Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
And, if your response is, put out a rightist one of the same character, I think that begs the question. My demand for ethics should not be met with "well, then, drop your own ethics, and it'll be fair."

It's an odd thing --- I would certainly want the Richmond Times-Dispatch to be more friendly to my candidates and my issues, but I don't think that there is an exact centerpoint of coverage at which I could declare it "fair." What determines fairness is not the writer's bias --- it's his ethics (the same ones that don't apply to Drudge or other new media, 'cause getting the story out there without judgment is their only job).

The right's present complaint about the media is not that it is often or even occassionally wrong, it's that it's "biased" --- that its story selection and emphasis is always disfavorable to the sitting government. It sounds to me like the right is satisfied merely to point out bias in media, not solve it. That's so its constituency takes a huge credibility discount from what it's hearing from the media and (at least at the moment) a boost from credibility for government.

Ask not whether the media is biased; ask whether the story is wrong. Otherwise, it's the same "attack the messenger" problem you usually decry.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Markets, baby. Trust the market.

Better make sure to dial back your party's rants against CEO pay, then.

[Gattigap]

US Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA) has abruptly resigned and dropped his re-election bid, among rumors that he's gay.

Schrock gave no explanation for his resignation, instead citing unspecified allegations that “called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District.”

It appears, however, that a gay rights blog is accusing Schrock of having engaged in homosexual activity, and calls him hypocritical for supporting FMA and opposing gays in the military.

The site offers no proof, and Schrock isn't commenting, so it's hard to know what the truth is. In any event, Schrock is 52, has an adult son, and represents the Norfolk/VA Beach area of Virginia -- it's hard to see how this would play well there.

VA GOP officials are scrambling to find a replacement candidate by the Friday deadline. Sadly, Alan Keyes is unavailable.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Better make sure to dial back your party's rants against CEO pay, then.

We own stock, too, you know. And as a shareholder, I think both Ben and Jerry have earned their pay packages.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It appears, however, that a gay rights blog is accusing Schrock of having engaged in homosexual activity, and calls him hypocritical for supporting FMA and opposing gays in the military.

This doesn't follow. If I were gay, I would be more likely to oppose gays in the military. That way, I could look forward to a gay presidential candidate who just shrugs when asked about his military record.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We own stock, too, you know.

Of course you do. How else could you justify the outrage? Not just because people are getting rich. Wouldn't want to lose Michael Moore's support. Or Teresa's.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
US Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA) has abruptly resigned and dropped his re-election bid, among rumors that he's gay.

Schrock gave no explanation for his resignation, instead citing unspecified allegations that “called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District.”

It appears, however, that a gay rights blog is accusing Schrock of having engaged in homosexual activity, and calls him hypocritical for supporting FMA and opposing gays in the military.

The site offers no proof, and Schrock isn't commenting, so it's hard to know what the truth is. In any event, Schrock is 52, has an adult son, and represents the Norfolk/VA Beach area of Virginia -- it's hard to see how this would play well there.

VA GOP officials are scrambling to find a replacement candidate by the Friday deadline. Sadly, Alan Keyes is unavailable.

My understanding is that the blog is dedicated to outting Republicans (and their staff members) who have publically decried homosexuality but privately are practioners. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that.

On the one hand, I really, really have a problem with outting people who aren't ready to be outted. I've seen how hard it can be when the person wants the whole wide world to know that he's gay. To go through that involuntarily must be agonizing. (BTW, in my experience, recently outted men are a fucking pain in the ass.)

On the other hand, he's a public servant holding a public position that is clearly at odds with the way he lives his life (if it's true that he's a homosexual), and it does seem rather hypocritical to espouse such an anti-homosexual view while practicing otherwise.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What determines fairness is not the writer's bias --- it's his ethics

Semantics, I think. To produce a paper full of erstwhile "news", where the selection and spin of that news is biased, is unethical.

The right's present complaint about the media is not that it is often or even occassionally wrong, it's that it's "biased" --- that its story selection and emphasis is always disfavorable to the sitting government. It sounds to me like the right is satisfied merely to point out bias in media, not solve it.

Meaning, at first point, that you accept the existence of that bias (or ethical transgression, however you want to put it), but we're just not doing enough to fix it? If I tell you that you are stealing, is the pressure on me to then fix it, else I lose my standing to complain?

Ask not whether the media is biased; ask whether the story is wrong. Otherwise, it's the same "attack the messenger" problem you usually decry.

The "media" either ignores the Swifties story, or tells it in such a fashion as to communicate its disgust with those partisan liars. The AWOL story, of course, got huge, repeated, glowing, front-page treatment, even though each story had to end with "we don't know what this means, but we're bringin it to you, 'cuz it's NEWS!" Is that story factually wrong? No, those records existed. But each story seemed to be embued with a slant - a flavor - an emphasis - that sought to make the reader think "this reflects badly on Bush", but they do not draw that conclusion at all on the Kerry stories. They have applied their standards to one side, and ignored them for the other. They editorialize in favor of their biases in a dishonest way to make the reader accept those editorializations as part of the news.

And, Markets? Do I then get to apply commercial speech standards? If the NYT put "fighting for a liberal world" in its masthead, I think I would back off. NRO puts its own equivalent on its masthead, as does Rush. What the NYT does is dishonest. And, if the Hemmorhoid Times gives out a right-wing slant in the same way, while hiding behind "we just report", they're dishonest, too.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This doesn't follow. If I were gay, I would be more likely to oppose gays in the military. That way, I could look forward to a gay presidential candidate who just shrugs when asked about his military record.

And, he could support a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriages and be gay. Now, if he's pro-"state's rights" it's more difficult.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

On the other hand, he's a public servant holding a public position that is clearly at odds with the way he lives his life (if it's true that he's a homosexual), and it does seem rather hypocritical to espouse such an anti-homosexual view while practicing otherwise.

It strikes me as rather unfortunate that a person in a particular group is presumed to be hypocritical unless that person follows the dominant views of that group, or that group's interest groups. In the long run, it really doesn't even benefit the group because it assures that any gay (or black, hispanic, female, whatever candidate) will toe the "gay" party line (or whichever), making broader support all the more challenging. ("Oh, he's the 'gay' candidate? Well I guess I know where he's got to stand on everything")

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Meaning, at first point, that you accept the existence of that bias (or ethical transgression, however you want to put it), but we're just not doing enough to fix it? If I tell you that you are stealing, is the pressure on me to then fix it, else I lose my standing to complain?

Originally posted by bilmore
If all the Kerry people simply put their hated tax break into an envelope and sent it in to their own choice of charity, I'm betting we could have wiped out poverty. But, no, that wouldn't be possible, because the fact that the enemy is getting away with something is far more important than the facial excuse of "we love the disadvantaged, and you hate them".

Don't mean to be a quote stalker, but this sure looks like a flip flop to me.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Eggsactly. If you live in the Northeast or parts of, say, the Upper Midwest, your big city papers are going to resonate with the blue collar workers who (used to) read the afternoon paper after the whistle. A paper that resonates with readership will survive; one that targets a minority view is less likely to.

One exception being the Chicago Tribune, which was long a right-wing paper under the stewardship of Col. McCormick. Not so much anymore, but they still have a slight lean to the right. Of course the Sun-Times balances it out, though even that paper seems to have moderated a bit.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It strikes me as rather unfortunate that a person in a particular group is presumed to be hypocritical unless that person follows the dominant views of that group, or that group's interest groups. In the long run, it really doesn't even benefit the group because it assures that any gay (or black, hispanic, female, whatever candidate) will toe the "gay" party line (or whichever), making broader support all the more challenging. ("Oh, he's the 'gay' candidate? Well I guess I know where he's got to stand on everything")

Cool. Demonize an opponent by showing that he shares that one attribute that you are fighting to make acceptable. On all sorts of psychological levels, this is strategic idiocy.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That's "two" as in "two more months."

Until what? Until he bathes?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Don't mean to be a quote stalker, but this sure looks like a flip flop to me.

Your logic escapes me.