Novak's disparate treatment: Reports Dem under FBI investigation, but only that GOP congressman's conduct "raised ethical questions"
In his July 16 syndicated column, after asserting that the legislative earmarks of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) "have provoked an FBI investigation," Robert D. Novak said of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) only that his "past earmarking has raised ethical questions." But according to an April 25 article in The Hill, "The Department of Justice (DoJ) has spent more than a year looking into Lewis's relationship with a lobbying firm and the millions of dollars in contracts its clients received from Congress." The article continued: "Lewis, the ranking member of the spending committee, has outlaid an estimated $900,000 on defense lawyers since the probe began, but the investigation has been quiet in recent months." In other words, Lewis, too, is reportedly under federal investigation.
In a June 16 article, The Sacramento Bee reported that the contracts involved "earmarks for campaign contributors": "The senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands, reported paying a Los Angeles law firm more than $640,000 last year amid an ongoing federal investigation involving other earmarks for campaign contributors. No charges have been filed, and Lewis denies any wrongdoing."
From Novak's July 16 column:
While considering the interior appropriations bill, the House kept 11 egregious earmarks alive. Rep. John Murtha, king of Democratic earmarkers, kept $1.2 million for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg (by a 343 to 86 vote), and $150,000 for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry in Greene County (328 to 104). The House voted 323 to 104 to retain $140,000 for the Wetzel County, W.Va., courthouse sponsored by Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan, whose earmarks have provoked an FBI investigation.
Moving on to financial services appropriations, the House voted 335 to 87 to continue Murtha's raid on the Treasury: $231,000 for the Grace Johnstown (Pa.) Area Regional Industries Incubator. By 325 to 101, the members refused to remove a $231,000 Mollohan earmark for West Virginia University Research Corp. to renovate a "small business incubator." As usual, dauntless Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona led the way in targeting colleagues' earmarks. He did not exempt Republicans -- including 15-term California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, whose past earmarking has raised ethical questions.
I don't see alot of detail with these earmarks. Is there a difference between an industrial incubator and a small business incubator. Do they even have the same function? Where has usually dauntless Rep Jeff Flake been all these years. First I've heard of him.
Had no pleasant thoughts about Mr. Novak pior to this, the article does nothing to change my opinion.
There was a pretty good profile piece on Rep Flake last winter on "60 Minutes." Impressed me as a no-holds-barred kind of person in going after earmarks by both parties. He is fairly young and hopefully will move on before the culture of Washington DC "corrupts" him as it has so many politicians.
Posting here because MMFA isn't talking about it anywhere else...
Where is the support/denouncing of Ellison's anti-bush 9-11 comments? Everyone here ripped Glenn Beck a new a-hole for even questioning whether or not Ellison the Muslim was "one of the good guys." Remember that? Where is the MMFA discussion on Ellison's recent comments and perhaps the fact that Glenn might have been right?
Oh yeah.. this site has nothing to do with reporting accurate news. It's all about slamming conservatives.
Cannon,
These are just my guesses, but...
"Where is the support/denouncing of Ellison's anti-bush 9-11 comments?"
My interpretation of Represenative Ellison's comments was that he was comparing the power grab made by Hitler after the burning of the Reichstag to the power grab made by Bush after 9/11. This was probably not a great metaphor to use because many believe (as I am guessing you are making a parallel here) the Nazis burned the Reichstag themselves and blamed it on the Communists. Likewise, when one of the Republicans (I can't remember who) quoted the founder of the KKK, I didn't immediately think he was a racist, but just used a poor source.
"Everyone here ripped Glenn Beck a new a-hole for even questioning whether or not Ellison the Muslim was "one of the good guys."
Beck's quote:
"OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Cannon, to me that type of rhetoric should offend all Americans. (I am not making any judgments on those not offended, just saying that every one in this country is innocent until proven guilty and should be taken at face value until proven otherwise.). Would Beck have asked that to a Congressman with any other religious background? I realize that the people who attacked us on 9/11 claim Islam as their reason for doing so, but Representative Ellison had not shown any allegiance to the enemies of the United States and deserves the same benefit of the doubt as anyone else.
"Remember that? Where is the MMFA discussion on Ellison's recent comments and perhaps the fact that Glenn might have been right?"
Are you insinuating that because Ellison may be a conspiracy theorist (he later clarified his remarks saying he accepted OBL was responsible for 9/11 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml) that he is working for the enemies of the United States? That is a fairly serious charge for a metaphor.
"Oh yeah.. this site has nothing to do with reporting accurate news. It's all about slamming conservatives."
Cannon, this is not a news site, nor is it a conservative bashing site. It is a site that reports on misinformation propagated by conservatives. You know that this isn't a news site. Frankly, I think all of those in the media who promote lies should be bashed, don't you?
Frankly, I am not thrilled by Representative Ellison's comments, but his notion about the powers now claimed by Bush that no other President has claimed (wiretapping, 750 signing statements, torture, secret prisons, pre-emptive war based on at best questionable intelligence) in the name of security after the tragic events of 9/11 are simply frightening. Just my two cents...
Ellison was right. Bush used 9/11 the same way Hitler used the Riechstag fire. Besides MMFA doesnt cover politicians they cover the MEDIA. What part of MEDIA DONT you understand?
Pregnant out of wedlock, the neighbor's kid is a hussy, a whore, a little tramp with the morals of an alley cat. If it's your own daughter, well, she's just "in a little trouble". That's Novak's knee-jerk instinct in "reporting" the news of Democrats versus Republicans. The Democrats are the neighbor's kids, while the Republicans his own kin. Subtle? Not hardly. It's the difference of night and day.
Great metaphor, Tex. Spot on, as usual.
By your own admission, Novak is a partisan righwinger who has been "scolding the neighbor's kids while protecting his own" for decades......this selectivity from him is nothing new. And hardly misinformation, but rather his legendary politically biased opinions on full display.
A federal investigation that has prompted $900k in defense expenditures can be aptly labeled a "raising of ethical questions", it's merely a matter of opinion.
I guess a severed limb can be dubbed a minor flesh wound, if that's your opinion.
The point is you know what to expect from Novak, his opinions and take on whatever he's writing about are slanted in the right's favor.
I am sorry that seems to upset so many liberals, but I wonder if they have the same outrage and push for accuracy when it's a liberal columnist offering up their slanted opinions? Somehow, I doubt it.
You're obviously confusing fact and opinion again. A Democrat and a Republican each provoked an FBI investigation with their earmarks. That is a fact. For Novak to say that the Democrat provoked an FBI investigation, while the Republican simply raised ethical questions is not an opinion. It is a deliberate attempt to disguise the facts. In other words, misinformation.
Condescending into patronization of liberalism. Shocking coming from you.
Hey, don't blame me if some on the left here just cannot stand an opposing opinion. I would imagine there are as many on the right who share the same desperation when it comes to opinions coming from the left, as well.
But after all, liberal opinions and misinformation are not highlighted here, so once again, don't blame me for that.
why do you guys ever bother with Tommy's arguments? They're the same every time and they never hold water. Tommy, you're talking largely to a group of highly involved and probably highly informed political citizens, who understand to look carefully for news commentary that is smeared with biased opinion. This is in no way meant to be elitist, but the reality is that a lot of people will not make that distinction, and all the little bits of republican propaganda and one-sidedness and slander in the news add up to a negativity within the general population towards liberals and democrats. I totally understand why media matters would make this posting. You come here everyday and criticise their efforts.
The fact that we might EXPECT this opinion from this particular commentatory is totally beside the point. The reality is, media matters is documenting bias within the media, and this is a good and frankly insidious and subtle example. Prancing around saying 'I KNEW THIS WAS COMING FROM NOVAK' and proving how insightful and clever you are in being able to distinguish subtleties is really not that impressive -- everyone here can do the same thing. The difference is we understand that these subtle little right-wing leadings within the media have implications for democracy, and you dont seem to understand that.
And just what identificable implications for our democracy does this particular piece by Novak have? If you could be specific instead of a broad generalizing statement, that would help.
well, I really mean the combination of these subtle leanings as a whole, but the implication for democracy of a biased and untruthful media is fairly obvious, that being that a portion of the citizenry will be able to make the distinction and correctly identify double standards and inaccuracies, while a large proportion of the population will not make that distinction and wind up with political views that are essentially manipulated. Don't take my word for it, look at the survey they mention on 'Outfoxed' which demonstrates Fox News Viewers have a significantly different 'understanding' of the 'War on Terror' when compared with other news viewers. This particular MMFA item is a subtle extension of the same bias.
Ok, I won't take your word for it, I will check "Outfoxed" for verification. Thanks for helping.
Smear the messenger. Ignore the message. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
oh good.... I thought it was just me...
"Hey, don't blame me if some on the left here just cannot stand an opposing opinion."
Tommy
That isn't the case here and is a straw man argument. I can't stand that garbage. It's not about disagreeing with Novak it is Novak's focusing on a Democrat while ignoring scores of his own party. I don't care what his opinion is, it's the content or lack there of.
Bing, I was not referring to you when I said that some can't stand an opposing opinion. Look, you and I disagree often but I respect your opinions and your point of view because you are always honest and straightforward, I hope you took no offense to that.
I was speaking of others who argue disingenuously and I don't respond to them anymore. Hope that clears it up.
Have a good evening.
TOMMY:
We have high hopes for you. Here WITHIN Media Matters, we keep expecting you to start exposing all this "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" you claim is "out there". We keep expecting you to prove your point by doing as MMFA does, and citing example after example of mainstream media PROGRESSIVE MISInformation, with citiations and dates and irrefutable evidence that the bias being spouted by those liberals is FALSE and UNTRUE.
You have the perfect MODEL and FORUM here, to out-MMFA MMFA, All it will take is the little extra work of making NOTE of all the Liberal Bias you assure us you witness daily, and citing it here, for all to see. What did Wolf Blitzer say today that was blatant Liberal Bias? Tucker? Matthews? All those OTHER Liberals out there? C'mon, Tommy, step up to the plate!
We keep expecting it, because you seem both dedicated to this site, and you keep repeating that "everybody does it" and so there is a wealth of material out there in the media for you to choose from, equal in severity and amount to that MMFA exposes.
For YEARS you've been in the bleachers, sneering at the batters that YOU could knock any pitch out of the park, if you wanted. So far, though, you've made no move to back up that boast.
So we keep hoping, and waiting. And waiting.
Name one. I disagree with "liberal" columnists. What's your point? You don't have one.
Tommy, on this I will have to disagree. Novak appears in MSM (Meet the Press and Fox) with his lies. He appears in a public forum and does not tell the truth. I don’t know if you remember the saying “ a lie told often enough will be assumed to be the truth“. When people like Novak make incorrect statements, which are repeated continually by our lazy and uninformed media, people think it’s the truth.
Since MMFA is conservative misinformation I can only assume that Rush, Sean, Bill and Neal have their own liberal misinformation outlet.
Pearlene, What people think is their business. Unless an opinion column is falsely put forth as a straight news article, then there is no misrepresentation......if people want to believe every thing they read in an op-ed piece, then they have that perfect right.
I prefer to consider the source.
"Pearlene, What people think is their business. Unless an opinion column is falsely put forth as a straight news article, then there is no misrepresentation."
That doesn't jibe. An opinion column can be full of misinformation to claim otherwise is pretty absurd. A movie trailer can have misinformation an advertisement can have misinformation. And yes so can an opinion piece.
I think the point is that there's an expectation that columnists are going to do their best to present their case honestly. People can take the concluding opinion seriously or not, but the reader has to expect that the supporting points are valid.
If some liberal columnist says Bush is the worst president ever, you can take that or leave it. But if one of the supporting points relies on taking one of Bush's comments out of context, that's a different deal. He doesn't have the right to twist facts the same way he has the right to voice an opinion.
Even under supposedly different standards of subjectivity and truthfulness, isn't it pretty obvious that Novak was being disingenuous at best? You won't deal with posters on a website who behave that way, but it's supposed to be fine and dandy that someone does it on a public platform?
UNDER FAQ in MMFA "About us" :
What is conservative misinformation?
Conservative misinformation is news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda. This misinformation distorts the public dialogue on important issues and obscures the truth.
Translated > Opinions that we disagree with are misinformation.
That's not a fair translation. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts. Opinions based on bad information or devoid of factual basis is misinformation.
Opinions are subjective based on one's interpretation or experiences, among other variables. Everybody has one, everybody has the right to have one, everybody has the right to agree or disagree as strongly as they would like.
Obviously MMFA disagrees with Novak's opinions here.
So Novak's subjective opinion is that the Democrat is under investigation, but the Republican only raised ethical questions, even though both, in fact, are under investigation? Opinion does not trump fact.
Tommy,
The MMFA article is pointing out Novak's prejudice. Novak is being irrational toward a member of a particular group.
You responded to a post of mine on a different thread with the same opinion rhetoric you used in this thread.
You should look up words like irrational, prejudice, bias and see how your Conservative camp are masters of irrationality, prejudice and bias. But I won't bet on it that you will.
By stating everything your side makes as being nothing more than opinion you avoid having to question the irrationality, prejudice and bias nature of your Conservatism.
Tommy,
MMFA is pointing out prejudice. You should look up the words, prejudice, bias, irrationality. But I wouldn't hold my breath that you will; otherwise it would lead you to question your own Conservatism.
Well, knock me over. You mean to tell me that Bob Novak is prejudiced when it comes to politics and what biased side he resides in?
Who knew?
You asked, it was explained, you change the argument to something else. I'm hopping out of this circular "logic."
He's allowed to be biased. He's not allowed to be biased via inaccuracy and falsehood on a national program that reaches millions of people who may not be as massively intelligent and discerning as you so obviously are.
"He's not allowed............??" By whom?
oh that was me being abstract, obviously there are certain laws governing media operation, and I doubt he's breaking any here. I mean simply that, for us thinking cats who believe in the necessity of a functioning and accurate media, hes 'not allowed.' Of course, that's only if you can grasp the difference between a pundit on a message board offering an opinion not based on fact or objectivity, and a man offering his biased and slanted opinion to millions of people. I know you like to treat those two things as equal, but they're not...
So, Tommy are you saying you don't mind if editorials are filled with lies? I don't want to misunderstand you here. Bias is one thing, flat-out lies are another.
I am saying that I read and judge opinion pieces for exactly what they are, the writer's opinion. I don't look to them for facts and unbiased reporting, I would hope to find that in the news pages. The op-ed page is a completely different animal.
Why that is so hard for many of you to understand is mind-boggling.
What's mindboggling is that it is so hard for you to understand that opinion does not supercede fact. If I say 2 plus 2 is 4 and then you say it's 5, your misinformation isn't excused for being an opinion. It's not an opinion at all. Your statement that you don't look for fact in an editorial is completely ridiculous. Anybody can say anything in your book, because it's all "opinion" to you.
Novak is still reporting "news" and his misinformation isn't excused simply because he's writing an op-ed. What if the topic of his editorial were murder instead of earmarks. Pretend a Republican and a Democrat are both under investigation because each of them is suspected to have killed a lobbyist. Novak reports that the Democrat is under investigation for murder, and the Republican has raised some ethical issues. Does exagerrating the severity of the crime make the misinformation any clearer to you?
Well, both reps are under Federal Investigation, correct? So, why is one rep's behavior referred to as "raising questions" and the other's reported as leading to a "federal investigation?" If they are both receiving the same treatment shouldn't that be reported as such even in an Op-Ed piece?
To me, reporting the same consequence as two different punishments is misinformation.
It would be like two kids being grounded and confined to their bedrooms. Parent #1: "Johnny is just spending some time getting acquainted with the four walls of his room." Parent #2: "My son is grounded." Parent #1: "Oh, that's a shame! He must be a bad kid."
OK he is allowed then WE are allowed to call him on his dishonesty then YOU are allowed to snivel that we do so then we are allowed to tell you that you snivel too much. This is what MMFA does. No one cares whether you like it or not. Feel free to start your own website and show MMFA how to do it right then tell us about it so we can drop in and tell you how to run it.
And you can rationalize anything into nonsense. Excellent work. Opinion is subjective that doesn't mean they don't come with misinformation.
Bing,
I never said that opinions may or may not be misinformative, but the fact is they are personal opinions - and in this case they are in an opinion article, fully upfront and disclosed as such.
And in this case Novak ignores other prtinent facts to form an opinion that doesn't mean a whole bunch because he is leaving things out of the equation. Hence it is posted here at Media Matters.
Tommy molests small furry animals. Remember that is not misinformation, by tommy's OWN definition. Someone call the ASPCA
Translation it isnt misinformation unless TOMMY says it is.
For those people that have been on Mars for the last few years....
You don't read Novak to get objective information, you don't read Novak to get insightfull analysis, you don't read Novak to get facts, you don't read Novak to get much of anything except for a warm-fuzzy feeling that all your Conservative beliefs about the world are right and correct.
Later, when Reality smacks you in the face, you just go back to reading Novak and he tells you that everything will be ok.
Bob's column should be name "Therapy for Conservatives".
Not a bad take on Novak. The same can be said for most known partisan political opinionators from all sides, they have their slant and anyone who reads their opinion pieces know that.
If you could name 3 on the left that could be reasonably considered "Journalists" that would help further the debate. Saying everyone does it is just as bad as "Clinton did it too" from the right.
You have got to be kidding, There are more than can be counted.
Novak alone appeared for years on tv with liberals Mark Shields and Al Hunt.
Then it shouldn't be difficult to pick one example to enlighten us.
This is BS. Liberals aren't perfect but we don't need to lie to make a point unlike conservatives. I can't make you realize that your guys are loose with the facts to bolster their world view.
Liberals don't lie. Conservatives lie. Why do you demand such fact based opinions from others, but you have no interest in living by the same standards? Come on........
Currently I don't see the bold faced lies from the liberal sources I use that I do from conservatives. Sue me. This insistence that liberals do it too just doesn't wash. It's a convenient excuse. I'm not claiming that all conservatives lie all the time, nor liberals are always unbiased. But speaking from a bias and lying to make a point are two different things.
An example, the statement Valerie Wilson was not covert is a lie. That's not an statement of opinion it's a statement of fact that is wholly inaccurate. If you can supply a liberal with a similar comment I'd love to hear it.
Bing, The point is that opinions are thrown around here every two seconds by dozens of posters everyday, myself included. So what?
Some are based on verifiable facts, others are simply their interpretation or based on a biased viewpoint. So what?
When someone states something as fact in a news reporting piece, that is challengeable. This opinion piece by Novak is exactly that, his opinion. Much as what you or I say here all the time. We are stating our opinions and one can agree or disagree. So what?
How is a double standard an "opinion"? Is that really acceptable for jounalists of any sort?
Whether it's based on his biased views or not, it's still misinformation. It's creating a false difference between two identical things through his descriptions. He's leaving out an important detail which makes one seem less severe than the other, which makes it a lie by omission.
What disagreement is there to be had with that, specifically?
Brab,
As I said in my initial post on this topic, Novak is being selective in his opinions. The point I was making is that this was in an op-ed article written by an admitted rightwing columnist.
It was not in a Washington Post news reporting article, if it was then it absolutetly warrants mention here. But it was residing exclusively in an opinion piece, that was my point. Opinion articles are not judged by the same standards for fairness and unbiased reporting.
Is he not misinforming people? Are people supposed to read what he wrote, realize he's right-wing, and then assume that he's being "selective"?
Do you think op-ed pieces should be held to the exact standards as straight news reporting?
Is Novak misinforming? On this point he is being selective, I have already said that. But you keep blurring the lines of distinction between opinion articles and news reporting. That is the difference here, and the overriding point.
Opinions are subjective in their very nature, and when they are in an op-ed piece, that's where they belong in any newspaper.
I'm not blurring anything. I asked you if it was misinformation, which you are trying to dodge.
By your standard, MMfA can't post anything said by Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, no matter how dishonest it is, because it's biased opinion and so it's somehow expected that they'll be "selective" with their facts. Misinformation is misinformation, whether it's in an op-ed or not, or whether that bias is hidden or not, or whether you expect it or not.
The standards of op-eds vs. straight news reporting in general have nothing to do with the validity of this article. Besides, when we're talking about one columnist, discussing the nature of columnists vs. reporters in general is off-topic.
The validity of an op-ed article vs. a straight news report is absolutely the entire point of this article.
Your quick dismissal of that difference renders any further discussion moot.
I recognize the difference, and the standards are not the same. Does that mean that lying is perfectly acceptable from a columnist? What is it about the difference that makes the misinformation unworthy of notice? I'm genuinely curious here.
And how on earth do you justify the assertion that opinion vs. straight news is the "entire point" of this article? What do you base that statement on?
Your last question first, I said article in error, I meant the point I was making. Sorry for the confusion there.
As for lying being acceptable or not, I was merely saying that opinion pieces are by nature full of subjective information and opinions by their author. Any op-ed piece should be viewed through the prism of it's author - a news article should be irrelevant as to who writes it or not.
They are judged and scutinized far differently and held to very different standards regarding their objectivity and truthfulness.
So, when you judge someone like Novak through this prism, where does that take you? Meaning, you're not saying that lying is acceptable, but we judge a lie differently...how? It sounds like you're saying it somehow makes it less of a lie, just because the source is biased. As I said before, by that standard you would never see any misinformation from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, etc. here, because we know they're biased. Do you really think that's sensible?
It's great that you consider the source and all, but if you distrust someone that much you're not going to be reading their column anyway. Obviously there are people that do, so when they are dishonest many people may not realize it until it's pointed out. MMfA comes from a viewpoint as well, but if they were omitting information to make their points, would you really dismiss criticism of that because they have a different "standard of truthfulness"? I seriously doubt it.
Unless you have an argument that it's not a lie by omission, then it stands as misinformation, and therefore belongs on the site.
Brab,
Let me ask you a question on a related note.
If you were to commission a comprehensive and thorough study on the existence of media bias in this country, would you include op-ed pieces in that study, or not?
What's the relevance of that question? It's not about bias, it's about misinformation. We all understand Novak is biased, we're trying to figure out how that makes it so when he deceives people it shouldn't be listed here.
To answer, because I know you'll pretend everything on earth hinges on your tangential and disingenuous question, I don't think you could prove much about bias through anyone's op-ed. You could demonstrate who misinforms though, which is consistent with the oft-cited mission statement here.
You're right it's an absurd comparison so why are you making it? That has nothing to do with the lack of facts behind Novak's opinion. It has nothing to do with the post in the first place. Why did you bring it up?
What do you not understand about the word misinformation? I don't care if it's an opinion piece or an article. Straw men, that's all you got. You are arguing for apples when the point is oranges. I DON"T CARE, MISINFORMATION IS MISINFORMATION. That simple. I happen to like MMfA pointing it out so I don't have to read this guy's column everyday.
Also, look at Novak's article, it is very clear as it states "Op-ed article". Anyone reading that knows what that means. It isn't some attempt at hiding anything.
He also refers to himself as a reporter, or implies it. Regardless, is it so much to ask an op-ed contributor, columnist etc. to use well rounded information? And is it not prudent to point out when someone's misleading people? That's all that's happening here. Novak is being called on something he wrote. This is America, we are free to criticize what we deem worthy to criticize. What's your beef with that? Forget I asked.
Let me see if I get your logic.
An opinion column can't be trusted for factual content so is can't be criticized regarding it's lack of factual content.
So we know Robert Novak is a shill, liar and in many eyes a traitor to his country, so shouldn't trust anything he says and shouldn't criticize him for being a shill, liar or traitor.
I think I got it!
And everyone who reads his columns knows he's being dishonest, but he can do that because he's held to a different standard of truthfulness.
It's everything Tommy can do to defend a poorly thought-out argument. There are literally no limitations, I have to believe.
True, say what you will about Tommy. He can doggedly stay off topic for hours. And drag us along with him.
Are they also not to be judged by the same standards of truth? You seem to be saying that you don't mind being lied to as long it's just someone's "opinion."
Yes, they should be judged by a standard of truth because opinion, and misrepresentation or lies do not all merge into one indistinguishable mass.
Novak can have the opinion that Barry Bonds is a lousy baseball player because he did not hit enough homeruns - a stupid opinion and one Novak might be capable of, but nonetheless an opinion. Novak cannot have the opinion that Barry Bonds is a lousy baseball player because he never hit a home run. Civil discourse is not possible without a social pact that people express opinions based on known evidence of events. With shills like Novak breaking that pact constantly in the name of “opinion”, that social pact goes down the pooper hole.And his opinions lack a fair revelation of fact and should be mocked as such. All this talking about opinions misses the point entirely. You're complaingng about our opinions about Novak's opinions and lack of merit for said opinions.
Just what statements have I made that aren't based in facts? I do live by those standards chief.
You just did. ".....liberals....don't need to lie to make a point unlike conservatives".
If you have verifiable facts to back that statement up, then show us. Otherwise it's your biased opinion, much of the same that you rail against Novak for doing.
Ah, but Tommy, this poster does not introduce a fact + an omission of fact - actually, a misrepresentation of fact - to context his opionion.
It is a close cousin to an onion, as seen in the spelling; but is specifically much harsher - hyperbole for blog-posts.
Conley, is an opionion an opiated root vegetable,and if so, can you score?.
I want to cry myself to sleep.
Beach:
I can teach you a new disease I picked up in the Malay.
Yes, that was my opinion based on observable facts. Many examples can be found here. Some are opinions by cons that leave out pertinent information, others are bold faced lies. Like Valerie Wilson was not covert.
Tommy is trying to go to bat for Novak. Giving Novak a free pass on a biased op-ed Novak wrote. Tommy does this by trying to convince the reader that an op-ed can never be an article of misinformation, prejudice, bias or slanted.
But where in the world does one find that there is a rule that says op-eds cannot contain misinformation, prejudice, bias or slanted information because it is an op-ed. No such rule exists expcept in Tommy's world.
Would Tommy come here and say op-eds cannot be called propaganda? But how now does Tommy become the rule maker of all that is?
I have had to occasion to oberve op-eds in the editorial pages of newspapers only to notice later the public making comments about the op-eds treating the op-eds as facts.
For instance is it fact that Al-Gore invented the internet as some op-ed columnist have alleged? Have we not seen people treat such information as fact?
Again I repeat Tommy is just trying to bail out the little fact twister Novak.
So, let us suppose that two politicians from both parties are under investigation for having consentual sex with an older minor.
A columnist writes about this, stating that the Democratic politician; "violated a child", "molested a child", "raped a minor."...etc.
Perhaps this is his "opinion" about the act of an adult taking advantage of a teenager........
However; he goes on to describe the same offence by a Republican politician as "an affair with a young woman", or "consentual sex with an underaged woman".
Both politicians commited the same offense, yet reading the column discussing the two politicians, you are left to think the Democrat is a possible child molester, and the Republican had a consentual affair with someone who is barely a minor.
It's all in the wording, and wording can make all the difference to readers as to how they feel about the two politicians. It's not opinion.....it's the use of words to influence readers.
Whatever baby.... I am sure it's all double plus good because the administration, (n)(th)eo-cons -- take your pick of the letters in (), and the MSM say so.
I have to agree with Tommy here. Novak is a well-known partisan opinion writer. Partisan opinion writers should be called by MMFA and others for telling lies, and for hypocrisy (i.e. lying under oath is the worst possible crime when one person does it but not another) but not for writing partisan opinions. Yes, he put his guy in the best possible light and the other guy in the worst possible light. That's what they do.
Novak left out details which create a perception of difference between the two people. How is that not lying by omission?
Tommy's been dodging the arguments all through this thread, if you're going to support his point, maybe you can explain what he can't.
OK, let's just accept your frame of "That's what they do." Novak is dishonest and partisan. So MMFA points out an example of that, because that's what they do. Now where does that leave your argument? Beyond, "That's what Novak does," what exactly is your argument?
I agree that an opinion writer has no right to flat out lie. For example, the one who was called to task for stating that Clinton was convicted in a criminal court a few weeks ago (I don't remember his name because I don't watch Fox Noise). But I believe there is a distinction between straight news reporting and editorials. An editorial is more like one side of a debate or a court case. You're not allowed to lie, but you try not to present the part of the truth that is favorable to your opponent. But, far from advancing his case, it makes Novak look shabby and hypocritical to say that one is under investigation and the other raises ethical issues, though I don't suppose his audience notices.
I don't like Novak either, but I don't think he is out of bounds here. While there can be such a thing as a lie by omission, I don't believe he reaches that level. It's pretty clear to the intellectually honest viewer what he is omitting.
A more important issue, which I have expressed consistently in these postings, is that there ought to be less opinion and more fact reporting in the news.
I wouldn't assume that someone was under investigation because their behavior "raises ethical questions". These investigations are a criminal matter, which goes beyond the realm of the ethical. This especially seems true when presented with a false contrast to someone who is under investigation, since it amplifies that distinction. The context creates a lower level of impropriety.
Therefore people who don't already know that both of them are under investigation have no reason at all to believe that both of them are. That's clearly deceptive, and is certainly misinformation.
I don't think Tommy can counter that... In fact he has no problem when the Drudge Report, WaPo, newsbusters, etc. links to obviously biased sources SUCH AS UNNAMED REPUBLICAN/GOP SOURCES, NEOCON OP-ED PIECES, and especially ATTACK OP-ED PIECES and PRESENTS THEM AS FACT or Straight News (I.E. Headlines). Lets not forget about the Obama madrassa story and Hillary Clinton accusation from slate magazine being presented as fact.
My take on Tommy is that since he is informed, he can easily spot the misinformation and disregard it as such.
The problem lies in the vast uninformed masses whose opinions are formed from statements from people like Novak and the right wing radiocons. That's why there's still a large % of people who still believe Plame was not a covert CIA agent.
Well put. I hope those making the arguments previously posted read this.