decided to withdraw from hosting the Hugo’s @loncon3 in response to some who would rather I weren’t there. Have a lovely convention. — Jonathan Ross (@wossy) March 1, 2014

    @wossy We accept your resignation, with regret. — Loncon 3 (@loncon3) March 1, 2014

    We regret to announce that Jonathan Ross @wossy has graciously withdrawn from his role as Master of Ceremonies for @TheHugoAwards #loncon3 — Loncon 3 (@loncon3) March 1, 2014

    @stdesjardins @tinytempest @loncon3 you mis-understood. I think I was an excellent fit. But others didn’t. Including, presumably, you — Jonathan Ross (@wossy) March 1, 2014

    @barefootorbust no. It isn’t. Stop being afraid of what hasn’t happened . I agreed because I love sf. And because Neil Gaiman asked me. — Jonathan Ross (@wossy) March 1, 2014

    So @wossy has stepped down from hosting the Hugos at #Loncon3. Great to see that genre folk hate rudeness but are fine with cyber bullying. — Tony Lee (@mrtonylee) March 1, 2014

Yeah, that sound you hear is me chortling at the increasingly tattered remnants of the Pink SF/F world. I warned the Old Guard about the problems of the Scalzification of the genre, but did they listen? Only about ten percent of them. Now the lunacy is coming ever faster and furiouser. Well done, Steven Gould, well done indeed!

It’s all just too freaking funny.


The virulent circle

I find it modestly amusing how the only thing that the two sides of the low-grade civil war between the SFWA Old Guard and the Insect Army can agree upon is that I am simply beyond the pale.


“That’s right! I am dangerous, Ice… man!”

Although it’s also amusing how a few of them seem to think that they should be able to discuss how terrible I am without me, you know, letting any of you know about it. Apparently they also think the MORE THAN ~50,000 DAILY READERS here are crackpots and hatey-hatey haters. Shame on all of you! From SFF.net, which I will remind you is the considerably more rational side of the two that are involved.

YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED  This is a hate site. They hate EVERYONE. Also the abode of crackpots.
– Lois Tilton (providing link to VP)

No one has to seek such things out. If we knew exactly why he was kicked out of SFWA, then we need never think of him again. But we don’t.
– Jerry Pournelle

I was pointing out that Beale is predictably taking advantage of the current flapping over the Truesdale matter to do more flapping of his own, on his own blog. 
– Lois Tilton

Vox Day is, of course, a perfect rendition of the Cory Doctorow prescription of writerly success. Welcome to the Promised Land.
– William Barton

As he will tell you.
– Lois Tilton

As far as I know, the only thing Beale has to do with the current flap is that he signed the petition at some point and his name was removed before it went public.  Beale commented on that on his blog.
– Steven Silver

I seriously doubt that. I saw an early draft of the petition and his name wasn’t there.  Dave would not be that dumb; it would have poisoned the whole effort. I wouldn’t take anything Beale says as accurate.
– Chuck Rothman

If Truesdale, a non-member, can present such a petition, Beale, a non-member, should be able to sign it. Removing someone’s name from a petition because one thinks they are an asshat is prima facie evidence that one is, onceself, an asshat. Maybe SFWA can chip in and buy an “UNCLEAN” sign for Beale to wear around his neck? SFWA’s not the fucking Pope.
– William Barton

Regarding Beale I have yet to see either charge or specification, apparently because even the mention of what he did to merit expulsion would be actionable or something of the sort.  I probably misunderstand, but apparently the Board can act as a Court of Star Chamber and doesn’t need charges and specifications.  I can’t say I find that reassuring.
– Jerry Pournelle

Well, Mr. Rothman, Dave was precisely that dumb. It was also downright hilarious to see one member pointing out that Steven Gould’s actions have proved that I was “was the only possible choice for president who might have made me write a dues check this year.”

Anyhow, I sent Mr. Pournelle a copy of the SFWA report as well as my response to it. I have no idea what he will make of it, but at least he will be left in ignorance no longer.

As Lois Tilton has surmised, I don’t mind any of this. I have the impression that running a publishing house will permit me to have considerably more impact on the field of science fiction and fantasy than serving as president of SFWA would have. About which more tomorrow. And as it happens, many of the things I would have implemented inside the organization are equally implementable from the outside. About which more anon.


Crushing the insects

As he learned from his Mommy, Johnny thinks that if you pretend to embrace an insult, you are totally showing the big meanie that he can’t hurt you. Because if you put on a big enough production, no one will notice that you’re crying yourself to sleep at night.

“The problem is that the ‘vocal minority’ of insects who make up the new generation of writers don’t scramble for the shadows when outside lights shines on them—they bare their pincers and go for the jugular. Maybe it is a good thing that SFWA keeps them locked up. The newer members who Scalzi et al. brought in are an embarrassment to the genre.”
— (name withheld) on SFF.net, during the recent unpleasantness.

Heh heh heh. I realize, of course, that the person who wrote the comment above meant “insect” as an insult. But what do we know about insects? They are numerous, adaptable, highly successful as a class, and, when they put their mind to it, absolutely unstoppable. No wonder this person seems terrified.

As it happens, I have for a long time said that there are three types of writers: dinosaurs, mammals and cockroaches. Dinosaurs are the writers who are tied into an old model of the writing and publishing life, and when that specific model dies, so does the writer’s career. Mammals are the ones who ride the wave of a new writing/publishing model into success and prominence — but if they tie their fortunes to that one model, they’ll find themselves transformed into dinosaurs soon enough. Cockroaches, on the other hand, learn and adapt and thrive in every circumstance, in part because they know that things change. If you’re a writer, being a cockroach is the way to go.

And so, oh! The irony! Of calling writers the thing that (metaphorically) it is awesome to be, careerwise.

For the record (and because it is referring to my time in office, which I can speak about): I am immensely proud to have, along with Mary Robinette Kowal (my VP for two thirds of my administration) and the rest of the board and volunteers, through our efforts on behalf of our membership, helped to bring so many of the writers this person so dismissively refers to as “insects” into SFWA. These writers are talented, opinionated, smart and adaptable, and not coincidentally write some really great things, and were already in my time doing good for the organization. If this person wants to put me at the head of this insect army, I’m delighted to accept the commission (as is Mary! I asked her! She said yes!).

Mary and I are no longer officers of SFWA, but I think our commissions at the head of the Insect Army are still in effect: After all, not every “insect” is in SFWA (yet). And so I say to you: Join John and Mary’s Insect Army! You must write! You must be fearless! You must stand your ground in the face of deeply silly insults, clacking your pincers derisively at them! And, if you believe that every person — writer, “insect” and otherwise — should be treated with the same dignity and honor that you would accord yourself, so much the better. Together we can swarm to make science fiction and fantasy awesome!

Insect is an apt term for them. They are nobodies and no-talents led by mediocrities who have careers by virtue of smoke, mirrors, and being chosen by other mediocrities due to their ideological affiliations. We’re not talking about China Mieville here. We’re not talking about Charles Stross or the late Iain M. Banks, left-wing writers of genuine talent. We’re talking about the nattering nothings. Scalzi is lying when he says: “These writers are talented, opinionated, smart and adaptable, and not coincidentally write some really great things.”

They’re not talented. They’re not smart. Most of them are barely even published. They’re not adaptable, they’re intolerant, and most of them don’t even write as well as the definitively mediocre Scalzi, who produced this award-winning dialogue:


“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said.
“What?” Dahl said.
“What?” Hester said.
“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a
favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s
a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of
habit. It’s just an expression.”



“Got it,” Dahl said.


“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear”
“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?”
“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what it now takes to win A PARTICIPATION HUGO!

After taking over the SFWA with their bureaucratic swarming thanks to the McCaffrey rule, the insects made the same mistake that all the indebted college students are making today. They think the credentials and the awards matter and they don’t understand that those things were only ever significant because of what they symbolized: SF excellence. A Nebula once meant something. A Hugo once meant something. Now, they’re the reward for meaningless swarmings. The insects mistake the awards for the literary accomplishment.

That’s why the Old Guard’s petition, the Old Guard’s disgust, was so hurtful to them. Because it is an undeniable reminder that the insects cannot live on the stolen glory of their elders and betters.

And now that the gatekeepers don’t matter any longer, now that everyone has equal access to the SF/F readers, we will crush them beneath our iron-shod feet.

As for Mary Puppinette Kowal, the reason she’s a complete nobody is because nobody actually gives a damn what she writes. Nobody reads her except her fellow insects. For all her awards and bureaucratic involvement and being pushed by the biggest genre publisher, her most recent book is ranked #268,486 on Kindle. She’s a nasty little nothing and never-will-be who doesn’t even write SF/F, she writes miscategorized Regency Romance.


Tilting the level playing field

The mainstream media’s attempts to ignore, belittle, and compete with the independent media has failed, so now they are desperately trying to appeal to anyone, from the government to Google, who will stack the odds in their favor:

Who, for example, could object to a paper that opens with something as reasonable as:

“At a time of extraordinary domestic and international policy challenges, Americans need high-quality news. Readers and viewers must decipher the policy options that the country faces and the manner in which various decisions affect them personally. It often is not readily apparent how to assess complicated policy choices and what the best steps are for moving forward.”

You know you are wading into difficult waters, however, when in the very next paragraph West and Stone quote warnings about the perils of the present political polarization from Brookings’ Thomas Mann and the American Enterprise Institute’s Norm Ornstein. AEI is indeed a conservative think tank, and a jewel of one at that, but any idea that coupling these two scholars from AEI and Brookings produces a balanced analysis should go out the window. Ornstein is AEI’s resident liberal and about as representative of the scholarship at AEI as I am of the Harlem Globetrotters. Mann and Ornstein are themselves very partisan players who would like nothing better than to go back to the old days when Tip O’Neill got the better of Bob Michel in the House of Representatives; they blame all of Congress’s dysfunctions on the Republicans, especially the Tea Party branch. So when West and Stone blame the role the news media are currently playing in the polarization that Mann and Ornstein decry there is more than just the sound of academic “tsk, tsking”—there’s also a slight whiff of “here’s hoping that we could set this darn clock back.”

In fact, attempts to do just that permeate the entire paper and its recommendations. West and Stone even chide the practice of pairing conservatives and liberals on TV to comment on issues, which they say results in “polarization of discourse and ‘false equivalence’ in reporting.” Getting both views means there is a lack of “nuanced analysis,” which “confuses viewers,” they write. As with all liberal grousing, there is also throughout the paper the suspicion that the average American is not capable of filtering the news by himself. Another passage reads, “the average reader’s ability to critically judge this new presentation of digital data is still developing and is lagging behind the ubiquity of interactives and infographics on the web.”

So journalists should lead the average American reader out of his torpor by linking to thoughtful commentary that give the context the reader needs, just like in the old days. And who might be good examples of such much-needed context-givers? West and Stone observe that “Platforms such as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog and Andrew Sullivan’s “The Dish” provide daily developments in policy news for those seeking to understand the intricacies of complex issues.” And, no it doesn’t end there. They also recommend Democracy Now!, which they describe as “a daily, independent program operated by journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. It runs stories that have ‘people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media.’ Among the individuals it features include grassroots leaders, peace activists, academics, and independent analysts. The program regularly hosts substantive debates designed to improve public understanding of major issues.”

Both Sullivan and Klein are uniformly liberal in all issues and supportive of Barack Obama’s agenda. They are also, however, deep-thinking innovators who explain things thoroughly in their respective sites, even if from their perspectives. Not so for Goodman and Gonzalez, who can only be described as neo-Marxist apologists for Chavez, Castro and the Sandinistas.

We can only be thankful that West and Stone revealed their weakness for Goodman and Gonzalez for it alerts the discriminating reader to be on the lookout for danger to come, and it doesn’t take long to materialize. Buried beneath moderate-sounding verbiage there is nothing less than a call for neutering the citizen journalist through mass editing (crowd sourcing) and for making it harder for average web searchers to find ideas that do not conform to the accepted wisdom. “Citizens without journalistic training may be more likely to report inaccuracies or file misreports,” they write. “Because they are reporting of their own volition, it is possible that they might have a specific agenda or bias. They may repeat false ideas reported elsewhere and help bad ideas go viral.” Combining the mass editing of crowdsourcing (“the virtues of collective reasoning,” as the authors put it) with citizen journalism, however, would be a way to hold these untrained journalists accountable.

Perhaps even more troubling is their proposal for dealing with diversity of views on the web. West and Stone quote New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson as opining that there is “a human craving for trustworthy information about the world we live in- information that is tested, investigated, sorted, checked again, analyzed, and presented in a cogent form. …. They seek judgment from someone they can trust, who can ferret out information, dig behind it, and make sense of it.” I think we all know what the managing editor of the Times thinks when she talks about sorting and analyzing news. So here’s what West and Stone propose:

“Search engines employ many criteria in their algorithms, but many of them are based on the popularity of particular information sources. Yet these algorithms lack the embedded ethics of human gatekeepers and editors. Articles or sources that generate a lot of eyeballs are thought to be more helpful than others which do not. This biases information prioritizing towards popularity as opposed to thoughtfulness, reasonableness, or diversity of perspectives. “Digital firms should be encouraged to add criteria to their search engines that highlight information quality as opposed to mere popularity. They could do this by adding weight to sites that are known for high-quality coverage or providing diverse points of view. This would allow those information sources to be ranked higher in search results and therefore help news consumers find those materials.

In other words, Google, Facebook et al should move up higher and promote the “high quality coverage” practiced by Abramson, Klein, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Goodman, and which would produce once again the type of politics that Ornstein and Mann find acceptable. Much lower down would be the muck-raking journalism of James O’Keefe and Breitbart, the opinions of Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt or pieces run by National Affairs or NRO. Sen. Cruz’s refusal to go along with higher spending, or Sen. Lee’s analysis of how our current welfare system keeps the poor poor would be about 20 clicks away, if anywhere at all.

This is precisely why I have continued pointing out the behavior of the SFWA with regards to me and other SF/F writers who refuse to join the hive mind. The Left always attempts to eliminate its opposition, by hook or by crook, because it doesn’t believe in open and honest competition, but manipulation and con artistry. This isn’t a current phenomenon; John C. Wright writes eloquently about how the founder of SFWA and the Clarion Writer’s Workshop, Damon Knight, waged a long-running campaign against one of the original Big Three of Science Fiction, A.E. van Vogt, which succeeded to the point that most people today wrongly believe the Big Three were Asimov, Heinlein, and either Arthur C. Clarke or Ray Bradbury.

(As we see time and time again, the rabbit of little ability but a highly developed talent for social manipulation and bureaucracy hated his superior in intellect and accomplishment. Knight famously claimed van Vogt was: “not a giant as often maintained. He’s only a pygmy who has learned to operate an overgrown typewriter.” I found this informative because after reading Knight’s fiction about ten years ago, I’d wondered how he could possibly have ever been named an SFWA Grandmaster. It turns out it was an Appreciation Grandmastership; he was the Scalzi of his day and began his now-forgotten SF career as the writer of a fanzine called Snide.)

So, we see the phenomenon writ small in the SFWA. We see it writ large in the European Union. But what we see is the same fractal political phenomenon that is always and everywhere dedicated to reducing the limits of the freedom of human thought.


Of petitions and pettiness

Apparently I was correct to anticipate that my signature would be removed from Dave Truesdale’s SFWA petition:

“If Truesdale, a non-member, can present such a petition, Beale, a non-member, should be able to sign it. Removing someone’s name from a petition because one thinks they are an asshat is prima facie evidence that one is, onceself, an asshat. Maybe SFWA can chip in and buy an “UNCLEAN” sign for Beale to wear around his neck? SFWA’s not the fucking Pope.”

This SFF Net discussion reminded me that I had an account there, not that I’ve used it since my presidential campaign. Or… perhaps not After reading that comment, it struck me that it would be completely
characteristic for the SFWA to ensure that my account at SFF Net was
deleted. I went there, and typed in the user name and password. Sure enough:

Sorry! We can’t find a user called tbeale. Please try again or write to Tech Support for assistance. 

That made me laugh out loud. The comedy continues. But the sheer pettiness of the act makes it something useful to keep in mind for when you find yourself facing one of the nasty little rabbits caught in a trap and begging for mercy. Show them the same mercy they showed others. Cut them the same slack they offered others.

There is no need to hate them, just crush them under your heel and go on with life. One cannot forgive those who do not repent.