A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

It's a good thing that Turbo Tax sends me a .pdf of my returns, so it's easier for me to just post them on the blog so they know where I'm coming from when I bitch about the street construction in front of my house.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
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.)

It's Apples (federal money) and Oranges (campaign money),

Except you have to laugh at the Orange, since - although on the take himself - he was so overly critical of the Apple.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
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.

So your boy Josh is just some internet maverick, while the true "journalists" with integrity are the television people like ...[drumroll please].....Dan Rather???

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

I linked to the Kerry-Edwards campaign blog a few posts back to make the point that just because you post stuff on the internet, it doesn't implicitly suggest that you are holding yourself out as an impartial, disinterested observer. Like Kos, it's perfectly possible to hold yourself out as an advocate.

If you hold yourself out as a journalist, you have no business taking money to slant your coverage. Everyone here agrees about that -- your question seems to be, why doesn't that principle extend to others, like bloggers, who say things that the public can read? I think it's a question of whether they're trying to deceive people. Williams was. Kos wasn't. IMHO, the Thune bloggers were, but it's a closer call there.

If you are really bothered by these sorts of conflicts, you should check out astroturfing campaigns. This happens particularly on the GOP side, since the GOP more commonly aligns itself with corporate interests that have more money than popular support, and would like to pretend otherwise. Astroturfing involves fake citizens groups, the planting of paid-for op-ed pieces, and so on. Relatedly, TechCentralStation is a collosal conflict of interest -- it's basically running op-eds as an extension of corporate lobbying efforts, but you have to very closely and read between the lines to try to figure this out.

I will not pretend that these sorts of conflicts never happen on the Dem side, but it's far more pervasive on the GOP side, and the reason is simple: You have monied interests trying to turn that money into the appearance of public support.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So your boy Josh is just some internet maverick, while the true "journalists" with integrity are the television people like ...[drumroll please].....Dan Rather???

Josh Marshall is journalist, and Glenn Reynolds is a law professor, and because they blog in their real names, people rightly can expect that they will live up to the professional standards that they live by in the rest of their life. Many of the most interesting blogs are put up by people who have some expertise IRL and are making that expertise accessable to the rest of us.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

[Whew. OK, here we go. Be brave!]

Hi. I just need to say that ... I've received compensation from the Chinaski campaign.

There, I said it. My GOD, do I feel better.

You should know that the "payments" that I received were nominal, and did not impact my views as a poster to this Internet forum in any way, because I already agreed with the things I was asked to post about!

Well, sort of. I have to agree twice with him, and I still have ... uh, two to go. Still, you get the idea.

In no way has this arrangement colored my judgments, endorsements, or arguments as an Internet poster, and it will remain so, no matter how many times Hank promises that he'll do better next time.

I certainly hope that this disclosure will not impact your view of my integrity, nor the seriousness with which folks here take my posts.

Thank you for your continued support,
Gattigap

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[Whew. OK, here we go. Be brave!]

Hi. I just need to say that ... I've received compensation from the Chinaski campaign.

There, I said it. My GOD, do I feel better.

You should know that the "payments" that I received were nominal, and did not impact my views as a poster to this Internet forum in any way, because I already agreed with the things I was asked to post about!

Well, sort of. I have to agree twice with him, and I still have ... uh, two to go. Still, you get the idea.

In no way has this arrangement colored my judgments, endorsements, or arguments as an Internet poster, and it will remain so, no matter how many times Hank promises that he'll do better next time.

I certainly hope that this disclosure will not impact your view of my integrity, nor the seriousness with which folks here take my posts.

Thank you for your continued support,
Gattigap

Hank, I want money too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Hank, I want money too.

If there has been anyone more generous than Hank in supporting these boards, I would like to know who it is.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there has been anyone more generous than Hank in supporting these boards, I would like to know who it is.

WTF are you talking about? I want money for me. Cash. Or expensive jewely, I suppose.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Hank, I want money too.

Oh, dearest! That would be illegal for a whole nother reason.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[Whew. OK, here we go. Be brave!]

Hi. I just need to say that ... I've received compensation from the Chinaski campaign.

There, I said it. My GOD, do I feel better.

You should know that the "payments" that I received were nominal, and did not impact my views as a poster to this Internet forum in any way, because I already agreed with the things I was asked to post about!

Well, sort of. I have to agree twice with him, and I still have ... uh, two to go. Still, you get the idea.

In no way has this arrangement colored my judgments, endorsements, or arguments as an Internet poster, and it will remain so, no matter how many times Hank promises that he'll do better next time.

I certainly hope that this disclosure will not impact your view of my integrity, nor the seriousness with which folks here take my posts.

Thank you for your continued support,
Gattigap

If I paid you to post here, it wouldn't be equivalent to the bribes paid by Cheney to a journalist. It would be more like how the Globetrotters pay a salary to the Washington Generals.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If I paid you to post here, it wouldn't be equivalent to the bribes paid by Cheney to a journalist. It would be more like how the Globetrotters pay a salary to the Washington Generals.

HCPOTD.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If I paid you to post here, it wouldn't be equivalent to the bribes paid by Cheney to a journalist. It would be more like how the Globetrotters pay a salary to the Washington Generals.

Hunh. I didn't know that the Generals were proving out the limitations of athletic performance during the refractory period.

Who knew?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh, dearest! That would be illegal for a whole nother reason.

OK, fine, make it jewelry. Gifts. They are gifts, Hank.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.
  
  Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
  
  Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.
  
  President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.
  
  "At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."
  
  Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Washington Post