Google ads are different, the blogger doesn’t have a choice. But Google ads aren’t the issue here.

Quick check of the Taylor Marsh category here shows only one posting.

Quick search for the phrase “Taylor Marsh” finds the following postings:
- But They Will Claim That They’re “Democrats” Published April 16, 2008
- Blissfully Unaware Published March 17, 2008
- That Says It All, Doesn’t It? Published March 5, 2008
- Dance! Dance! Published February 29, 2008
- Obama, Canada, NAFTA And Egg On The Face Published February 28, 2008
- Taylor Marsh, The Right’s New Pet Published February 28
- Taylor Marsh Running With The In Crowd Published February 26
- ODS Watch: Taylor Marsh Simply Lies About Barack Obama Published February 11
- One Of The Most Idiotic Things I’ve Ever Seen Published January 31
- The Green Eyed Monster Published January 27
- Taylor Marsh & The Politics Of Paranoia Published January 18

So 10 since the beginning of the year. 3-5 per week would make 45-75 postings. You’re overstating your case about 500%.

I think it’s been made clear that they aren’t. “blog owners have full control over what BlogAds are displayed on their blogs” [emphasis added]

Matthew G. Saroff: “it is unreasonable to expect a blogger to vet ads to ensure that they match their political views exactly.

I call straw man. No, they don’t have to match exactly. But some effort should be made to see the ads aren’t so way off from the views the blogger supposedly supports. Especially when (as with BlogAds) the ad has to be specifically approved before it appears.

Again, I look at my ads, and frequently when I am talking about the latest acronym that Wall Street is using to cheat people, I get ads telling how people can invest in it (again, this is “the Google” not blogads, but I imagine that it is the same).

I do editorial, and if it catches my fancy I parody those ads, but it is unreasonable to expect a blogger to vet ads to ensure that they match their political views exactly.

Heck, I’ve seen Ann Coulter ads on Talking Points Memo, and Josh, who is more of a journalist than any of the rest of us will ever be, makes exactly the same point.

Editorial and advertising should be kept separate.

As to whether Marsh is “shrill”, the answer is yes, though she is not bat shit insane like the folks at No Quarter, but I don’t see her as being any more shrill” than Oliver Willis.

In fact, I see her as being bit less so, as she does not have what seem to be 3-5 posts a week about Oliver, and he does about her.

Heh heh. Indeed.

Several years ago I was editor in chief to the most successful adult site on the web (at the time). It was one of the most fertile research arenas I’ve ever experienced. The reason I resigned was that one of our celebrity stripper columnists submitted a piece to me that showed her exposing herself on an elementary school playground in broad daylight, with accompanying copy that indulged a “forbidden fantasy.” I refused to publish the column, but my boss, Danni Ashe, disagreed with me. So, I resigned, because I knew what a taboo rush we were implicitly promoting.

Google is your friend.

Google serves what Google serves, and some time in 2011, I’ll get my first check.

When I notice such an ad, I make fun of it, but I generally think that ads do not constitute an endorsement by the blogger.

As to the one-sided pissing contest between you and Marsh, I’d rather read about you re-grouting your bathtub than the blogwar crap.

(BTW, I favor Hillary, but No Quarter has not only jumped the shark, but it has done so in a double decker bus, and the shark in question is actually a whole school of Carcharodon megalodon))

Are you talking about Taylor Marsh?

JG.