blogger interrupted

Jarvis finds it before Cleveland.com even prints it, either on paper, or their website.  Which I guess means us bloggers linking to it under Connie’s proposal are DOUBLY liable, because we even scooped her own paper before her 24 hour link ban would start ticking.

It’s a tour de force of Connie Schultz strawmen on arrogant parade.  Straw Man #1.

When you write a column and immediately become the target of numerous bloggers, you suspect you’re onto something.

When bloggers resort to personal attacks and distortions, you know you are.

This is how Connie has responded since at least 2005, when her husband began running for the US Senate, when someone questions WHATSOEVER her relationship with her husband.  No one personally attacked Connie.  Connie, ever the victim, used her employer’s corporate lawyer-created proposal to use her column to advocate Congress, in which her husband sits.  That is a legitimate concern, so legitimate, there is federal law governing such close relationships with legislators, and even the PD itself recognizes it by printing this fact at the end of her columns.  Connie’s not “onto something”, she’s stunningly unselfaware.

Straw Man #2.

In his blog, “BuzzMachine,” Jarvis began by dwelling on my marriage to U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown. He apparently thought this was breaking news.

As I explained in a response on his blog, my marriage is no secret.

It isn’t a secret Connie, but it is the issue, and frankly, the only issue, given that your proposal is so laughable it will never see the light of day.  Why do you think your employer allowed you to write that column, instead of someone else?  Why didn’t your editors write it behind the wall of anonymity on the editorial page?  Why not choose some other columnist?  Because YOU SLEEP WITH A SITTING US SENATOR, that’s why.  Of course this is no secret, but it’s valuable, and you are using it to save your job.

Straw Man #3.

Jarvis said I should register as a lobbyist because I am appealing for a change in federal law. The logical extension of Jarvis’ argument would mean that a long list of columnists and editorial writers would have to register as lobbyists, too. They have the same pesky habit of pressing Congress to do their versions of the right thing.

Jarvis would have to register as a lobbyist, too, because his arguing against changing copyright law is an attempt to tell Congress to just let that mangy dog lie.

Logic?  JEFF JARVIS IS NOT MARRIED TO A US SENATOR.  Neither is any other columnist in the entire country.  You may have noticed, Connie, that spouses of legislators tend to, you know, register as federal lobbyists when they are paid to lobby Congress for federal legislation, which you have just done, and continue to do.  I’m sure you’re aware of this, given you run in those circles, but for some reason, you are too dishonest to even approach the subject with the slightest bit of candor.

Straw Man #4.

To answer Jarvis’ online query: My husband will not help draft any legislation intended to help the newspaper industry. He also will recuse himself from voting on any such legislation.

Sherrod himself has not said that, only you have Connie.  Do you now speak for the Senator?  Have you personally removed one of Ohio’s 2 votes in the Senate on this matter?  And when other congresspeople hear that Sherrod’s wife REALLY likes this legislation, that will have no effect at all on other members?  No effect in committee?  No horse trading of votes?  No effect on other columnists who might jump on your rickety bandwagon because they sniff your access might be useful?

Straw Man #5.

Some bloggers misrepresented key parts of the Marburger proposal. This is not an attempt to monopolize facts. This is about giving news organizations the right to recoup their investments of time, energy and resources and to sue Web aggregators who post such significant rewrites or summaries that readers to their sites lose any interest in reading the original stories.

So Connie basically admits her proposal is legalized extortion, but I have yet to hear a single citation that the horror she described even exists.  Where are these “such significant rewrites or summaries”?  And how much money are they taking from the PD?  Do tell.

And finally, Straw Man #6, and you just knew it would finish like this.

Name-calling and distortions always will be part of the blogosphere, but it’s no way to gain traction in this vital debate. I thank those who’ve weighed in with thoughtful responses, even when they don’t agree.

Civil discourse may bring solutions.

The solution, Connie, is for you to take your nearly 4 year old grudge against those evil bloggers and finally give it the fuck up.  We don’t need “traction” (is that a neat campaign-y word you learned from all those strategery sessions?).  We have already won this debate, because I cannot for the life of me imagine anyone in Congress either co-sponsoring, or voting for, this nonsense you claim you need to save your job.  And after your “roll out”, they probably don’t want to go anywhere near it.

And frankly, the only “traction” you may have ever gained in this silly exercise of your clout is lost utterly, because you, and your employer, chose YOU to be the champion, in the face of plainly obvious conflicts which have made you the story.  Jeff Jarvis didn’t make you the story, Connie.  You did, by arrogantly ignoring obvious conflicts you still claim from one side of your mouth to not understand, while out the other side you pretend to solve with a disclaimer at the end of your own columns.

I don’t know what Connie’s problem is…she clearly has a cow every time she wanders anywhere near blogs.  Perhaps she needs a break.  But thanks to Jarvis for linking to her Sunday column on Saturday, on the internet, all of which would have been illegal if Connie got her way.  Oh well…just scooped ya again, sweetie.