August 22, 2008
Nowpublic.com has removed writing that was critical of it, and placed that writing in the forum section of their web site, where it will not receive wide readership. At the time it was removed it had approximately 120 "hits" in a relatively short time indicating readers of Nowpublic.com were interested in reading it.
The writing stated that NowPublic.com had received approximately 12 million dollars in financing over two years, but only offered $200.00 in cash and a few t-shirts to winners of a potential contest Nowpublic.com had created.
The writing also went on to criticize Nowpublic.com for an apparent lack of vision in it's leadership.
This writer was informed by a Nowpublic.com staff member that he had removed the writing and placed it in the forum.
When the writer asked the staff member if he was aware of a story in the Culture section of the web site one day ago called "Cjaye, Why I love Nowpublic," and if Nowpublic only removes stories critical of it, the staff member failed to reply.
It was earlier brought to the staff member's attention that reporting and printing criticism is a valid option in reporting the news, as evidenced by the major networks covering and reporting the constant criticizing of the two presidential candidates by not only each other, but others as well. Such reporting is often combined with commentary.
Nowpublic.com is and has sought to be and continues to seek to be in the public eye and is therefore a legitimate subject for writers, and therefore is subject to not only compliments - such as the "Cjaye - Why I Love Nowpublic.com story" that was allowed to remain on their pages and not moved to a forum- but it is also legitimately subject to criticism such as the story that was removed.
This writer further stated in that story that he loved Nowpublic.com because it doesn't "censor..."
The author wishes to retract that statement, and acknowledge that he was wrong in that statement, as when it comes to their own company, Nowpublic.com does censor, apparently not permitting or allowing any criticism of it or it's leadership to remain in an area of their site that would be widely read.
The author also wishes to apologize to any readers who read the original story, who might have been misled by him into believing that NowPublic.com was truly a unique company dedicated to free speech, even allowing criticism of itself.
I was wrong.
August 22, 2008