A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Jesus. Who owns a million dollars worth of umbrellas, anyway? What is she, a collector?

Evan?

Sup, bro?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub [list]kos, etc.

By finding some lefty blogs who openly acknowledge financial ties with campaigns (you forgot this one), what do you think you've established? Do you honestly see no differences between a blog that's open about this support and a journalist taking money on the side? Kos never made any pretense at objectivety -- he's always been open that he's acting as an organizer, not a commentator. (Which is why I don't usually read his blog.)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• I spent this weekend in Burlington, VT, where we officially accepted work on behalf of presidential candidate Howard Dean.

http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002972.html

Good to see that you're picking up the slack for Hank. When I asked him about his Tourette's episode on this point, he didn't seem inclined to get off the bumper sticker.

I don't think the stories are equivalent, though. Do you? Had Armstrong, like Kos, disclosed the relationship at the time that he had taken took the money, his story would be far different, and probably wouldn't even have been illegal.

Of course, this would've meant that he'd have had to interrupt the VP mid-rant about the nonobjectivity of the fucking MSM, so I can understand how that might have been, you know, awkward.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Of course, this would've meant that he'd have had to interrupt the VP mid-rant about the nonobjectivity of the fucking MSM, so I can understand how that might have been, you know, awkward.

See, that's why he should have hired a PR firm to help him develop a strategy for disclosing his financial relationship to the public.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Good to see that you're picking up the slack for Hank. When I asked him about his Tourette's episode on this point, he didn't seem inclined to get off the bumper sticker.

I don't think the stories are equivalent, though. Do you? Had Armstrong, like Kos, disclosed the relationship at the time that he had taken took the money, his story would be far different, and probably wouldn't even have been illegal.

Of course, this would've meant that he'd have had to interrupt the VP mid-rant about the nonobjectivity of the fucking MSM, so I can understand how that might have been, you know, awkward.

To both you and Ty.

The only difference I see is that tax payor money was used by the administration, which clealy makes it a much worse offense on the part of the administration, but does not really effect the fault of the "journalist." The fact that Kos disclosed this is a step in the right direction, but frankly, for that disclosure to be effective it should be reiterated in any piece he writes about Dean.

The larger point is that this seems to be more than an isolated event. I don't believe for a second that Kos, Williams, and the other blogger paid by Dean are alone in this.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The larger point is that this seems to be more than an isolated event. I don't believe for a second that Kos, Williams, and the other blogger paid by Dean are alone in this.

Bloggers are not the mainstream media.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Bloggers are not the mainstream media.

Where is the line? Many bloggers appear regularly on MSM TV shows (see e.g., Andrew Sullivan). Many are published regularly or from time to time in MSM (see Glenn Reynolds). The blogosphere (I hate that word) holds itself out as an alternative to MSM. I don't see why the form of publication should make a difference.

I trust the blogs more than I trust most MSM publications.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but .... well, to be .... um... gulp.

To be fair to Hank (man, THAT was hard to say), Stalin didn't say it was okay for the Nazis to kill American troops*.

1 good thought for Sidd.

*at least not until they joined the East German forces

And FDR was the Commander-in-Chief. It's one thing for the CinC to decide that policy requires cooperating with the devil. It's another for a senator to do so.

If Hank's quote is accurate, Kerry should not have met with this guy. Period.

2 good thoughts for Sidd

OTOH, Ty, you pointed out quite clearly that Hank's sources maybe a bit, well, fucked, and his quotes somewhat more so. If you could pull this all together in a memo for me, that would help me fully assess the situation.

Opps -1 for Sidd. Blog quotes are acceptable facts for the PB e.g. In re 5000 post of Tyrone Slothrop

eta: I read GGG's post,

oh-oh. another bad decision. another -1. Down to zero total.

and that doesn't change my mind. I do have a problem with Senators, particularly recent failed Prez'l candidates, putting their noses into foreign policy in this way.

Way to go! +1

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Where is the line? Many bloggers appear regularly on MSM TV shows (see e.g., Andrew Sullivan). Many are published regularly or from time to time in MSM (see Glenn Reynolds). The blogosphere (I hate that word) holds itself out as an alternative to MSM. I don't see why the form of publication should make a difference.

I trust the blogs more than I trust most MSM publications.

My little blog gets cited by some of the big boys from time to time. Does that mean that I'm part of the mainstream media?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My little blog gets cited by some of the big boys from time to time. Does that mean that I'm part of the mainstream media?

I'd make a "I'd like for you to be biased against me" joke, but it's the wrong board.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My little blog gets cited by some of the big boys from time to time. Does that mean that I'm part of the mainstream media?

Depends. Has O'Reilley screamed at you until that vein bulged in his forehead, and cut your mic? If so, you're in.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
To both you and Ty.

The only difference I see is that tax payor money was used by the administration, which clealy makes it a much worse offense on the part of the administration, but does not really effect the fault of the "journalist." The fact that Kos disclosed this is a step in the right direction, but frankly, for that disclosure to be effective it should be reiterated in any piece he writes about Dean.

The larger point is that this seems to be more than an isolated event. I don't believe for a second that Kos, Williams, and the other blogger paid by Dean are alone in this.

You're only willing to fault the administration for spending money, but you're being obtuse about the differences between how money is spent. Do you not see a difference between, e.g., the Pentagon spending $10,000 on avionics equpment for a helicopter, and the Pentagon spending $10,000 to pay FOX not to run unfavorable stories? Of course you can. Spending government money on PR firms is one thing; spending it to buy favorable coverage from a journalist is quite another. Much of what PR firms do is entirely legitimate, but the latter smacks of fraud -- it's deceiving people.

And Kos is not a journalist. Never claimed to be. The harder case, IMHO, is the South Dakota bloggers who pretending to be independent but in fact were on the payroll of the Thune campaign. Even there, though, most of us get that there is a difference between someone who holds themself out as a journalist and someone who just starts putting stuff up on a web page.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My little blog gets cited by some of the big boys from time to time. Does that mean that I'm part of the mainstream media?

No. But it does mean that if you want to be taken seriously and considered to have integrity, you should disclose any conflicts of interest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Yglesias applauds the Bushies for worrying about an East Coast tsunami:

GOOD CALL. I'd like to take the opportunity to offer some rare words of praise to the Bush administration for its decision to support expanding the tsunami warning system to include the Atlantic Ocean. This is exactly the sort of issue politicians usually do the wrong thing on. Tsunamis are very rare in the Atlantic, so such an endeavor can be easily caricatured as a waste of money. Indeed, The New York Times article describing the decision doesn't even bother to explain what it is that those of us worried about this issue are worried about: La Palma in the Canary Islands:

• [H]uge landslides and the mega-tsunami that they cause are extremely rare - the last one happened 4,000 years ago on the island of Réunion. The growing concern is that the ideal conditions for just such a landslide - and consequent mega-tsunami - now exist on the island of La Palma in the Canaries. In 1949 the southern volcano on the island erupted. During the eruption an enormous crack appeared across one side of the volcano, as the western half slipped a few metres towards the Atlantic before stopping in its tracks. Although the volcano presents no danger while it is quiescent, scientists believe the western flank will give way completely during some future eruption on the summit of the volcano. In other words, any time in the next few thousand years a huge section of southern La Palma, weighing 500 thousand million tonnes, will fall into the Atlantic ocean.
  What will happen when the volcano on La Palma collapses? Scientists predict that it will generate a wave that will be almost inconceivably destructive, far bigger than anything ever witnessed in modern times. It will surge across the entire Atlantic in a matter of hours, engulfing the whole US east coast, sweeping away everything in its path up to 20km inland. Boston would be hit first, followed by New York, then all the way down the coast to Miami and the Caribbean.

Needless to say, that would be very bad, and it would be well worth spending some money to make sure we have the chance to minimize the loss of life.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're only willing to fault the administration for spending money, but you're being obtuse about the differences between how money is spent. Do you not see a difference between, e.g., the Pentagon spending $10,000 on avionics equpment for a helicopter, and the Pentagon spending $10,000 to pay FOX not to run unfavorable stories? Of course you can. Spending government money on PR firms is one thing; spending it to buy favorable coverage from a journalist is quite another. Much of what PR firms do is entirely legitimate, but the latter smacks of fraud -- it's deceiving people.

For the umpteenth time, I agree with you on this issue. Can we move on?

And Kos is not a journalist. Never claimed to be. The harder case, IMHO, is the South Dakota bloggers who pretending to be independent but in fact were on the payroll of the Thune campaign. Even there, though, most of us get that there is a difference between someone who holds themself out as a journalist and someone who just starts putting stuff up on a web page.

Well that begs the question - what is a journalist? Or are you saying he's just an editorialist? If so, I think an editorialist should be held to the same conflicts standard - he or she just doesn't have to be objective.