The “Dirty Deleter” Who Lives in a Glass House: Cowlitz County News and Its Convenient Double Standard

 

When Deleting Becomes a Crime

Cowlitz County News apparently believes deleting a Facebook post is such a serious offense that it deserves its own weekly award: “Dirty Deleter of the Week.” The target was Brent Henrich, whom CCN chose to publicly mock over allegedly deleting Facebook content following his primary election loss.

There's just one problem with turning the delete button into a moral indictment: Cowlitz County News has a rather interesting relationship with the delete button itself.

If deleting something is apparently evidence of dishonesty, cowardice or something worthy of public ridicule, then that standard should apply to everyone. Not just political opponents. Not just people CCN doesn't like. Everyone.

CCN has repeatedly demonstrated that it is perfectly comfortable blocking people, removing comments, controlling what remains visible on its page and deciding which parts of a dispute its audience gets to see. When CCN does it, apparently it's called moderation. When someone else does it, apparently they're a “Dirty Deleter.” That's quite a convenient distinction.

Why Is Laurrie Piland Such a Big Deal to CCN?

The hypocrisy gets even more interesting when you look at the way CCN has treated one particular critic.

CCN has made Laurrie Piland the subject of one of its posts, including one lengthy post announcing that it was going to provide “education” to people like her. The post went on to discuss her political activities, Longview Resistance, local candidates, election results and various other matters.

That's a pretty substantial amount of attention for someone CCN apparently expects everyone else to simply ignore.

There's also a perfectly simple reason this blog features Laurrie Piland more often than some other local political figures: she is a particularly effective writer. Her arguments tend to be well-written, concise and easy to understand. She isn't afraid to get in there and say what needs to be said, even when she knows it won't make her particularly popular with the people on the receiving end. When someone can make a point clearly without burying it under five paragraphs of political word salad, that's useful material for a blog examining local political discourse.

She says what she means, backs up what she says, and isn't afraid to step into the political mud when someone needs to be called out. In an environment where far too many people hide behind vague talking points, carefully polished political nonsense and endless “both sides” platitudes, somebody willing to actually make a point and stand behind it is bound to attract attention.

There's Just One Problem: She's Been Blocked

There's just one important detail that seems to get lost in CCN's version of events: According to Piland, Cowlitz County News has had her blocked for years.

Think about the absurdity of that for a moment. CCN can apparently block someone for years, preventing that person from directly participating on its page, then publish a post about that person and respond to criticism of that person.

The person being discussed can't even respond directly on the page because CCN has already shut the door.

So what does that person do? She responds on her own Facebook page.

She did, in fact, answer back. She didn't disappear. She didn't refuse to address the accusations. She didn't leave the claims sitting unanswered. She published a response addressing CCN's accusations and explaining her position.

Because CCN had apparently blocked her from its page, that response couldn't happen in the very place where CCN had made the accusations.

That's an important distinction.

If you're going to publicly criticize someone, you should at least have the intellectual honesty to allow them a reasonable opportunity to respond. Instead, CCN appears to have created a rather convenient arrangement: CCN gets the microphone, CCN gets to decide who can comment, CCN gets to block the person being discussed, CCN gets to control what remains on the page, and then CCN gets to complain when that person responds somewhere else.

That's not exactly a level playing field.

Moderation for Me, “Dirty Deleting” for You

It makes the whole “Dirty Deleter” campaign look even more ridiculous. CCN seems to want everyone to believe that deleting something is inherently suspicious. Yet blocking someone from your page for years has a rather similar effect when it comes to controlling who gets heard.

The difference is that one involves a delete button and the other involves a block button. Both can control who gets heard. Apparently only one of them qualifies for a weekly award.

Then there is CCN's own statement:

“News is anything we deem important enough to post on our page.”

There it is. They decide.

They decide what is news. They decide what isn't. They decide which people deserve scrutiny. They decide which accusations are worth publishing. They decide who gets blocked. They decide which comments stay. They decide which political fights deserve attention.

Then everyone else is apparently expected to accept those decisions without question.

Accountability Works Both Ways

Here's the problem: When you make yourself the arbiter of everyone else's behavior, people are allowed to examine yours.

That's not harassment. That's not censorship. That's not “drama.”

That's accountability.

If CCN wants to call Brent Henrich a “Dirty Deleter,” then it should be prepared for people to examine its own moderation practices. If CCN wants to accuse people of lying, it should be prepared to substantiate those accusations. If CCN wants to publicly ridicule political candidates, it should accept political criticism in return.

If CCN wants to block people from its page, that's its choice. It doesn't get to block someone, continue talking about that person, prevent them from answering on the page, then act as though the person somehow isn't entitled to respond elsewhere.

That's not an argument for free and open discussion. That's controlling the microphone and then complaining that someone is speaking into another one.

When “News” Becomes Commentary

Then there's the election coverage.

CCN posted: “The most vocal candidate with the most vocal and radical base doesn't always win.” It then declared Brent Henrich was getting “crushed.”

Again, those aren't simply election results. They're editorial judgments.

There's nothing wrong with editorializing. Just stop pretending it isn't happening.

The same applies to the “Dirty Deleter” post. You don't get to mock someone for deleting political content while simultaneously expecting everyone to pretend that your own blocks, removals, moderation decisions and control over who gets to participate are somehow categorically different.

If deleting something is evidence of dishonesty, then the standard needs to apply universally. If deleting something is simply normal social-media moderation, then perhaps stop calling people “Dirty Deleters.”

Pick one.

You can't have both.

The Glass House Problem

The irony is almost perfect.

Cowlitz County News is standing in a glass house, throwing rocks at somebody else's delete button while sitting beside its own block button.

The person on the other side of that block button actually answered back. She just had to do it somewhere CCN couldn't prevent her from speaking.

That's the part CCN apparently doesn't want people thinking about.

Once you look at the entire picture, the “Dirty Deleter” narrative starts looking less like accountability and more like selective outrage.

Deleting is bad when someone else does it.

Blocking is moderation when CCN does it.

Criticism is harassment when directed at CCN.

Criticism is apparently “news” when directed at everyone else.

A person responds to CCN's accusations on their own page because CCN has blocked them. CCN then gets to continue controlling its own version of the story.

That's a remarkably convenient system.

Screenshots Have Long Memories

So perhaps the next time Cowlitz County News decides to hand out its coveted Dirty Deleter of the Week award, it should first take a long, hard look at its own Facebook history.

Because when you're standing in a glass house surrounded by screenshots, throwing stones at somebody else's delete button is probably not the wisest editorial strategy.

Especially when the person you're attacking has answered you, and the only reason that response isn't sitting underneath your post is that you've apparently made sure she can't put it there.

That's not transparency.

That's controlling who gets through the door.

Screenshots have a nasty habit of remembering what people would rather everyone forget.