October 24, 2009
About the Obama Thesis Hoax
When you were younger, your parents probably told you that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is."
That bit of homespun wisdom should have been applied to a blog post that claimed tertiary knowledge of a Barack Obama college thesis lambasting both the free market system and the Constitution.
The authors claim a defense of satire now that the blog entry was disclosed as such, though that warning came far too late for those that managed to push the story to multiple web sites and even talk radio.
If people had carefully read the entry before promoting it, however, this paragraph offered a big red flag:
In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: &qout;I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.&qout;
When the blog entry claimed that the first ten pages of the President's thesis was given to the general media and not one soul wrote or talked about it that should have sent up huge warning flares that something was wrong with this story.
That no one bothered to contact Joe Klein to see if the document reportedly released to him been, is an example of shoddy fact-checking.
Sadly, this gives the left wing blog Media Matters more than enough excuse to run a headline that begins "So desperate they'll believe anything—" and have some justification for doing so. Michael Ledeen was quick to post a column noting that he'd been duped by the thesis hoax, which was a responsible way to handle such a situation.
Now, if we can only get the same Media Matters partisans that gloated over this incident to develop or even borrow the integrity to admit they were duped by a lying ACORN Philadelphia employee, we can call it a good day.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:03 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Obama said most of what is written in the bogus thesis.
I cannot get any links to take on this blog.
If I could get anything to take I could link to a radio recording of a debate where Obama said most of the Constition issues in the bogus thesis.
I leave it for others to find and post the details.
Posted by: davod at October 24, 2009 10:17 AM (GUZAT)
2
It's remarkable that the Obama thesis remains confidental to this day.
Perhaps we can hire the people at Columbia responsible for keeping BO's papers under wraps and put them in charge of security at State and Defense.
Of course they are helped along by the fact that the MSM emphatically
does not want to know anything about Barry's past.
Posted by: Steve at October 24, 2009 10:57 AM (cDwBw)
3
I'm afraid I was the primary cause of the problem. Ledeen made his post, taking the satire seriously. but no one seemed to have picked it up for two days. Until I did, on Friday. I didn't go to his source site until well after I posted comments about it at The American Thinker blog. That's where Rush picked it up. Not long after I made the post I began to have doubts about the story's veracity and was saying so in comments at AT, but by that time the damage was done. However, the climb downs and corrections made by Ledeen, Limbaugh and myself were relatively fast as compared to similar situations on the left and we needed no prompting much less pressure to do so. The full story of the mess I had a large part in making:
http://keohane.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-thesis-mess-involving-michael.html
Posted by: Denis Keohane at October 25, 2009 01:19 AM (qa33R)
4
PS - Hours ago I posted a few comments to the Media Matters story, addressing some of their claims and providing some details - but the posts don't seem to have made it past review. Maybe I violated some ground rules...
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910230037
I did acknowledge right up front that I was indeed the vaunted right wing smear machine.
Posted by: Denis Keohane at October 25, 2009 01:39 AM (qa33R)
5
"... this gives the left wing blog Media Matters more than enough excuse to run a headline that begins "So desperate they'll believe anything."
The right isn't the only group "desperate" enough to believe fabricated stories, not that the left will ever admit their own culpability. Love the irony that Rush got bamboozled by a lie after being the victim of one.
Posted by: DoorHold at October 25, 2009 12:09 PM (EeTHH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 20, 2009
Hersh: Pentagon Out to Ruin Obama
From the always fascinating
Seymour Hersh:
"A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him [Obama] get into trouble," he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
"If he gives them the extra troops they're asking for, he loses politically," Hersh said. "And if he doesn't give them the troops, he also loses politically."
The journalist criticized the president for "letting the military do that," and suggested the only way out was for Obama to stand up to them.
"He's either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon," Hersh said. If he doesn't, "this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency."
Funny. I thought Obama was doing a pretty good job of destroying his Presidency on his own.
As for Hersh, he's had some notable successes, and some equally spectacular duds. How are Dick Cheney's death squads working out for you, Seymour?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:15 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Didn't Obama say the war in Afghanistan was the correct war? Or was that only a political lie to make it appear he also was for national security and Bush was just incompetent for starting the wrong war?
We can now truthfully say, "Obama lied men died."
As his hate America Pastor has said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost!."
Posted by: Rick at October 21, 2009 07:34 AM (79jCL)
2
The only thing you can trust about what Hersh says is that it's intended to promote Hersh. It's not that he's dishonest, it's that he has only the barest familiarity with reality.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at October 21, 2009 09:40 AM (ZJ/un)
3
Sy Hersh is still alive? Huh.
Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2009 11:42 AM (yTndK)
4
Um... "comes with the territory of the position of commander in chief"?
Seriously Barry... if you didn't want this responsibility, you shouldn't have applied for the job.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 21, 2009 12:07 PM (7r7wy)
5
Hersh? That guy stays plastered.
Posted by: brando at October 21, 2009 04:31 PM (IPGju)
6
Hersh? Hersh? I thought he invaded Iran along with Cheney's secret assassination squads. How does he manage to send copy back to the states?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 21, 2009 05:10 PM (3O5/e)
7
Hersh is a perennial self-loather that displaces his self hatred onto his nation. But that is too generous. To him, America is not his nation, it is the enemy. Once you understand that then you know who this gentleman really is and what he is about. Make no mistake, with his comrades running this country our days of liberty may be numbered.
Posted by: Ultraman at October 21, 2009 11:01 PM (PDt2C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No Surprises Here: WaPo/ABC Skews Poll for Public Option
Mercy me:
The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it's significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that's when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view.
Remember when I wrote that poll watchers need to remember the recent Gallup poll on party affiliation? Gallup polled 5,000 adults and found that the gap between Democrats and Republicans had closed to the smallest margin since 2005, six points, and had been reduced more than half since the beginning of the year. For the WaPo/ABC poll, though, their sample gap has increased almost 50% during that time.
Given that skew, it's hardly surprising that they find a 57% approval rating for Obama, up three points since last month, almost the entirety of the gap increase since the last poll. His 48% tie on health care should be a significant disapproval instead, and the 45%/51% slide on the deficit has probably expanded at the same rate as the deficit in a survey with a realistic sample.
The purposeful skewing of the polling data is an old political trick, and one increasingly popular among the media, especially when they are more interesting in influencing the news than reporting it. That Dan Balz and Jon Cohen of the Washington Post would use such obviously flawed data suggests they are more interested in advocacy than journalism.
The public does not support government-run health care.
Americans shocked politicians this summer with their opposition to another government takeover, and the they they were none too subtle about it as they showed up at townhall meetings, rallies, and marches.
No amount of media deception can change the fact that Americans are rejecting Obamacare, the media promoting it, and the politicians that an increasing number of Americans feel were put into office not by the American people, but by the media and special interests.
The media and their allied progressive politicians are increasing playing to an audience of themselves.
No wonder Fox News is causing the White House to scream in anger.
Along with a handful of newspapers and new media, they're the only "honest" news left.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The House plan and the one Senate plan have a Government Option, and the Democrats call it the Public Option, because polling has shown that wording polls more favorable then the term Government Option. The Senate Finance Committee has a Public Option that is not the Government Option, as it is structured to be a non-profit co-op. I wonder what the poll results would be if the public would be truthfully informed?
Posted by: Rick at October 20, 2009 03:42 PM (79jCL)
2
Fox News is the only reliable new source?
What has the world come to?
Posted by: MAModerate at October 20, 2009 04:58 PM (Rn8uU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2009
Rush Limbaugh's Critics are Big, Fat Idiots
I don't listen to talk radio, and so I only hear what Rush Limbaugh says when someone else mentions it. That said, he's been on the air as a conservative talker since the mid 1980s, with an audience of 20 million. His political and social views, vocabulary, and style are perhaps more well known than any person on the planet.
That is why recent attempts to attribute a series of false racist quotes to him is so unsettling.
Limbaugh has strong views on many topics, and if he was a hardcore racist, he would have been called out for it decades ago, boycotted, and perhaps forced off the air. But the simple logic it takes to process that thought is easily blinded by hate, and a number of left-wing journalists and bloggers have decided to post various false racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh in an attempt to ruin his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football team.
None of the false quotes even sounds remotely like Limbaugh in tone or substance, and even more tellingly, none are sourced, a red flag to any competent journalist or blogger in a day and age when such things can be easily falsified on the Internet.
Why do these journalists and bloggers lie? Why do they commit an easily disproven libel and slander in order to tar an opponent?
It's about power and control, and the moral relativism that infects them, convincing them that even the most blatant smear is justified if it thwarts their political enemies or can help them achieve even the most temporary victory.
There is a very simple reason that conservative media are ascendant and liberal media are in decline. People have learned that liberal media cannot be trusted to get even basic facts right if their agenda can be forwarded with bias and fraud. Fox News and other conservative outlets may or may not be "fair and balanced," but they certainly comes closer to being the most trusted sources of news, because the American people simply find them more trustworthy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.
1
What the whole mess we now call the MSM has demonstrated is that there are consequences for allowing things to happen. For instance, we allowed most college campuses to be taken over and ruled like little fiefdoms by liberals. Free speech, free thoughts and free association has been eliminated through political correctness and outright intimidation. Conservative speakers now face outright bans on many campuses.
We now have journalism taught in most of the major colleges not as the what, when, why and where; but as facilitation for a particular ideology, and I think you know what that ideology is without me pointing it out.
Now we have a hate crimes bill coming before the Congress that will be passed with little or no fanfare that will do to the rest of the country what has been done on college campuses. Barack has signed on to a UN passed resolution that further restricts our rights. If we as a nation don't wake up damn soon, we will lose all our freedoms.
Posted by: templar knight at October 14, 2009 10:30 AM (968gv)
2
Conservative white is the new 1950s black. Gotta give the Left their target to polarize, hate, attack and blame for all the ills of their inept and corrupt administration.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 14, 2009 11:25 AM (7r7wy)
3
Rush is trying to get back at Jesse and the Reverand. The problem is that if he says something bad about them my response is "so, I know these guys suck." Why does anyone listen to them to begin with?
Posted by: David at October 14, 2009 03:31 PM (dccG2)
4
The sad thing in this post are the terms conservative media and liberal media. When the word media is preceded by either of those words, we're certainly no longer talking about media (news). We're talking about editorial viewpoints.
I don't know nor care if Rush is or isn't a racist. For anyone who care to spend 10 minutes doing just a little bit of research, there is a preponderance of evidence that Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting "facts". His agenda is to divide the American people and play off their ignorance and fears. His very living and his wealth depend on it.
The only thing more disgusting than Rush's venom is the sad fact that so many people confuse it with Truth.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:01 PM (byA+E)
5
Such a preponderance of evidence that you don't offer proof of it? Perhaps you were going to use WikiQuotes or the irrefutable first-hand knowledge of a Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker?
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 04:43 PM (A5r0Z)
6
Dude said "Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting facts etc etc"
Dude, if you would pay any attention whatsoever to Rush you would realize how utterly incorrect that statement was. Why don't you listen to him for about a month, and then report back with what you actually find?
Posted by: Rick at October 14, 2009 05:17 PM (FWmwx)
7
AF, Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar" if you want to read some evidence. There's plenty of it there.
Rick, the thought of listening to Limbaugh for a month is revolting. Years ago I listened to him in order to learn how a conman operates. He's very good at what he does. Of course, he isn't to be taken seriously as any sort of news source. His success depends on keeping the right wing stirred up. That's what he does best and he surely isn't going to let the truth get in the way of that objective.
No thanks. I won't be listening to Rush anymore.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 06:27 PM (byA+E)
8
Dude, you're crazy in looking at Limbaugh as a news source. He's a news commentator, not a reporter, and his agenda is to make a living giving an opinion that can be taken or left. And if it promulgates the cause of conservatism as he sees it, that's just icing on the cake to him.
People listen to Rush to hear his take on the news...which he typically cites and then recites on-air along with relevant sound-clips if available. Citing a Google search as the basis of your accusations is about as baseless as the charges of racism made against him.
Posted by: Shwiggie at October 14, 2009 06:42 PM (Wr78s)
9
Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar"
...and the top two or three hundred hits will be lefty sites that have an axe to grind against him. About as trustworthy as the anonymice who invented these quotes and smeared him with them.
As for what sort of credibility you should give him: no less than any other commentator, and more than many. While he is neither as smart nor as well-informed as he thinks he is on many subjects, he's a very gifted political commentator. He's also one of the simplest, most straightforward men you'll ever meet. He is not a con man. He's not trying to trick anybody. He has two goals: to push the conservative political philosophy for as long as there's breath in his body, and to have as much fun as he can get away with while doing it.
Posted by: wolfwalker at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (c+TqP)
10
Dude, your answer to my observation that you cite nothing to back up your assertions is to suggest a Google search? Seriously? If I'm to understand this correctly, whatever I find on the internet will be true. Do you work for a major media outlet of some sort? You seem to exhibit the same work ethic as MSNBC or CNN when it comes to making an assertion and backing it up (Hint, that means none).
With the news that Rush has been dropped from the investment group making the bid, it'll be really interesting to see how many journalists, TV commentators and news organizations are named in the slander/libel lawsuit.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 08:05 PM (A5r0Z)
11
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him another non issue to stir up the ditto heads.
It would make no difference what links I might post showing that Rush wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face. Your very statement that the first 200-300 returns would be leftie sites proves my point that YOU wouldn't believe it. I'm not lazy. I'm just not going to do your work for you. Wouldn't do any good anyway. To be clear, no, I'm not suggesting that whatever you find on the internet is the truth; far from it! I am suggesting that you do a bit of research for yourself.
I KNOW that Rush isn't a news source. Many people who listen to him everyday (I don't know how they stand it) DO believe that he's in the news business.
There is one bit of hope that I get from Rush. As long as he's the face of the Republican Party and considered by many to be their spokesperson, that's good for those of us who are more reality based.
Rush needs one crisis after another to survive. If one doesn't exist, he'll create one. That's how he makes his living.
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:02 AM (byA+E)
12
Let's see, you're the one making the assertion that Rush lies yet you won't provide one example to back that up. I think it has more to do with you being unable to come up with something that isn't Wiki-libel, than any desire on your part to educate us to the vast wealth of truth you claim to possess. You don't agree with him, or most of us, which is quite clear but when your bluff is called to provide a concrete example you simply can't produce.
If it were truth, as you claim, and not a left-wing hack website that you obviously don't hold to the same standards that you claim Rush should follow, a simple copy/paste link should suffice to educate us supposedly "ignorant" folk. As it stands, you simply look like someone who points a gun with the giant red "BANG!" flag on a stick hanging out of the barrel.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 15, 2009 12:38 AM (A5r0Z)
Posted by: UNRR at October 15, 2009 07:24 AM (2D++g)
14
"Fire can't melt steel. Google it!" - Rosie
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:11 AM (IPGju)
15
Dude, be honest, you never did listen to Rush to any extent. If you did, and feel the way you do, then your brain is vapid.
I'm soory to be so offensive, but when up against an obstinate liberal as yourself is hard not to be.
Posted by: Rick at October 15, 2009 09:16 AM (FWmwx)
16
"Dude, be honest"
Good luck with that.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:31 AM (IPGju)
17
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him a cause of action to sue the people who've been sliming him.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 12:09 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2009
Chris Matthews Fantacizes About Rush Limbaugh Dying a Violent Death
Uttered this morning:
You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:29 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Whereas when matthews blows up it will be from drinking to long from obumble's crotch-fountain.
Posted by: emdfl at October 13, 2009 03:20 PM (sBfp9)
2
I'm holding my breath waiting for the left-wing blogs to slam him for this hate speech.
Holding .... holding ...
Posted by: Steve at October 13, 2009 04:14 PM (mruUD)
3
I thought Mathews was dead. Maybe only his brain died and he is a zombie.
Posted by: David at October 13, 2009 04:23 PM (dccG2)
4
Hmm, I thought all of the threatning langauge only came from the right. Well, at least that is what the Dems and their media tells me.
Posted by: citizenofmanassas at October 13, 2009 06:43 PM (HD5QP)
5
So a radio commentator is a threat to the President of the USA now? The POTUS is that weak?
Truly, as Orrin Judd said - the clothes have no Emperor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at October 13, 2009 07:37 PM (TUWci)
6
Seems like a hate crime to me. Frog march him in, toss him in with another deviant and throw away the key.
Oh crap. He'd probably like that. We're screwed.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 13, 2009 07:58 PM (7r7wy)
7
Hard to believe what a piece of garbage matthews and many on the left have become.
Posted by: rog at October 14, 2009 08:35 AM (cFGyS)
8
Oh, I don't think that anyone is going to have "jam a big CO2 pellet in his face" for Rush to blow up. He's like the recorded messages in the opening scenes of, mmmm, I forget the name of the series, that self destruct. Thus it shall be with Rush.
I have a dream!!
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:09 PM (byA+E)
9
Dude is back!
Libs fantacising about detonating Rush Limbaugh, and Dude is right there confirming that he shares the same view about murder.
Not a big surprise there.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (IPGju)
10
Yep, Brando, I'm back. I can see that you haven't changed a bit while I was away. You're still in the habit of attributing things to people that they didn't say. You and Rush must be related. Neither of you will let the truth get in the way of your story, huh?
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:09 AM (byA+E)
11
Who's this "they" you keep talking about? Related? No. Just because I don't think he should be murdered, means that you declare that we must be related. That's just plain silly. We're not related. You got caught lying again.
Zing.
I'm right and you're wrong again. How many times is this now? It's fun on my end, but it must stink for you. Oh, and when I say wrong, I don't just mean 'mistaken', but rather 'wrong' as a person.
And I'll say it again. These dreams about blowing up people who disagree with you aren't healthy.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 01:20 AM (LjEkE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 09, 2009
Miami Herald goes Race-Baiting
According to the Miami
Herald headline:
Fla. GOP members shoot Muslim targets at gun range
This is the target they were shooting at.
Now, do you see a Muslim, or a terrorist pointing a rocket-propelled grenade?
You can find this and other racist GOP shooting subjects at, uh, Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.
The real racism here is that several layers of producers and editors at the Miami Herald thinks "Muslim" and "terrorist" are synonyms. The next time they want to look for people with racial/cultural biases, they'll have to go far.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So clearly, they are saying that anyone shooting an RPG is a muslim- boy and they are calling the GOP racists?!?!
I read that story and was really curious just what they meant by "muslim targets"
Posted by: Scott at October 10, 2009 12:57 AM (giIn8)
2
IRL, if you hit the little flat spot on the cone, it becomes a reactive target.....
(11 Bravo humor %-)
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 10, 2009 01:50 AM (d1FhN)
3
I suppose if a similar group used a cut-out of a Wehrmacht soldier during WWII, then the Miami Herald would consider that "race baiting" too. You think?
Posted by: So Cal Jim at October 10, 2009 01:24 PM (Dr86Q)
4
Is the Miami Herald implying rhat all muslims are terrorists? Better call CAIR!
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 10, 2009 02:05 PM (3O5/e)
5
They're racist, stupid, and
wrong -- the keffiyeh isn't a Muslim thing, it's an Arab thing. True, many Muslims wear it, but it's also worn by Arab Christians.
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at October 11, 2009 06:11 AM (61312)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2009
Shovel-Ready
Writing in Tina Brown's
Daily Beast, Conor Friedersdorf takes issue with the success of Andrew Breitbart's media outlets, claiming that Breitbart should try to meet the standards of the...
New York Times?
Andrew Breitbart is the man in the middle of the current madness. Credit him for sponsoring Big Government, the site that broke the ACORN story and prompted the Times to begin monitoring breaking news on partisan sites. These are substantial accomplishments that improve the state of journalism.
But Mr. Breitbart's role hardly ends there.
As a proprietor of Big Government and Big Hollywood, part of the team that runs The Drudge Report, and a regular guest on Fox News, especially Sean Hannity's show, he is a leader among folks who complain that the Times is a pernicious force in American life—that it ignores stories that cut against its ideological bent, too often makes mistakes in its reporting, and gives insufficient consideration to ideological insights other than those held by its staff. This is somewhat odd given that Mr. Breitbart's media empire, and the outlets with which he most closely associates himself, are thoroughly ideological enterprises, publish few if any ideologically heterodox pieces, seldom if ever correct factual mistakes, and ignore liberal insights entirely.
Friedersdorf's screed is daft, to put it mildly.
The idea of an unbiased, objective media is a late 20th century invention proffered primarily by those within the media establishment that wanted to continue to push their ideas and ideals without being challenged by upstarts.
Sadly for Mr. Friedersdorf, that illusion was dashed long ago, mostly due to the heavy liberal bias that manifested itself time and again not just in how a story was covered, but which stories were covered to the exclusion of others.
What Breitbart's various sites provide are platforms for a center-right view of the world, with insights every bit as valid as those that the left-leaning media tries to sell. Apparently, the idea of a free marketplace of ideas isn't one critics admire once put into actual practice.
Are Big Government and Big Hollywood ideologically-driven? Unreservedly. But more importantly, Breitbart's sites all wear their viewpoint unabashedly on their proverbial sleeves... if only the Times and other news outlets weakly feigning objectivity would display such intellectual honesty!
But honesty is not part of their business model, nor is objectivity, nor is competence, or accuracy. If he thinks otherwise, Mr. Friedersdorf may need to check the prescription on his rose-colored glasses.
That said, Friedersdorf's hissy fit at the building of a conservative media empire that provides an alternative to the worldview he would like to protect is hardly surprising.
His specific criticisms, however, are amusing, especially coming from someone who writes at the Atlantic, home to infamous Trig Truther, hypocrite and ideologue Andrew Sullivan.
The temerity to criticize conservative media for inaccuracies and bias is laughable considering the dismal track record of the left-leaning legacy media, but the fact that Friedersdorf published his thoughts in Tina Brown's Daily Beast—the left-leaning, status quo-defending, botoxed and digitized old media-with-a-new-face—is even more ripe, considering that Brown's own husband abused the Beast in an article full of half-truths and outright lies that Brown refused to retract or correct.
Both old and new media have significant room for improvement, but demanding that a successful and growing enterprise follow the example of a legacy media spiraling into the ground is, quite frankly, absurd.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:57 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Should Breitbart also aspire to have the values of his offices exceed the value of his company?
Friedersdorf is a moron.
Posted by: Pablo at October 06, 2009 12:02 PM (yTndK)
2
Conor Friedersdorf's got nothing. He is bereft of new ideas and is reduced to sniping at those whose success he envies. He is a pathetic nobody that somehow has come to believe that the world owes him fame and that the "conservative movement"(whatever that is) should pay attention to him.
And that's his good points...
Posted by: diogenes online at October 06, 2009 12:13 PM (2MrBP)
3
This just further cements Conor's status as a hack.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 06, 2009 12:14 PM (3O5/e)
4
I'm not sure why anyone would object to setting some standards for journalism. Whether you like it or not some things just "are" or "are not" and won't fit nicely into a narrow, predetermined ideological storyline. It's simplistic and myopic. The right needs to stop being so touchy. It only makes them look small and frankly immature. The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts. Clean up your act, follow some basic rules of journalism and you'll be taken seriously. Shepard Smith on Fox has begun to do that. And don't fall back on the excuse that the media is biased. You have to be better than them. Not the same or worse.
Posted by: gus burlimah at October 06, 2009 12:56 PM (faIKL)
5
I've seen people call Friedersdorf a conservative, presumably because David Brooks needs company.
Posted by: Steve at October 06, 2009 01:35 PM (5//5D)
6
Gus,
The NYT pounded the Abu Graib story for 3 months for the purpose of using it as a lightning rod to get servicemen killed. They were successfull too.
It was their front page story, every single day, for over a month. Calling that bias and pro-terrorist is an understatement. It's a shame that you rushed to defend it. The NYT owes our entire armed forces a huge, heartfelt apology.
"And don't fall back on the excuse that the media is biased."
Um. Wow. You deny it? Yeah, that's an 'excuse'?
The right needs to stop being so touchy.
...about the murder of servicemen? Are you serious? Reread your comment again, and if you think about it, you'll see that you're wrong and rude. Remember that the NYT routinely just makes stuff up, expecially if it can be used to slander the US Military. Heck, they even say that Sarin is a conventional weapon, and that WP is a WMD. Straight up lies. That's not even counting that Steven Glass stuff.
And when you stand back and look at the NYT's lies, your level-headed conclusion is that CY is nuts and must clean up
his act?
It makes you look small and frankly immature. (these are your words)
Is there any chance that you'll come around?
Posted by: brando at October 06, 2009 02:22 PM (IPGju)
7
>>"The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts."
Center leaning folks like Gus Burlimah, David Axelrod, and Barack Obama.
Posted by: Steve at October 06, 2009 02:48 PM (5//5D)
8
I will tell you guys something. At first I really didn't want Obama to win The election at first. After he was voted in, I realized how much smarter Obama seamed to be Than our previous president. Not that I'm trying to diss bush or anything its just so true. But now I'm really just curious about whats going to happen next, Whats our future looking up to and why is so much of our tax money being thrown away. Or is it being thrown away? Maybe Obama has it all under control. I don't know.
Anyway their is an other website I go to called Http:wintersboots.com it a good blog. Thanks for the opinions guys.
Later
Jason
Http://winterscoats.com
Posted by: jason at October 07, 2009 08:49 PM (XsCp6)
9
The reason the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the legitimate stories the right brings up is that they are so layered in hysterical, partisan name calling that most center leaning folks just think you're nuts.
They can't do journalism because people are calling each other names? The stories can't be told because partisan people are also telling them?
That's hogwash, gus.
Posted by: Pablo at October 08, 2009 10:03 AM (yTndK)
10
Conor has proven himself to be nothing more than a little bitch looking for a handout. He is no conservative, albeit he has shopped around using that label, advertising himself as a spokesman for conservatism who is willing to trash it for a few bucks. He is a media whore. And a cheap one at that.
Posted by: templar knight at October 08, 2009 02:39 PM (968gv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
63kb generated in CPU 0.0602, elapsed 0.1834 seconds.
58 queries taking 0.1685 seconds, 214 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.