Replies

How do you feel about finding and posting two articles published a year apart, both articles highly critical of Free Republic, and both articles were written by the same writer in the same paper?

In the nearly three years I've been a member here, I've posted 631 threads and 6,822 replies. That two of those articles happened to be critical of Free Republic and written by the same author is irrelevant. We ought to know what the MSM is writing about this website, good or bad.

Sometimes if you seek after the negative, that is the only thing you will find.

Not every mention of this website is negative. Some articles straightforwardly quote things people have posted. Those posters would want to know that they're quasi-famous. And, believe it or not, sometimes the MSM even has something nice to say.

I truly stumbled upon this article by accident. Bob J mentioned that John Robinson used to maintain a traffic website for Free Republic, but he couldn't find it. Since I was trying to see if traffic is truly down here or Alexa (the site that supposedly measures web reach) just stinks, I tried to find that website by doing the following Google search: "Free Republic" traffic. This article was on the second page of the Google results. If you don't believe me, perform the search yourself.

I thought it was dead wrong, but interesting, since it somewhat meshed with things discussed on the other thread. So I posted it.

"But before this thread descends into Dixie Chick and Canada bashing, is this really how we FReepers want to be perceived - as a crowd of "the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters the political landscape has to offer" who "attempt to outdo each other in posting the most pungent, juvenile reactions to stories"?

Unfortunately, this is how many conservatives in DC, politicians and others, also view FR. I have been told on more than one occasion that I needed to leave FR in my dust if I ever wanted to be taken seriously. Some people will nod to FR and make nice because they don't want to be eviscerated, but deep down this is what they think and what they say to others in private company.

So, there are three questions here, one why does FR get this reputation, two, is there anything that can be done about it, and three, should that attempt be made.

IMHO FR has the reputation it does because extremists and loons are allowed free reign here. 90% of what gets posted is pretty good, some of it excellent, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The MSM is only going to center on the whackos.

As far as the second question, sure, Jim and the mods can studiously work to weed out the crazies. But I think all that will do is make FR the same as a hundred other websites and end up eliminating any effectiveness it may have in the future.

So we come to the third question. We all have to come to conclusion at some time that FR is what it is. It has it's whackies, it's racists and it's extremists, but it also has been effective at times when no other website could be so. It's place is to be the unpredictable ingredient that libs can't predict or control...in other words the one that they fear the most.

So let FR flow where it will. It has been successful at times up to this point and there is no reason to fix it if it ain't broken. But be prepared to be called extremist, whacko and racist...it comes with the territory and being effective.