"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
This week, Slate.com's political/gossip blogger Mickey Kaus wrote:
If Media Matters for America had been around in 1973:
"Media once again run with anonymously sourced allegation of Nixon eavesdropping"
In just 21 words, Kaus managed to elevate the topics he speculates wildly about to the level of the most famous case of presidential wrongdoing in U.S. history, and to equate his "reporting" with that of The Washington Post during that scandal.
Kaus conveniently ignored the fact that, unlike journalists who have repeated the allegation that, in 1992, Hillary Rodham Clinton listened to recordings of telephone calls of her husband's political opponents, the Post's Watergate reporting relied on multiple sources. In All the President's Men, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward described the "unwritten rule" that guided their work on the Watergate story: "[U]nless two sources confirmed a charge involving activity likely to be considered criminal, the specific allegation was not used in the paper" (Page 79). And, of course, the Post had plenty of named sources in their Watergate articles, despite Kaus' implication to the contrary.
Mickey Kaus wants you to think the "journalism" he and other reporters have practiced in recent weeks is the same as that conducted by Bernstein and Woodward. It isn't. While the Post reporters relied on multiple sources, named and unnamed, in order to report weighty allegations about contemporaneous (or very recent) incidents, Kaus and others not only reported, but repeated as fact, the claims of a single unnamed source about an alleged 14-year-old incident.
Worse, Kaus and his peers aren't even relying on their own source: They are relying on, and treating as uncontested fact, the purported claims of someone else's source. They do not know the source's identity, nor have they had the opportunity to question the source to determine his or her credibility. Indeed, they have no reason to believe the source even exists, save the word of two reporters who have already been caught making false claims about Clinton and about their own book.
Yet, several news outlets -- ABC, CNN, and MSNBC among them -- not only ran with the story based on nothing more than someone else's single anonymous source, they didn't bother to give their readers or viewers so much as a hint as to the flimsy nature of the allegation.
Kaus led the way with a May 31 post on his Slate blog that quoted from a copy of the then-unreleased Her Way, by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. Though Kaus' post made clear that he had access to the book's endnotes, he didn't bother to mention that those endnotes indicate that the authors based the allegation Kaus was hyping on the claims of a single anonymous source. He did, however, rush to speculate that the alleged incident was illegal (without wasting valuable space on words like "alleged," of course).
Kaus' breathless hyping of the flimsy Gerth/Van Natta allegation is all too typical of his work.
Earlier this month, when the National Enquirer ran an anonymously sourced hit piece claiming John Edwards had an affair with an unnamed woman, Mickey Kaus went into overdrive pushing the smear -- a story even Matt Drudge didn't bite on at first. (Kaus bragged: "This isn't the first time kausfiles hasn't met Drudge's journalistic standards!" At the bottom of his blog, Kaus features a link to the Drudge Report, describing it as "80 % true. Close enough!" The exclamation point suggests that he thinks he is kidding; the content of his own posts suggests that he is not.)
In peddling the Enquirer story, Kaus criticized Edwards' denials of the allegation:
More: Smith also has a too-broad denial from Edwards: "The story is false." (As every press secretary knows, that could logically mean there's nothing to the story; it could mean an affair didn't start "18 months ago" but rather 8 months ago). ...
Update: The AP has Edwards adding "It's completely untrue, ridiculous" and saying the story was "made up." By the Enquirer? Or by one of the people the Enquirer cites? Either way, it's a direct attack on the integrity of someone (not necessarily a smart move for a politician in Edwards' position). ... [emphasis in original]
In consecutive paragraphs, Kaus criticized Edwards for a denial that (supposedly) wasn't definitive enough, then for a denial that was too definitive. That's Kausian journalism in a nutshell: When the victim of the baseless allegations he peddled denied the charges, he claimed the denial wasn't strong enough. Then, it was too strong. One can't help wondering if Kaus cares what the truth is, or whether he traffics in these claims because he simply enjoys the sport of it all.
Not content spreading the Edwards rumor himself, Kaus actually chided other reporters for not joining in the fun, writing: "The MSM seems to be strenuously trying to not report it." When the "mainstream media" and Drudge did pick up the story, Kaus announced that they "finally mention the allegations." (The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder succinctly explained what he convincingly describes as the media's entrapment of Edwards.)
For Mickey Kaus, it isn't enough that he drags a man's reputation through the mud based on nothing more than a supermarket tabloid's quotes of an anonymous source talking about an unnamed woman. No, he apparently wants the rest of the media to do so as well.
Nor is Kaus' descent into gutter journalism a recent development. In 2004, he helped fan the flames of the dubious (and ultimately discredited) "story" that John Kerry had an affair with an intern. When the woman in question responded to the allegations, Kaus criticized her denial (no denial is ever just right for Mickey Kaus) and expressed "hopes" that a "good Kerry sex scandal" would yet emerge:
Why didn't she just deny immediately that she'd had an affair with Kerry? Isn't that what most people would do? She says she "should have asked more clearly for advice" from Kerry aide Stephanie Cutter. But wasn't this a no-brainer? Why didn't Cutter ask her to issue an immediate denial?
[...]
We shook the tree," a reporter for The Hill tells [Alexandra] Polier. "A bunch of names fell out, and yours had the most flesh to it." A bunch of names? Hmmm. Had Polier heard such names? Doe [sic] she think the hopes for a good Kerry sex scandal are completely unfounded? She's remarkably reticent about Kerry's behavior with others. ...
And a stroll through Kausfiles archives from 2004 shows the author relentlessly hyping other anti-Kerry storylines, including the bogus controversy over the senator's service in Vietnam. Among (many) other posts on the topic, Kaus defended Stephen Gardner, one of the liars who swift-boated Kerry.
The fact that Kaus apparently has lower evidentiary standards than Matt Drudge is bad enough. But he doesn't stop there: He chides journalists who don't follow him in his race to the bottom and mocks those who think reporters shouldn't repeat as facts the claims of someone else's single anonymous source.
While the Post reporters relied on multiple sources, named and unnamed, in order to report weighty allegations about contemporaneous (or very recent) incidents, Kaus and others not only reported, but repeated as fact, the claims of a single unnamed source about an alleged 14-year-old incident.
Of course having more than one source may give more concrete results, it still does not prove that a single source is not reliable or truthful. Whether the people are named or unnamed is a matter of personal privacy, and has nothing to do with the accuracy of the report.
The conclusions that your target has drawn are no worse than the conclusions that you have drawn in this article, so I dont see what your point is regarding ethical journalism.
except that no one is citing anonymous sources here. it's all this person said this at this certain time. how could anyone with a brain not see the difference.
Just an FYI - because someone claims that someone said this, at this time does not make it truth.
I am not calling what this journalisnt is saying, false. What I am claiming is that just because the source of the target is unknown does not mean that there was not a source, and that the source was not truthful.
There is no way to prove anything right or wrong in this case. So go ahead, and try, but even Johnny Cochran would lose this case.
no, a single source does not make anything untrue. but if there is no other confimation and the facts argue against and even contradict the story, then the person repeating the story is making an allegation that is unproven. the washington post put their prestige on the line in watergate. that is not the case here.
Mr DumbassBush there is no REQUIREMENT to prove a negative. It is the one making that accusation that has the burden of proof not the one being accused.
"There is no way to prove anything right or wrong in this case."--dingy
Of course, that is obviuos, but it precisely demonstrates exactly why you shouldn't use single sourced information even when it isn't anonymous. Single sources should always be verified before printing by using another independent source. This argument goes to the heart of the credibility of the information.
This is something that any ethics in journalism professor would point out. MMFA is taking the reasonable and ethical stand. Under Kaus' apparent standard, Kitty Kelly's "journalism" is credible.
"The conclusions that your target has drawn are no worse than the conclusions that you have drawn in this article[...]"
Oh, please do elaborate on that thought. I'd love to see you equate MMFA's valid doubts about the story with Kaus's assertion of fact based on a single unnamed source that he's never even spoken to.
And of course a single unnamed source is unreliable. That's why real journalists have ethical rules that prevent them from falling for uncorraborated bs.
Oh, please do elaborate on that thought. I'd love to see you equate MMFA's valid doubts about the story with Kaus's assertion of fact based on a single unnamed source that he's never even spoken to.
And of course a single unnamed source is unreliable. That's why real journalists have ethical rules that prevent them from falling for uncorraborated bs.
Well, you are doubting that what someone else says is true. So why should I believe what this journalist says is true? Oh wait, because someone who has a name told him so? LOL yeah ok. Im not saying the target is is true in his story, Im just saying that there is no way to prove he was not. Thus doubting his story is only just that, an opinion.
Ethical Journalists? Those do not exist. All journalists are biased and have an agenda. There is no such thing as ethics in news.
"Well, you are doubting that what someone else says is true. So why should I believe what this journalist says is true?"
For starters it would help if you pointed to at least one of Foser's assertions that merits valid doubt. Maybe then we could compare the two.
"Im not saying the target is is true in his story, Im just saying that there is no way to prove he was not."
There are plenty of ways to prove whether a story is true or not. To claim it all boils down to opinion is just idiotic. Kaus is wrong to assert as fact something that he gleened second-hand from an anomymous source that he doesn't know and has never spoken to. That much is pretty simple.
MrDumbassBush Again there is no requirement to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. For Kaus to equate Woodward and Bernstien using sources THEY WERE PERSONALLY TALKING TO, and of a stature like as we now know was the number two man in the FBI to a single source he has not met and has no idea who they are is laughable
"So why should I believe what this journalist says is true?"
The point is with a single anonymous source there's no way to evaluate whether the claim they're making is true or not.
A better way is to have several sources tell you the same story independent of each other.
That's the difference between the allegation made in Her Way and the award-winning journalism of Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate.
The HRC campaign has uncategorically denied the allegation in Her Way.
So where's the proof?
A single anonymous source?
Give me a break.
MrDumbassBush
No reporter worth his salt would take on unsubstantiated source as a reasonable thing to report when he doesnt even KNOW who that source is or if that source even exists. For instance we now know that one of those unnamed sources during Watergate was the Number Two man in the FBI that is pretty solid. Who the heck so Woodward and Bernstien had good reason to believe it. Kaus has no IDEA who the source is HE is repeating
MrDumbassBush
Ha, you must really be a Dingy Reid and Pitstop Pelosi supporter....sure, I may support someone w/ a 35% approval rating...but you support an 11% approval rating lol. Go figure.
We got the pols figured just fine. Care to compare GOP vs Dem figures? Care to spectulate upon anger at the Dems inefectualness against shrub driving their numbers down?
Jes askin.
From a poll Oct 12-14, 2007:
"Approval of congressional Democrats stands at 43 percent, twice that of Congress in general. The flip side, however, is that Democrats who control Congress still face a disapproval rating of 51 percent, a figure that has increased 11 percentage points since March."
[link to www.cnn.com]
Let's see congress is at 22% approval but congressional Democrats are at 43% approval. Its not a stretch to say a lot of people are unhappy with Republican obstructionism in Congress.
Not really MrDumbassBush I just think if you are going to inflict a stupid, insulting name about a Dem just because you are a moron, then I will keep repeating a similar one about a Republican. Like I judge people by their approval rating anyway. I like Pelosi so so and dont think much of Reid overall.
Oh and you go with someone with a 24% approval rating while Dems overall have about a 44% approval rating. Your stat is about Congress overall which includes a lot of Republicans. At any rate MrDumbassBush do you think you will ever get around to making a serious and reasonable argument instead of a whole bunch of partisan posturing?
The cliff? No. Im targeting for the fires that Boxer says were caused by Global Warming.
So MrDumbassBush are you just telling lies or trolling in general or is this just you being exceptionally dumb?
No, she made a minute statement about it, as did Harry Reid in saying: “One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming”
Then...
Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.
Its really just a foot in mouth statement when you blame everything on global warming.
No, she made a minute statement about it, as did Harry Reid in saying: “One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming”
Then...
Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.
"One reason why we have the fires...", then "asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires". One reason is not the same as caused. The reporter was exaggerating what was said, turning one cause into the cause. Reid's response was not "backing away", it was entirely consistent with what he said, that it was one of many factors.
If global warming was a factor in the ignition or range of the fires (and it seems logical that it could), then their statements are perfectly valid. If your take on the event is accurate, I don't see how you defend your criticism.
Because the fires were caused by arson. Plain and simple. They've already found the accelerants.
Next, you'll back Boxers statements that we didnt have enough troops to fight the fires because they were all in Iraq....mean while, the head of the national guard says otherwise, as well as the fact that over 17,000 national guard members in California alone were sitting around just waiting for the call up.
But let me get this right - when a liberal makes a statement, its always an exaggeration of the truth. But when a conservative makes a statement, its always the "context" which has to be analyzed. Hmm....typical.
And global warming can't possibly be a factor in how the fire spread? Why is that?
I didn't say anything about the National Guard. All I'm saying is that from the exchange you listed, there's no inconsistency, there's no "backing away".
Your last paragraph doesn't make much sense. I think you mixed something up there.
Global warming was not an effect at all. The fire spread because of wind and the amount of brush. Environmentalist complain so loud and protest against controlled burns, so this was evident sooner or later. The controlled burns are to help prevent the massive spreading of these types of fires becasue when it reaches a certain point, there is nothing left to burn. Its not a difficult concept. But liberals blame global warming for everything - and im sorry man, but that 1.5 degree increase did not factor in the fire.
The amount of brush? Fine, and you can explain to me how climate change can't have an effect on brush. Wouldn't a short rainy season make it drier, so that the fire spread more? It's not just about the actual rise of temperature, there are other effects as well.
If they should have done controlled fires, then that's obviously another factor.
Actually, its quite the opposite. The rainy season cycle has been happening since the beginning of time. Its actually long rainy seasons that happen 2-3 years prior to the fire that cause an increase in the blaze spreading itself. More rain brings up more "fuel" - Chaparral, the actual brush plant that grows large & fast - and serves as a method for a growing fire. The fast winds of the west were forcing the fire to migrate & pick up speed, burning more and more Chaparral.
The global warming issue is a nice theory in general as far as effecting sea ice & vegetation, however in the case of starting and spreading a fire, its indeed the opposite.
Dont get me wrong, no one is claiming that global warming does not exist, but its being pushed so hard and often from the left - most dominantly by Al Gore - that its starting to become more of a nuisance & hoax than anything else.
Now, we can sit here and link things all day long as a factor. For example, the global warming is effecting my golf game causing my drives off the tee not to travel as far because of the heat. Yeah great, but that does not make it true. Its too far fetched to sit here and say, driving my car to work each day is causing polar bears to drown becuase they swim out to sea and cannot find any ice to get back onto. Note, i use that scenario, because its one often used by the left and is proven not to be true, but based on a report that 4 polar bears drowned out of a population of 20,000-25,000.
So in short, global warming is something that people really should look at - especially in our methods of eliminating waste. However, blaming everything in the world on global warming does nothing but leave room for falsifications and turning people off to the cause.
The problem isn't that global warming is being hyped; it's that there is a concerted effort put forth to confuse the issue so that no action will be taken.
Thus the corporatists continue polluting; no one is developing a U.S. long term action plan to conserve energy, and the deniers have cover to continue their lifestyles without their pesky conscience bothering them.
I do agree that many corporations have an agenda in hiding some of the pollution facts from factories, etc - and that is coming from a right winger. Trust me, I've lived by areas of high manufacturing - Cleveland, Toledo, Gary (IN). As evidence, the great Lake Erie having high mercury contents in its fish. However, if you look on the flip side of the issue, Nuclear power is the most efficent type of power we have today in the US - but left wing groups are protesting the build out of nuclear power plants leaving only coal as the second power source. Im sure those groups would rather us sit in our houses singing koombaya with a few candles for light, but that is neither practical or acceptable.
You say there is a major committment to stop global warming, but what you are failing to note is that for every scientist out there linked to a special interest group for the left, there is also a scientist linked to the right who can contest that those claims are false. Even leaving out the political matter of it, there are major disagreements between scientist as far as the theories of global warming, and there is no majority concrete evidence that proves all of these claims.
So until there is actual real evidence that is agreed upon by all (or almost all) scientists world wide, with no proven falsehoods, the international public is not going to change its ways and every day lifestyle to counter an issue that they are not even convinced exists.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
This is the science. The only "dispute" is an attempt to delay the inevitable. But it's completely irresponsible to do nothing about it.
I can't understand your eagerness to embrace nuclear power. Even the plants with good safety records have lapses. Right near us we have the infamous Hanford. No one knows what to do with the waste. NO ONE!!!
If the political will was in place to encourage AND mandate conservation, while offering more tax incentives to develop wind, solar & hydrogen technologies, we could be so much further.
Instead we have these insane "debates" about whether we are harming the environment or not...duh!
Nuclear power also is sustainable, reduces our countries carbon emmisions, and increases our nations security by not needing to rely on foreign resources for fuel. Also note that the safety records of nuclear facilities are proven to be safer than that of coal and other major power facilities. The 30 tonnes per year of waste does continue to investigate for other ways to dispose of it, but there is also reprocessing of the waste, and the after 40 or so years, the waste itself is less radioactive than when it went into production. I lived 15 miles from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in ohio, as well an 1 hour from the Toledo Nuclear Power Plant, so there has been much discussion on that part here.
Now as far as trying to rely on hydrogen, wind, and solar power - yes, thats all great in theory. However, they are having troubles creating a usable automobile with those powers. If you cant sufficiently power an auto with it, how do you propose to offer power to 300 million people?
I mean, its crazy IMO, that people want their cake and want to eat it too. They complain about what we are currently doing to the planet, yet do not want to use our available alternatives that have more benefits over anything else (inlcuding our economy, the most important part of our nations success). So in short, do you want an immediate resolution to your environmental concerns, or do you just want to complain and not use our already available alternative sources of power?
nuclear is also going to be a dying industry. Even with reprocessing the waste to reduce the stream, it is still EXTREMELY DANGEROUS for umptyump years. The mining of uranium is dangerous. Uranium is not a renewable resource either.
As for the alternatives. Yes, right now we can't produce enough cars etc but we COULD be so much further if the political will and money had been in place. Brazil runs on sugar cane ethanol. (Good article in national geographic about this topic, by the way)
I personally dont see Nuclear going away any time soon at all, in fact I see scientist workign with the nuclear industry to make it better and more efficient. But both of us have our own opinions on that, and thats fine.
I just think that so many people are concerned with the environment, which is fine, but they dont look at the economical effects of what they are trying to do. The US is the successful & powerful nation it is today because of our economy, and we cannot risk hurting our economy to because of the controversial environmental concerns. I see both as big issues today, so I am not putting down the environment, but we cannot risk our economy for it. Again, just my opinion.
The science is solid on human activity and global warming. Did you look at my link above?
Regarding the economy: economies are always shifing gears. They have to. We could be creating many jobs with tax policy in place to encourage alternative fuels. This isn't a loss in economic terms at all. But the fossil fuel industry wants to hold on until the last dollar can be made. Short term thinking.
Im a believe of decreasing taxes to increase jobs (Reaganomics if you will lol) - let people have more of their own money to start up businesses and such. Also, its proven that the more money you have, the more you spend - so having more money, spending more money, then increase in jobs due to businesses success. But thats another reason why we have chosen the political sides that we did.
I did read the link, and it is interesting. However, as i said, there is always evidence that contradicts claims of other scientists. As ive said, the environment for me is a concern but not nearly as much as it is for you i guess, but its being politicized so much from the left and right, that in my opinion its more of a political agenda than "whats best for the world".
there is no reason in the world we need to "risk our economy" to have energy conservation. what is the "risk to our economy", and security with $90 a barrel oil?
Well technically, we could drill for oil more in our own country - but its not the point where we have to yet. There are so many untapped places in the US (including Alaska) that we can get oil from. People are still buying SUV's and trucks, still taking vacations in which they drive across country, etc. So while the effects of oil & gas prices have had a negative effect, its not yet to the point where the majority of the people are chaning their lifestyles because of it.
non answer. i said we don't have to risk our economy to have energy conservation.
well in some ways we would - depending on what you are proposing i guess. but your right, you dont HAVE to depending on the plan of action.
actually i think the truth would be our dependence on oil, foreign and otherwise, hurts us, at the prices it has climbed to. just my opinion, but i think it's well founded.
Well, according to history and the value of the dollar in history, today's gas prices are still cheap in comparison to the past. I think more people are worried about what COULD happen to the price of gas, rather than the current price of gas.
the question being discussed is our dependence on oil, and the fact that we are sending $90 a barrel to countries that are hostile to our interests. raising the mileage standards on cars would help with that.
i'm willing to take a look at nuclear, but you're being dishonest when you claim you're not denying global warming, but then you say that it's being "pushed by the left so hard" it's becoming a "hoax". so the truth of something is affected by how hard it's "pushed"? and you expect people to talk science with you?
I said that global warming itself - that 1.5 degree increse - is agreed upon by all scientist. The fact that its man induced, and that we are the causes of it are what is being debated by scientists all over the world.
So I am willing to agree that the fact of warming does exist, but I am not agreeing that we are the cause for it, and that all this events in todays society are to blame because of global warming.
but that still does not explain how hard something is "pushed" affects whether it's a "hoax". that is saying science is dependent on publicity.
and you also said that the international public is not going to change it's ways for something that they are not convinced exists. you are totally uninformed. this bbc poll says 79% of the public in 21 countries polled thinks human activity is a significant contribution to climate change.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/412.php
I have seen that poll before, and I would not say it did not exist. For me, I know that pollution has effects on our resources - polluting the water/lakes, etc. As I said, im not sold on the man made effects of global warming, but im also not saying global warming itself does not exist. But on the other side, if next year is recorded to be an average of 1 degree cooler than this year, does that mean that global warming is going away?
you did not say the poll did not exist. your contention was that the "international public" is not convinced of man made global warming. the poll seems to prove you wrong, no?
I gotta be honest, Im not a firm believer in any polls, and I wouldn't let a poll change my view on what i think. Not saying for a fact that this poll is biased, but there are possibilities of that in any poll. Where was the poll taken, what types of people were interviewed for it, etc. It would really be stupid if i let everyone else determine what i should think, wouldnt it?
yeah, that would be stupid. but that's not the issue. you made a claim that was unsubstantiated, and was in fact contradicted by the evidence. so now, i guess we just take everything you say at face value because you, and you alone, say it. no thanks.
Thats exactly my point. Now you're catching on. Switch it around and ask yourself - i should take everything at face value just because someone else says it.
uh no, but when i make a statement, it should not be contradicted by the evidence. catching on yet?
Also - that poll shows that 70+% think that people contribute to climate change - but it doesnt show many say that are actually open to changing their lifestyles in order to change the climate.
that was not your contention, mr. change the subject.
Political agendas can, and in many cases are, a hoax - coming from both sides.
For example, in the case of global warming (and not trying to start a war in here lol). We know that the left side is more concerned about the environment, and the right is more concered about economic policy (or "money"). Each groups agenda is primarily to gain as many voters from the middle as they can. You have the environmentalist groups backing the left, and preaching their environmental concerns to everyone - and in some cases, so extremely that its a major turn off. Seeing as how the left group has concreted their voters from the environmental side, one of their tactics is to make it an issue every day to the public. By doing this, there are times - like the california fire - that in my opinion, they are going too far in blaming everything on "global warming" from fires to polar bears. This creates somewhat of a "hoax" in a sense that all the examples the democratic party (Boxer, Reid) gives are not entirely accurate, but turn into more of a "fear factor".
The same can be said from your point of view on the Iraq war. As the left claims - WMDs, threat of Iraq, how well we are doing in Iraq, etc. Many people on my side see what we are doing as a positive thing and that there is evidence out there that things are going well. However, for each bit of evidence of that, there is always someone else from the left claiming otherwise, and created a "hoax" effect.
The scenarios are bit different, but contain the "fear factor", there is evidence concluding differently from both sides, and have turned both issues into major political agendas.
in other words, you're just pulling things out of your ass, and when you're called on them, you want to talk about iraq.
No, not at all. What im basically saying that so much information gets miscontrued from the political parties & media due to political agendas to gain voters. I did not in any way, shape, or form, defend the war. In fact, my stance on the war had nothing to do with the debate.
so let's do the converse of your statement. if al gore would not "push" the theory of man made global warming, it would be less of a "hoax". frame it anyway you want, you are claiming the truth depends on the amount of spin per side.
Im claiming that getting people to believe what you are saying depends on the amount of spin per side - not necessarily that it has to be a fact that you are telling someone. ou can get people to believe facts and falsifications, its all in how the message is sent out.
As far as Al Gore is concerned, no one can contest that he is pushing his movie to viewers with a political agenda. Regardless of whether you deem the actual content related to the environment is true or false, the fact is much of the movie is political mush - even determined that way from a european court, who are some of the biggest environmental backers in the world.
the court said the movie was "broadly accurate".
lol see, that is a typical liberal argument. i've tried to stay civil and give you the benefit of the doubt in not saying that what you say is false, just saying that what is being said is not proven to be true.
So I come out with valid points - and you go off course on both subjects - first, attacking me on what you think i believe of the Iraq war. Second, you say that the court says he movie is "broadly accurate".
Did you plan on addressing the point of our conversation that political agendas and political spin directly effect the message of the content, and politicians & special intereste groups modify the content with exaggerations and falsifications?
your valid points have included things that you not only could not back up, but i gave you evidence to the contrary. which you dismissed as "i don't believe it, so it must not be true".
LOL there ya go. You havent proven anything accept that there is a random poll that says 70% of people believe that man's affect the climate. That makes nothing true at all. In fact, polls show that close to 60% of people in the US are religious, that must mean without a doubt that God exists, no matter what you say.
See that how works, I can spin your words too.
That is quite probably the stupidest argument I've ever seen.
Its the same exact point. From your example - most people beleive it to be true so it must be true.
You even went as far as to say, that most beleive mans effect on the the climate, and since i disagree i must be stupid.
Therefore, most people believe in religious, it must be true, and you are stupid for disagreeing.
Not that i actually care if you believe in religion or not, but the basis of your logic is not logical at all. nice try, but back to high school for you.
The poll had nothing to do with whether global warming was "true" or not. It simply showed that people believed it existed, contrary to your claim. Science provides the evidence, the poll only shows that people believe it.
So it's not the same point, because nobody's claiming that the poll proves global warming to be true. Besides that, you're comparing something measurable with something that obviously isn't. Utterly idiotic.
Utterly idiotic. Mr DumbassBush says the international community isnt convinced Global Warming exists. A poll is produced showing that they in fact ARE convinced it exists so he critices the poll saying it must be true because people believe it. Either amazing stupidity or he thinks we are as dumb and gullible as the brainwashed rightwingers. That we will just forget what his argument was. Ah NO MrDumbassBush we think the poll shows you were FLAT OUT WRONG when saying the international community isnt convinced Global Warming exists. What is your plan here bring such a weak game you bore us to death?
Incidentally, I'm not sure who you think you're talking to. You're claiming I said things that I didn't.
but that's ok, because he believes you said them.
You can argue with most of the worlds scientists aboug Global Warming Mr DumbassBush. It is however pretty easy to see why dried out vegatation would burn more easily and more of it burn BECAUSE it was dried out than otherwise. That is plain simple. No one cares if the hivemind has instructed you the vast majority of the worlds scientists are wrong and only the hivemind has the real scoop. Drier vegatation could easily be a reason the fires spread so quickly or so far.
Actually, you have been apparently listening to Limbaugh and Hannity (and letting them think for you).
This is what Boxer said and it is entirely true:
Right now, we are down 50 percent in terms of our National Guard equipment, because they're all in Iraq, the equipment, half of the equipment. So we really need help. I think all of our states are down in terms of equipment.
No its not entirely true. The overall strain on our military has nothing to do with how many national guardsmen were available. Only 5% of the available national guard were even called up on by the state of California to even help fight the fire. There is not shortage of equiptment or troops, its all left wing bs to try and give another reason to end the war. Anyone with common sense knows her statement was made with an agenda to pull out of Iraq and had nothign to do with the California fires.
MrDumbassBush according to YOU its all leftwing BS. Were you in the meetings that allocated resources? Are you saying she is WRONG about 50% of Californias national Guard equipment being gone to Iraq? Or is this rightwing HIVEMIND BS that you are spewing? It so because the Oxymoron TOLD you its so? I notice she DIDNT say the fire was CAUSED by Global Warming so THAT was hivemind BS.
Please read comment above regarding global warming being a factor to the fire.
And yes, I am saying that Boxer was false in her accusations and claims regarding linking the shortage of military personnel & equiptment to fighting the fires.
First, as I've said, only 1,500 national guardsmen were called upon by the state to help with the firefighting efforts. 17,000 additional national guardsmen in California alone were sitting on call, if needed. 3,000 national guardsmen from California are currently in Iraq. Yes, 3,000 out of a total of 21,500...so, how is that a shortage?
As far as the military equiptment, boxer was being general, not specifying what type of equiptment. So can she claim that our military equiptment is strained on our homeland - in general, yes if you are referring to tanks, fighter planes, apache's. However, none of those forms of equiptment are used for fighting fires of any kind. What else she doesn't note is that there were two dozen helicopters available in southern california to help in the cause, but the state itself could not get them ready in time. Why? Because according to state laws, each pilot of an aid helicopter needs its own personal firefighting guide on the ground to direct him. The guides themselves were not brought to base in time to take off, because of the extreme high winds, which made flying very dangerous. So in short, the "stretch of our military and its equiptment" played absolutely NO factor what so ever in the fighting of the fires. The fires were faught superbly, and as the governor and head of the CA national guard have both stated, everything went according to plan and there were no shortage of resources what so ever.
So as I said, this was a ploy to make an argument to bail out of Iraq. If you admit that part, fine, its a political agenda and everyone knew that was coming. Its not a secret. But dont sit here and deny it being anything more than it is, but a falsification for a purpose.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/24/ca-guard-equipment/
"The San Francisco Chronicle reported last May that the California National Guard had been depleted and warned that severe “equipment shortages could hinder the guard’s response to a large-scale disaster,” such as a “major fire”:
As i said, the shortage did not effect the fighting of the fire. If 50% of the resources were gone, as they say, remember that only 8% of the available guards were called on. So there were many "trucks and radios" (as the article was referring to) available and not in use because they did not need them. The "shortage of equiptment" was not referring to manpower, planes, or helicopters which are used to fight the fire. It was referring to "trucks" used to get guards to the fire - but the guards were not called upon to be needed. Hence, it really is politicizing the issue at hand that the fires were faught suberbly, had all the resources they needed for it, and suffered a very minimum amount of casualties (i think less than 10 if im correct) because people did not evacuate in time - which was not a fault at all of the national guard or firefighters.
Here is an article, from the opposite political spectrum, stating otherwise: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct23/0,4670,FederalWildfires,00.html
Here is an article from the New York Times from March, 1991, explaining the connection. With today's right wing fog machine in full swing, you think it's all right-left spin. Sorry, there is such a thing as TRUTH, which is just what it is.
"Officials are concerned they may not get the usual help from the military. At the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, Bill Adams, the staff fire manager, said that helicopter pilots were not available and that military transport planes used to carry firefighters were "locked up" to bring troops home from the Middle East. Even the catering vehicles and shower equipment used by firefighters had been bought up by countries in the Persian Gulf.
"In the last few years, we've been heavily dependent on the military," Mr. Adams said. "There will be no military assistance at this point, although some of the National Guard might be available."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D81F39F933A25750C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Just in case you don't understand:
Going back to the first Gulf War, non-partisan officials were simply stating a fact of how they normally utilized the national guard to fight forest fires. The deployment of the National Guard back then was problematic.
The situation is worse today. How can you possibly believe that the National Guard is not stretched too thin by being in Iraq; and that their equipment is depleted through years of deployment (and under-funding)???
Their primary function is as a state level guard to assist in disaster relief. Bushco has dreadfully misused the Guard.
The National Guard is used in disaster relief situations - as are the military when not in times of war. However the National Guard's mission has changed drastically since the we got rid of the Military Draft. In order to maintain our troop levels in a volutneer only military, the National Guard was transformed for a part time paid volunteer military that is on call during times of need. In essence, they are similar to the military being on inactive duty. As being a former national guardsman myself, it is in the contract and fully explained at signup.
That's great and all, but you did not answer her question. Of course, we know there is an opportunity cost at work - i.e. resources deployed one place aren't deployed in another. You are apparently inadvertantly backing up the very heart of Boxer's argument. Because half of the National Guard's resources are being used in an elective war, they can't be used at home when they are needed. This isn't really all that hard to comprehend.
The California National Guard only called up 1500 of the available 17000 - in the state alone. There is no shortage in the case of the fires. The only thing you can say is that you are mad that not every single troop was available for your disposal - which is a moot point if you only used 5% of them anyway. There was no shortage of machines either - the state couldnt even use the helicopters they had, and turned down additional planes from Washington.
Any war that is not fought on US soil in defense is an elective war. WWII, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc. This is a war that was voted on and passed by congress. You are obviously one of those sick minded 20% of the democrats who think losing the war is in our best interest.
Boxer talked resources you talk men. I Know firefighters from Arizona are there. Perhaps they didnt call up that many men because the resources were gone so they wouldnt have done that much good. I mean why call up heavy equipment operators and helicopter pilots if the heavy equipment and helicopters are in Iraq?
Except that isnt what you said MrDumbassBush You claimed she said Global Warming CAUSED the fire. So it was hivemind BS just like I said. You changed the claim when you were called in its typical hivemind distortion
Mr Dingy,
You asked what's MMFAs problem with the lack of ethical journalism, as it pertains to this guy.....
Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward described the "unwritten rule" that guided their work on the Watergate story: "[U]nless two sources confirmed a charge involving activity likely to be considered criminal, the specific allegation was not used in the paper"
Pay special attention to the words"[U]nless two sources confirmed" and "not used" As it can be used in the same way of TV, Radio, and the Internets.....
Please, do yourself a favor and don't be such a chump!
MR:
You have only shown that you not only have no journalistic standards, but that you have no idea what they might be.
"One anonymous source" might indeed reveal something true. But to REPORT that, a real responsible reporter demands confirmation of some sort. "One anonymous source" could easily be unreliable, or even non-existent. Quoting something somebody told you only if you swear not to say where you heard it ... that's called "rumormongering", not "reporting".
Reporters look for truth, rumormongers are satisfied with SMEAR. They don't even care if the SMEAR is true, or has a source at all ... it can simply be made up. As long as the rumormonger can attribute the words they relay as from "one anonymous source," that is all that is required.
JOURNALISM requires much more. REPORTING requires effort to try to to be accruate and true. That is the gist of this MMFA report: Drudge and Klaus are happy being mere rumormongers. They have no interest (or skill) at being real "reporters"; yet they dare to compare that work to REAL reporters.
You know, people like you have no idea what REAL journalism is, and NEVER took any journalism classes in college. Tho old rule on anonymous sources that Woodward/Bernstein used in Watergate still applies today to every serious journalist, but in a race to be the firstest with the juiciest stories, people like Kaus and Van Natta/Gerth ignore it.
The rule: not one but at least TWO independent, anonymous sources are required when reporting newsworthy allegations of fact about someone or something. Anything less than that allows rumors to run wild, and that brings journalism and people's faith in it down dramatically.
Journalism professors around the country frown upon learning of the flimsy, one-sourced allegations the MSM passed on to their viewers (and potential voters) and are trying to teach a new generation of journalists how proper reporting is supposed to be done. Perhaps the current crop of so-called professional journalists need to go back to journalism school as well.
CHUCK:
You bring up a point I failed to emphasize. You said the sources should be "independent", which may mean two sources not connected to each other (i.e. not a man AND his wife).
"Independent" might also mean RELIABLE, as in, their previous information has proven to be TRUE, time and again. An extention of THIS would be a source who is seldom WRONG, and NEVER wrong about important issues or events.
A source without a "track record" might be treated as a "tip", but then the two corroborating sources are still then needed (in ADDITION to the "tipster").
A source which has obvious BIAS (i.e. an administration official, a party worker, or anyone with an obvious party preferrence ... that person should automatically be considered an UNreliable source. Such people have an AGENDA, to promote their guys, and tear down the competition.
The idea of an "independent" source is integral to the ethics of proper journalism. Thus, a single anonymous source becomes EVEN MORE SUSPECT, if no information is given about that person's political positioning. Who might this person be? Do they have an axe to grind? Are they known for their honesty, or are they PAID to dig up dirt on opponents?
All this goes directly to the "credibility of the witness", and these Rumormongers masquerading as "reporters" do not see fit to let the audience in on any of these important details.
Not totally surprising Mr. Violent act upon a senator. Unamed sources that show up here support amazing things on their unamed integrity. I would guess that your honesty quotient for the information would depend on "your" bias, and little else.
So Kaus running his mouthoff in what ever he wishes were true, is equivelent to calling him out on this?
Please, I'd like to see you make this case. Mental pathologies are always facinating.
Wingnuts and Kausians operate by the George Costanza theory of reality: "It's not a lie if you want to believe it."
Or the Homer Simpson theory: "It takes two people to lie, one to lie and the other to listen.
Ran accross a P.K. Dick quote at FDL "Reality is that which if you ignore it, it won't go away." Course money and power can hold it off. In Kaus's case, it pays well.
As does marrying a very rich woman (Kerry), as well as making loads of money from exaggerated medical malpractice claims (Edwards).
MrDumbassBush
Apparantly so does bankrupting every business you ever ran IF your fathers rich friends think they can buy political influence by bailing you out. Like Bush fr.
And by increasing taxes on small business like the democrats new plan (which will never be passed by the way), will shut down businesses as well.
At least this is what the hivemind TOLD MrDumbassBush to believe so of course like the good little hiveminder he is he DOES believe it. Got some evidence this is true? I heard the same BS about raising the minimum wage EVERY time it was proposed. Then we get the wage hike and it doesnt happen. Then again you dont really know what you believe till your hivemind master tells you what it is do you?
Raising minimum wage is really not the answer all of low income peoples problems. The problem with raising the minimum wage is that everythign else goes up with it. When companies are paying more money in wages (operating expenses), the overall price of their products will increase as well. Therefore, you are making more money, but living the same life style because the items you need to buy have increased as well.
The bottom line with that thinking is that companies have a set percentage or number in profits that they need to make, so in raising minimum wage, they will also raise their price in order to keep the company at that same level.
I dont really care what you think about raising the minimum wage MrDumbassBush. The point is we keep hearing how it will shut down small businesses and yet it doesnt seem to happen. Same here you have this scenario about what YOU think WILL happen. I dont buy it. You didnt substantiate it. What I KNOW about the crystal ball or I Ching or whatever it is you rightwing guys use to see the future is that it isnt effective. You guys are wrong all the time. We heard about how catastrophic Clinton's tax hike was going to be on the economy. Didnt happen. We heard all the dire predictions about rasing the minimum wage they dont happen so we would have to be foolish to base public policy on the chicken little predictions of the right.
First, you were the one ranting about how you want minimum wage increases.
Second, its not about what i think will happen, its a fact. Its simple economics - even taught at colleges by the most liberal teachers.
You can argue the fact of tax policy and what you think about it all you want. But the bottom line is you obviously know nothing about how wages effect prices, and how raising minimum wages will only increase the cost of living to compensate.
No MrDumbassBush you need to learn to READ. I wasnt RANTING about anything I was pointing out I hear the same tired mantra from you hiveminders about the minimum wage and it never happens. The minimum wage goes up and the sky DOESNT fall. IF you think something is proven becuase you SAY it is so, well that is symptomatic of you hiveminders. You can CLAIM small businesses will go out of business because of a tax hike you can CLAIM the Sun is actually a friend of yours named Tom. What you havent done is SHOW ME small businesses going out of business BECAUSE of a tax hike. I am sure economists say a lot of things in and out of school the old joke is God put economists in the world to make Astrologers look good. You do a lot of baseless assertions. I am not buying them and you can not substantiate them.
You really waste your time with your rants about nothing. Just goes to show you have way too much free time on your hands.
What makes you think I am ranting? What makes you think I have any emotional investment in this at all? Oh I forgot the hivemind is instructed that us liberals are seething with anger. I just amuse myself here nothing more. I just keep pointing out that you are making baseless assertions and the record on the right of their baseless assertions about the future has a very poor track record.
You really waste your time with your rants about nothing. Just goes to show you have way too much free time on your hands.
Now that is hilarious! MrDingyReid has, as of this moment, filled this thread with a percentage that even Tommy would envy (what's he done now, maybe 50 out of 150 comments?), has lost the argument about journalistic ethics (the original topic), derailed the discussion into one about global warming (and lost that one as well), and yet hasn't provided anyone with any coherent reason to see things his way. "Waste time," "rants" and "too much free time" are clearly his own deficits.
Solon, Brabantio, Mefirst, etc., I salute you all for crossing swords with this person, but clearly he's not capable of being reached with reason. You'll notice that even the legitimate conservatives on the board are not defending him. He's not worth all the bother. I'd advise that from now on maybe make just one comment, fill him full of wholes as usual, and then let him twist in the wind. And certainly don't chase him down any rabbit holes.
And I never said that raising the minimum wage would cause small business to go out of business. I said that raising the minimum wage will raise the cost of living due to lowering the value of the dollar. Its really pretty simple.
Whatever YOU said it was a mantra on the right that the minimum wage would put small businesses out of business. Another in the looong line of chicken little rightwing warnings that were based on exactly the same thing your baseless assertion about the tax hike was based on. NOTHING but speculation MrDumbassBush
Your rants are pretty hilarous indeed. I love how the left takes on personal attacks when they cannot find any proof, or think things through for themselves.
You must really praise Dingy Ried, Barbara Boxer, John Murtha, and Stark....you are starting to sound just like them.
Its not my fault you are a moron MrDumbassBush. That so you would KNOW what a personal attack IS. Anyone else would be embarassed to come in here with a NICK that is a personal attack on the Senate Majority leader then snivel like the hypocritical crybaby conservative you are about personal attacks. WWAAHHHHH.
Its also pretty silly of YOU snivelling that I am not giving PROOF that your baseless assertions are not true. YOU are making the claims so the obligation is YOURS to cough up the proof not for me to prove a negative. You do know you arent very good at this right?
Or go into business with Jim MacDougall and help him run a Savings in Loan into the ground while he does fundraisers for your political campaigns and gives your wife legal business and the taxpayers end up paying out $60 million.
See how that works? Anyone who has been paying attention knows that they all have feet of clay when it comes to grabbing money any way they can so they don't have to live like the rest of us.
should be "Savings AND Loan
Since the Clintons LOST money on Whitewater I dont really see your point.
Did they lose $60 million like the taxpayers lost on Madison Guaranty? NO!
What kind of an excuse is that anyway? They didn't intend to lose money. Thats like the bankrobber getting caught and pleading that he didn't do anything wrong because he didn't get away with it.
But thats typical Clinton-excusing, just like we heard over and over about FDR having a mistress or Kennedy or Eisenhower.
You really are deranged. They invested 50 grand of their own money and lost it. This whole thing was investigated to the tune of about 50 MILLION TAXPAYER dollars and they didnt come up with the slightest bit of evidence of wrongdoing. I dont care about George Sr.s affair anymore than I care about Bill Clintons you moron. It is just flat out stupid to claim that Hillary from Arkansaw made some reporter in DC ask the same kind of question of George the brighter that they asked Clinton for a couple of years. You know Clinton isnt president anymore you rightwing cranks can stop being hypnotized by the Clenis any time now.
The allegation has not enough detail or specific information to it, to be called a statement of fact, or to be judged as the truth.
Case dismissed.
Kaus is following the guidelines set down by W & B. Two sources. It's just a lot easier when the White House mass emails Rush, Fox Hannity, Ingraham, Drudge, etc.
10 or 12 sources right off the bat.
Seems to be pretty effective on a certain part of the population, a few of them have shown up here to prove it.
If you don't like Mickey Kaus, don't read him. The supermarket tabloids and the celebrity news websites run every photo that makes people look like hags, lunatics, morons. Keith Olberman attacks celebrities in mean ways all the time. He attacked Tom Cruise's baby daughter! But Olberman is a favorite here on Media Matters.
Bill Bradley told Carl Bernstein that Hillary Clinton planned to "demonize" any US Senator who opposed her healthcare plan. She blamed a "vast right wing conspiracy" for her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky. She told reporters to look into "Bush's Jennifer" back in 1992 (Old Bush).
I know Andra, I agree.
Anything that liberals say or do, will always be overlooked. But when conservatives say or do something, it will be scrutinized forever.
Well at least on this site that is probably a valid statement. If you wish to see the opposite situation, you are welcome to go to MRC, AIM and Newsbusters among others who represent the other side of the coin...or you can sit and cry about the "hypocrisy of it all" here and wait for someone to bring you some warm milk and cookies to cheer you up. Whatever suits you.
: )
This is hilarious considering we're talking about a single anonymous source making accusations about HRC doing something 15 years ago.
Also, that cat story revived this week was from when?
That's right, 7 years ago.
Keith Olberman is a lot more meanspirited than Rush Limbaugh. I switch channels pretty quickly from his mean celebrity news or his commentary on Larry Craig. Honestly, it seems like things turned around for Larry Craig because of the meanness from people like Olberman. Did Rush Limbaugh ever do a parody reenactment of Clinton sending the state trooper to fetch Paula Jones?
The media goes with ANY rumor or speculation about a celebrity or someone in a high profile missing white woman or missing child case so why would anyone expect it be different for politicians? It goes with the territory of being in the public eye.
Rush did a little commentary about Chelsea Clinton being the White House dog and told a caller to take that bone out of his nose and call him back. Rush has no integrity, lies, distorts and calls women he disagrees with Feminazis. So feel free to tell us what a great guy HE is compared to Keith but only a moron could take that seriously.
Feminazis....thats a good one, I'll have to remember that.
Olberman is about as annoying as Alan Colmes - both remind me of that sniveling weasel character in Billy Madison.
And YOU remind me of that Butthead character in the cartoon I once saw. Dumb as a post, ignorant and annoying. Mr DumbassBush
Well, let's see. Rush called a 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL (Chelsea Clinton) the "White House dog." That's about as low as it gets. He also made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's and mimicked 12-year-old Graeme Frost's speech (who had a paralyzed vocal cord from the nasty car accident he was in). I don't know the details about what you claim KO said about little Suri, so I can't comment. If true, that's a different thing from making fun of celebrities. I'm shedding no tears for the attention-seeking Hollywood crowd. Although I find the sympathy kind of odd coming from the side of the political spectrum that delights in telling Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, et al to shut up and loves to sneer at the "Hollywood liberals."
Then there's Ann Coulter, who snarks on 9/11 widows, calls for forcible conversion of Muslims and wants Jews to "perfect" themselves in Christianity, was sorry McVeigh didn't blow up the NY Times building instead, etc., ad nauseam.
From what I've observed, KO generally confines his snark and sarcasm to pretty big targets like Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Bush, Michelle Malkin, publicity seeking celebs, etc., who are all big boys and girls in reasonably good health and who obviously seek out the limelight. And he rags on them for specific actions and comments. Rush demonizes whole groups and picks on teenage girls and people with disabilities.
And the feminazi thing, he's been saying this since Hector was a pup, as the old saying goes, yet there are no resolutions and angry denunciations from the right or from the ADL about trivializing the Holocaust or screechy invocations of "Godwin's Law." And women aren't whining and crying to have Congress pass a special resolution condemning his free speech just because he behaves like the a****** he is. Apparently, it's only senior generals whose feelings are so tender they need to be protected officially by Congress.
This is a site about CONSERVATIVE media MrDumbassBush just like the MRC and AIM are sites about Liberal media. If you dont like the very concept then why are you here? I am betting you arent sending Emails to MRC whining about how THEY operate
The site wouldn't have comments if they wanted everyone to agree about everything.
True but irrelevant. No one said you couldnt disagree. Feel free. Then I get to tell you what I think of whatever you post and so it goes. THIS site is about conservative misinformation. You dont agree with what is posted go for it. Its just DUMB to criticise them for what they freely admit they ARE. If you dont like what they ARE there are lots of other sites
You are welcome to disagree. Who said you couldn't do that? Are your posts being deleted - despite adhering to the terms of use? It seems strange that just a few posts up, you were telling MMFA not to read what they disagree with. Well it seems you don't think that is very good advice for yourself. Personally enjoy reading things I disagree with. It helps me think out what I believe.
And if you didn't like Dan Rather, then the advice should have been "don't watch him".
But that's not how it worked out, is it? Funny how only conservatives are allowed to hold people accountable for anything, the rest of the time it's "just ignore it...".
In case you werent aware, even right wings are holding the bush administration accountable for many things. His crazy spending is one reason - goes without saying that they are not acting like the fiscal conservatives of years ago. But whats funny is that some of the left wing people dont even defend the left wingers that you people personally defend - Stark's comments for example, or how about Pelosi trying to move forward on issues that her party hasnt even reviewed yet.
I haven't made any comments about either of those things. I'm not sure how you think you're addressing my point, since I'm talking about things like FOX and Glenn Beck where the attitude is "don't watch it" whenever there's legitimate criticism to be made.
Thats not funny MrDumbassBush, we dont do hero worship on the left nor give kneejerk support for lefties doing things we disagree with its called thinking for ourselves. If you ever get the capacity I highly recommend it.
LOL - did you even bother to read my post, in which i said I dont support the last 7 years of conservative spending? Pretty much contradicts what you just said.
Lies and more lies from the unhinged, out-of-touch, 24% right. Not a word of truth. No surprise, their leaders are proud of their lies.
so, Andara, Bill Bradley said something, not Hillary. Hillary never blamed the right wing for Bill's affair, by the way, jsut for spending $70 million is taxpayer money to find it, and Bush Sr. did indeed have his own "Jennifer", but the right-wing media swept it under the rug,as they do all rightwing lies and treason, unless a Lary Craig-type gets busted. so, more lies from you. You have lost all sense of shame and patriotism; it will be a better country when the GOP is destroyed and buried next year.
Yeah, they swept it under the rug by CNN having its Mary Tillotson ask Old Bush about a "sexual tryst" at a White House Rose Garden press conference!
No, Hillary Clinton cannot complain with integrity about the politics of personal destruction when she directed the press to report on Old Bush's rumored affair.
Yes, she did blame the vast right wing conspiracy for her husband's affairs. Put "vast right wing conspiracy" into search and it comes up that she used that phrase in her TODAY show interview right after the Lewinsky affair was exposed in '98: she blamed the whole thing on a "vast right wing conspiracy." She lied and thats her character, blaming other people who have nothing to do with it.
And nobody has disputed what Bradley told Bernstein. The Clintons think they are very smart but obviously the other side figured them out and demonized them first whenever possible.
And I don't care about anyone else's private affairs. Period. It's their policies that matter.
You are deranged. A reporter asked Georg Sr about his affair with a staffer because she was DIRECTED TO by Hillary? Who at the time was living in Arkansaw? And NO Hillary did not blame Bills fling with Monica on the VRWC rather the whole orchestrated attack, which is true. Richard Mellon Schiafe funded it and you can read Brocks Blinded by the Right for an insiders view of the whole thing.
Hillary Clinton egged a reporter to look into Old Bush and "his Jennifer."
And your evidence of this is WHAT again?
"If you don't like Mickey Kaus, don't read him."--andra
Fine advice. If you don't like MMFA's criticism of Mickey Kaus, don't read it.
; )
I guess if I dont like Kaus I can ALSO criticise his lack of journalistic ethics. If YOU dont like THAT I guess you can go somewhere else and snivel
I wouldn't think it possible, but MrDingyReid may have spent more effort and words in taking a beating and surrendering than he did previously as Billybob,Kevin,Brutus, Max and Roger combined.
Sorry if I left out any screen names. Come back as "Dirk" next time.That one might work.
How about "Legion"? *
*"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion; for we are many." -Mark 5:9
Very good, Mary!
Then perhaps he will leave here, go infest a herd of pigs and go for a quick and terminal swim. Which always made me wonder--can you get Legionnaire's disease from too much deviled ham?
Kaus is a douchebag. I called Slate to complain about him before - and by the way I was very nice about it - and they closed their ears to me. They said they'd "pass [my] comments to him." ?! --My complaint wasn't meant for him but an editor.
How and why various media outlets retain some of these brain-dead pundits on staff I'll never know. In the case of Slate & Kaus I doubt it's for business reasons. I can't imagine that Slate gets many clicks because of this guy. His content is of course vapid. But his writing style is lysergic and difficult to follow - not entertaining but confusing and ultimately annoying.
In the world of pundits Kaus is a D-lister. Slate is not the better for it.
He's changing bit by bit. We maybe comtaminating him.