What I have noticed about Age of Autism and their moderation of comments, is that they tend to only allow those comments that agree with them or that they feel are "weak" and that can be dealt with or ridiculed pretty easily. I guess that's what Kim means by "bat around". The stronger arguments, especially those backed up with actual facts, tend to never see the light of day. While this picture is old (from 2009), the sentiment doesn't appear to have changed much.
Kim, you and your cohort at Age of Autism bill yourselves as a "newspaper". That label comes with a certain responsibility to good journalistic practices, such as, oh, I dunno, getting facts correct and treating your readership with respect, even though you may disagree with what they have to say. If someone comes in and makes a comment correcting one of your articles or just disagreeing with a point you make, it is not "sh*ting" in your house. Grow a thicker skin and respond with facts, not insults and name-calling, not censorship.
Rather than act like cowardly bullies, why not try being a bit more civil, a bit more human. That, or change your moniker to "The Daily Tabloid of the Autism Epidemic". The drivel you print is more in line with that than any newspaper.
That's extremely disappointing to see, but not surprising. It belies completely Stagliano's new commitment to reaching out to those who think differently on treatments and causes. It's one of those things that I take stock of and file away: who really means it when talking about community building and support and who despises those who are different.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least that was from Oct 2009 and not present day, although not much seems to have changed.
ReplyDeleteYeah. That went up in Oct. '09. I was banned in Feb. '10 (reason still unknown). That's at least 4 months over which the attitude hadn't changed. And I've got a couple posts kickin' around that are more recent, still, illustrating that the pic is indicative of AoA's moderation attitude.
ReplyDelete