Given that, I’m surprised at the heated reactions some readers have taken on this article and Scott’s response to it. Personally, I probably would have ignored Leah’s comments, but I also think that posting them raised new issues to explore and discuss. It certainly makes you read the original article with a new perspective.

One question I have is why we are assuming that the article expresses a biased political opinion, whereas other articles are objective? Everything is an expression of the writer’s opinion, from content management systems to single sourcing to politics. Opinion is inescapable, even in history books.

People subscribe to newsletters and allow them to enter their inboxes according to their content.  If they don’t want specific content to enter their inbox they either don’t subscribe, unsubscribe, or mark it SPAM.

People *choose* to access articles at their own risk.  Newsletters that are supposed to be about a specific topic, which we subscribed to because they *were* about a specific topic, and that enter our inboxes automatically, are another matter. 

For my self, I did not ask for, solicit, or have any reason to expect political indoctrination of any kind, against any political party, from Scott Abel.  That is not what I signed up for when I signed up for his newsletter.  I had no choice in the receipt of this information.  Just like people being spammed have no choice.

And Scott, if you’re really looking to *grab* people’s attention, and the attention grabbing is all that matters, so that you don’t have to consider anyone’s feelings or sensitivities, then why don’t you just use lines like, “Baby mangled by tiger on top of Empire State building.” I mean, what does it matter if it’s untrue, biased, or just plain unkind?

Zev, you are free to write whatever you want in your articles or on your blog.  No one’s protesting that.  Even Leah did not protest that according to the text Scott posted.  Leah protested what *Scott* did (as do I), and it seems to me that Scott wants everyone to forget that.

Ted, after reading what Tom wrote (and checking the news stories of last week) I’m glad to see you’re so understanding.  Let’s just hope if a terrorist blows up people in YOUR neighborhood, you won’t *overreact* too much.

Jack

I think that the content that Leah would have objected to is actually included in the newsletter, not the article.

This: “How do we find the candidate least likely to start a war in the Middle East based on trumped up intelligence and incompetent staffers?” is a politically charged statement. I would feel funny getting this from a technical writing website (from a newspaper, or a tv station, no biggie, cause I listen to them for their opinion on this stuff).

Do I find the article offensive? Not in the least.

Did the content wrangler step out of line in any way? Yeah. Probably. That line about the war doesn’t belong anywhere in this article, and has nothing to do with the article text. It’s not really offensive, but it’s definitely out of line with what I would consider appropriate communication from a site of this nature.

That said, it doesn’t bother me in the least.

I don’t subscribe to the newsletter.

I will not apologize for my flavored language and not-so-subtle digs at our current administration. The comments are what they are, and their primary goal was to colorfully set up the subject at hand. In the Democratic primary (the setting for the “content” being managed), such political positions are status quo. I could have placed a nondisclaimer in the text (“WARNING: The administration does not endorse the political positions insinuated by the following text. They are only meant to outline the political environment of the content being discussed.”) But that certainly would have made the article much, much less interesting.  In their original setting (my blog), my comments would not have bared the scrutiny they are getting now. And besides, that’s not the point of this discussion.

The real question is whether Scott, as a publisher of a well-recognized content management industry blog was right or wrong in publishing an article that contained opinions outside the original thesis of the article or, in fact, outside the original scope of the blog. Furthermore, should Scott have asked me to remove any political commentary from my original article before allowing it to be published on his site?

Naturally, I’m biased in this discussion. I’m grateful to Scott for publishing my article, and I defend my content and it’s vitriolic politically-biased language (or whatever). Frankly, I think that compared to most of the opinions flying through the blogosphere, my comments were pretty benign. Furthermore, I think that removing all content unrelated to “content management” converts the blog into a reference manual rather than a tool for interactive discussion. Should we be upset that Scott published an article titled, “Christmas Wish List 2008—What Technology Improvements Do You Want Santa To Bring You This Year”? The article is a obvious endorsement of Christianity. Right? Should all references to religion as well as politics be banned?

I think the greater controversy was not my article (which had the “politically offensive” language hidden somewhere in the middle) but rather the blurb in the Content Wrangler newsletter than teased and enticed readers to the full article. Scott could have compiled a much less interesting blurb about my discussion of Web usability in the political arena that avoided any controversial language…and I doubt it would have attracted any readers at all. As it is, he used some of the more interesting text from the article to make sure the blurb attracted notice. And it worked. Boy did it work.

I do admit that any discussion of the current U.S. president’s policies, ideologies, or faculties should probably be avoided when discussing the use of content management in computer system validation or pharmaceutical drug lists. However, in the context of the political arena, political content DOES have its place.

I notified Leah in advance that I was going to publish her response to me on this site. She gave me her written permission.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Scott Abel

The Content Wrangler