PDA

View Full Version : No Media Bias


Whatfur
06-24-2010, 09:57 PM
Newspaper held back on Cheney sex scandal story for 2 years. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/The_Gore_complaint.html)

AemJeff
06-24-2010, 10:11 PM
Newspaper held back on Cheney sex scandal story for 2 years. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/The_Gore_complaint.html)

Funny thing, 'furry's uncovered: the bias against a lack of evidence. Bravo!

Whatfur
06-24-2010, 10:54 PM
Funny thing, 'furry's uncovered: the bias against a lack of evidence. Bravo!

I actually kind of hope it isn't true. Actually... if it is, then I am going to speculate that there is going to be a surge of "similar" against him. Just a hunch based on the fact that the behavior described by the masseuse is not something I see reigned in at most ports...not to mention other odd things going on with his relationships.

In any case, this is on the front of Drudge so I probably didn't uncover anything. Sorry about getting your hopes up with the Cheney thing. Your response portends either a lack of understanding or a wish to avoid my real point and the reason for this thread. I refuse to continue to draw you stick people, however.

bjkeefe
06-24-2010, 11:38 PM
Newspaper held back on Cheney sex scandal story for 2 years. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/The_Gore_complaint.html)

Nice try with the link, but no one believes Cheney is capable of having sex. (He gets his jollies killing kittens, some say (http://www.google.com/search?q=cheney+kills+kittens).)

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090714114752/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/c/cf/Mr.Cheney.jpg/180px-Mr.Cheney.jpg (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/A_kitten_a_day)

Also, did you see the update in the post you linked to? If you consider a decision by an editor not to run a story because he feels there isn't enough evidence "proof" of "liberal bias," hell, speaking on behalf of our worldwide cabal, I'll be delighted to own that.

bjkeefe
06-24-2010, 11:56 PM
Also for your consideration (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_06_20_archive.html#3242665789397838237), the first lieutenant of the RedState Trike Force:

HE SAID SHE SAID. Moe Lane (http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/06/24/heres-the-al-gore-masseuse-police-report/) sniffs sex scandal!

Fun game for your morning: see how far you get into this report before you develop this sudden and burning need to go find a rock, and throw it at Al Gore. I personally made it to page 13.

Of course it's very different when something like this happens to a respected figure like Nikki Haley (http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/05/27/dnc-accuses-nikki-haley-of-having-affair/).

Whatfur
06-25-2010, 06:48 AM
Also for your consideration (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_06_20_archive.html#3242665789397838237), the first lieutenant of the RedState Trike Force:

Ahhh Trike Force...I have never been Tri-curious, sorry (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=166587#post166587).

nikkibong
06-25-2010, 10:19 AM
Funny thing, 'furry's uncovered: the bias against a lack of evidence. Bravo!

Come on, Jeff. The Trib should have reported the fact of the police report -- not the truth (or lack thereof) of the incident. The filing of a police report is newsworthy in itself!

AemJeff
06-25-2010, 10:27 AM
Come on, Jeff. The Trib should have reported the fact of the police report -- not the truth (or lack thereof) of the incident. The filing of a news report is newsworthy in itself!

There's an awful lot of ambiguity surrounding the reported circumstances here, and a public figure is named. You know as well as I do that in cases like this the choice to publish isn't always automatic, and that an editorial decision not to run with this sort of thing gets made all time. It's not like Larry Craig's case, or ant other in which the principal was arrested in the immediate circumstances of the allegedly illegal act.

Whatfur
06-25-2010, 10:43 AM
There's an awful lot of ambiguity surrounding the reported circumstances here, and a public figure is named. You know as well as I do that in cases like this the choice to publish isn't always automatic, and that an editorial decision not to run with this sort of thing gets made all time. It's not like Larry Craig's case, or ant other in which the principal was arrested in the immediate circumstances of the allegedly illegal act.

I do not think there is any ambiguity around the points you should have been responding to. There was a police report...this is public record. I am going to assume this paper's editors lean a little left. Would you be defending the WSJ if they held onto a Cheney sex scandel for 2 years? I think not. Concerning, it not being like the Larry Craig case...your right!...but that is beside any point and a deflection from it. Its not like the Charlie Manson case either.

AemJeff
06-25-2010, 10:49 AM
I do not think there is any ambiguity around the points you are responding to. There was a police report...this is public record. I am going to assume this paper's editors lean a little left. Would you be defending the WSJ if they held onto a Cheney sex scandel for 2 years? I think not. Concerning, it not being like the Larry Craig case...your right!...but that is beside any point and a deflection from it. Its not like the Charlie Manson case either.

Then you're ignoring the actual circumstances, probably because you like the idea of a scandal. The woman involved repeatedly declined to file a report, then, years later, it turns up again in a gossip rag. There's no standard of evidence in which her behavior rates much notice - especially when people's reputations are involved. And, contra your insinuation, I'd say the same thing regardless of who was involved - what matters is what and how, which is why the Craig comparison matters.

Whatfur
06-25-2010, 12:22 PM
Then you're ignoring the actual circumstances, probably because you like the idea of a scandal. The woman involved repeatedly declined to file a report, then, years later, it turns up again in a gossip rag. There's no standard of evidence in which her behavior rates much notice - especially when people's reputations are involved. And, contra your insinuation, I'd say the same thing regardless of who was involved - what matters is what and how, which is why the Craig comparison matters.

Nikkibong, I assume you read this paper quite often. Would they have held onto a Cheney story given the same circumstances?

The paper has some odd responses to inquiries also...they are more than happy to expose the lady wanting some sort of editorial authority (of course without telling us what that was...I am betting anonymity.) yet they hold back their supposed actual reasons for not going with the story. Can I have a "hmmmm"?

Again, even though I think it probably happened I will give Gore the benefit of the doubt until the next one shows up with a story. There are more out there.

Bottom line is the police report...that is the news...that is enough news. Public officials have made some choices to be public. Gore has also utilized the media in less than totally honest ways himself so he probably needs to realize that there is some good and bad for him in the world he has chosen.

bjkeefe
06-25-2010, 04:59 PM
Come on, Jeff. The Trib should have reported the fact of the police report -- not the truth (or lack thereof) of the incident. The filing of a police report is newsworthy in itself!

Like Jeff, I don't think this is as cut and dried as you seem to. Yes, it is a fact that a police report was filed. But it is also true that it appeared, at least at the time of filing, as a sketchy accusation. Is it a story that a public figure got accused of something by someone no one had ever heard of? Not always.

bjkeefe
06-25-2010, 05:01 PM
Ahhh Trike Force...I have never been Tri-curious, sorry (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=166587#post166587).

Another homophobic slur, noted for the record.

Whatfur
07-21-2010, 02:55 PM
...
Again, even though I think it probably happened I will give Gore the benefit of the doubt until the next one shows up with a story. There are more out there.

...


Well, well, well... (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/two_other_women_claim_al_gore_abused_A9JF2bq7TotEf rZ5d72w7L)

Where there is smoke...there is global warming.

AemJeff
07-21-2010, 02:58 PM
Well, well, well... (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/two_other_women_claim_al_gore_abused_A9JF2bq7TotEf rZ5d72w7L)

Where there is smoke...there is global warming.

sigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence).

Whatfur
07-21-2010, 03:22 PM
sigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence).

Just sayin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference)

AemJeff
07-21-2010, 03:24 PM
Just sayin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference)

Cripes, you can infer all you want to. People simply making allegations carries no valence. Anybody can claim anything they want to. Find some proof.

Whatfur
07-21-2010, 03:35 PM
Cripes, you can infer all you want to. People simply making allegations carries no valence. Anybody can claim anything they want to. Find some proof.

Of course you are correct, but how many will it take for you? Tiger levels?

AemJeff
07-21-2010, 04:08 PM
Of course you are correct, but how many will it take for you? Tiger levels?

Are you implying that multiple unsubstantiated claims carry more weight than fewer? Really? And "Tiger levels?" He makes the claim himself. Do you see the difference?

Whatfur
07-21-2010, 04:49 PM
Are you implying that multiple unsubstantiated claims carry more weight than fewer? Really? And "Tiger levels?" He makes the claim himself. Do you see the difference?

Let me rephrase... what level of substantiation from 3 unrelated occurances will it take for you? On your part, I do not think you can say the first (I have not really read much about these two) was "unsubstantiated"...unproven sure. "Do you see the difference?" There was a degree of substantiation that was provided.

*btw...the "t" in the equation was for Tipper and what that situation might add to the inference.

Also, guess what, another prediction...there's more.

AemJeff
07-21-2010, 06:53 PM
Let me rephrase... what level of substantiation from 3 unrelated occurances will it take for you? On your part, I do not think you can say the first (I have not really read much about these two) was "unsubstantiated"...unproven sure. "Do you see the difference?" There was a degree of substantiation that was provided.

*btw...the "t" in the equation was for Tipper and what that situation might add to the inference.

Also, guess what, another prediction...there's more.

It will take more than the uncorroborated claims of any number of people. This isn't about Al Gore from my point of view. Based on what I currently know about him, if John Boehner was the target of the allegations I'd have the same stance.

I strongly doubt that you'd even be talking about it if the subject of the allegations wasn't somebody who represents a significant bugaboo for you.

Whatfur
07-21-2010, 09:49 PM
It will take more than the uncorroborated claims of any number of people. This isn't about Al Gore from my point of view. Based on what I currently know about him, if John Boehner was the target of the allegations I'd have the same stance.

I strongly doubt that you'd even be talking about it if the subject of the allegations wasn't somebody who represents a significant bugaboo for you.

The numbers corroborate something. The phone call made to the friend by the first describing the event on the day of, with the call and the account corrorborated by the friend also cannot be easily ignored. There's more but just substituting "unsubstantiated" with "uncorroborated" does not necessarily fly.

As to the rest, you might be right. ;) Of course, if things were conservatively reversed, even with you purportedly travelling the high road; the low would undoubtedly be jammed with mercenaries.

bjkeefe
07-21-2010, 10:53 PM
The Conservative Pseudojournalist Method

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/detail_page/breitbart_0.jpg By now, the story of USDA staffer Shirley Sherrod is familiar. Conservative media magnate Andrew Breitbart obtained a video of her speaking to an NAACP convention. In it she discussed not wanting to help a farmer because he was white. Here was explosive evidence of the reverse racism that Breitbart and some conservatives find so endemic. She was quickly fired.

It turned out that Breitbart's story was wildly misleading. Sherrod in fact told a story in which she recounted earlier in her career, while working for a nonprofit, feeling resentment about helping a white farmer. But, she continued, she later understood that such an attitude was wrong. The white farmer later testified (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/07/endearing_1.php#more?ref=fpblg) that Sherrod in fact helped them save their farm.

Breaitbart claims he did not splice the video, and that he obtained it in the misleading, fragmentary form in which he published it. Coincidentally, Breitbart was the victim of the exact same trick. Last year, Breitbart published video purporting to show a man dressed as a pimp soliciting help from Acorn. It turned out, the video was deceptively edited. He dressed as a pimp for the cameras, but wore conservative attire to meet with Acorn. In meeting with Acorn, he presented himself not as a pimp but as a law student trying to rescue his prostitute girlfriend from a pimp. Yet the narrative presented by Breitbart took hold from the outset. When pressed, he claimed (http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003020001) here too that he was the victim of deceptive editing.

A similar tactic is at work in the Daily Caller's expose on Journolist. It is the selective presentation of fragments of data, containing multiple (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/first_time_as_tragedy_second_t_1.html) factual (http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0710/Ezra_Klein_explains.html) misstatements (http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0710/Times_Scherer_pushes_back.html), and filtered through the reporter's deceptive analytical take, to present a "discovery" as something wildly at odds with reality. The story takes hold as news because it is, literally, new information. But the information bears no resemblance to what the conservative journalist claims it is. This seems to be the method of the new breed of conservative pseudo-journalists.

The mentality at work is not hard to understand. The proprietors of this story believe that the mainstream media is fundamentally a liberal conspiracy, whose claims of objectivity are not merely an unattained or unattainable idea but a lie to cover a political agenda. Here is Breitbart (http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/20/journolist-yes-but-the-reporters-at-pravda-werent-such-insufferable-assholes/):

No steadfast journalism rule is unbendable when it comes to justifying and protecting the racket that is modern journalism, specifically, political journalism in the United States today. The ends justify the means for the Democrat Media Complex. They lie when they claim to be objective. They lie when they claim to be unbiased, because these so called “truth seekers” are guilty of engaging in open political warfare. ...

most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs.

When this is your analysis of mainstream media ethics -- when you think the mainstream media is not merely failing to overcome its liberal bias but is actually street thugs -- that informs the kind of journalism you produce. There is room for enterprising journalism from conservatives. The problem is that the product of sites like Breitbart's Big Government and the Daily Caller is not journalism but pseudo-journalism. It does not hew to conventional journalistic standards. It is opposition research -- bits of data placed in the most damaging possible context and packaged in such a way as to encourage other reporters or pundits to pick it up and hopefully repeat its analytic thrust.

Now, opposition research can be useful, and it often produces good journalistic leads. But people who do hew to conventional journalistic standards do need to be very cautious when handling pseudo-journalistic stories. You can't assume that the information is being provided in context, or that the interpretive frame bears any relation to reality.

-- All too rarely appearing B'head Jonathan Chait (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76451/andrew-breitbart-pseudojournalist-method)

bjkeefe
07-21-2010, 11:00 PM
[...]

And on a related note (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76407/the-journolist-conspiracy-continues):

... you might wonder why the Daily Caller described the email chain it obtained, and didn't publish the chain.

You might! (But not if you know who runs the Daily Caller, and how the wingnut media works.)

graz
07-21-2010, 11:05 PM
Also bhead, Frum on the conservative reax:
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/205190/shirley-sherrod-and-the-shame-of-conservative-media

Excerpt:
On the phone on the evening of July 20, a friend asked me: "Can Breitbart possibly survive?" I could only laugh incredulously. I answered: "Of course he'll survive, and undamaged. The incident won't matter at all."

There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart’s role. By the morning of July 21, the Fox & Friends morning show could devote a segment to the Sherrod case without so much as a mention of Breitbart’s role. The central fact of the Sherrod story has been edited out of the conservative narrative, just as it was edited out of the tape itself.

When people talk of the "closing of the conservative mind" this is what they mean: not that conservatives are more narrow-minded than other people — everybody can be narrow minded — but that conservatives have a unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact.

Whatfur
07-21-2010, 11:17 PM
I come at this story a little uniquely. The first I watched it was WITH the statement that supposedly cleared her and before knowing about any brewing uproar about that bit originally being left off. Some retribution in the end but there certainly was some questionable utterances that were not recanted and certainly the audience reaction was of doubtful propriety. The whole speech adds more to Shirley's negatives than positives if you go read it. She is also wrong even with the positives...it is not a have and have not thing but a do and do not thing or maybe a will and will not thing. In the end she is probably a fine lady, did not deserve the attention or the firing, and Brietbart made a mistake as did the NAACP when they tried to marginalize the tea party as many do here in the same initquitous way.

graz
07-21-2010, 11:26 PM
I come at this story a little uniquely. The first I watched it was WITH the statement that supposedly cleared her and before knowing about any brewing uproar about that bit originally being left off. Some retribution in the end but there certainly was some questionable utterances that were not recanted and certainly the audience reaction was of doubtful propriety. The whole speech adds more to Shirley's negatives than positives if you go read it. She is also wrong even with the positives...it is not a have and have not thing but a do and do not thing or maybe a will and will not thing. In the end she is probably a fine lady, did not deserve the attention or the firing, and Brietbart made a mistake as did the NAACP when they tried to marginalize the tea party as many do here in the same initquitous way.

Why that's perfectly Palinesque in terms of word jumble.

As for your conclusion... is it that... everybody's guilty, including Sherrod?
Your new found pose of equanimity chafes. Try harder, will ya?

bjkeefe
07-21-2010, 11:30 PM
Also bhead, Frum on the conservative reax:
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/205190/shirley-sherrod-and-the-shame-of-conservative-media

Excerpt:

Hey, you should have quoted the lede, too, especially in light of the thread and subthread's theme!

You want to see media bias in action? Okay — look at the conservative media reaction to the firing of Shirley Sherrod.

;)

This is also money:

But you’ll never guess who emerged as the villains of the story in this second-day conservative react. Not Andrew Breitbart, the distributor of a falsified tape. No, the villains were President Obama and the NAACP for believing Breitbart's falsehood.

As is this:

When Dan Rather succumbed to the forged Bush war record hoax in 2004, CBS forced him into retirement. Breitbart is the conservative Dan Rather, but there will be no discredit, no resignation for him.

graz
07-21-2010, 11:34 PM
Hey, you should have quoted the lede, too, especially in light of the thread and subthread's theme!



;)

This is also money:



As is this:

I'm just a cub reporter learning the ropes. Go ez on me Editor in Chief.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 12:01 AM
Why that's perfectly Palinesque in terms of word jumble.

"A little uniquely (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171062#post171062)" is the new refudiate.

As for your conclusion... is it that... everybody's guilty, including Sherrod?

That's the wingnut last refuge in all of these cases. He might just as well have said, "Now, let's not get into playing the blame game ..."

graz
07-22-2010, 12:16 AM
He might just as well have said, "Now, let's not get into playing the blame game ..."

Right, yet still managed to further disparage Sherrod, take a cheap shot at us inquinxs posters and barely slaps Breitbart on the wrist for his "mistake."

Breitbart accepts no such responsibility. whatfur, like Frum, must not be a real conservative(TM).

chiwhisoxx
07-22-2010, 12:47 AM
-- All too rarely appearing B'head Jonathan Chait (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76451/andrew-breitbart-pseudojournalist-method)

Ok, but the problem here is, are Breitbart and Tucker Carlson claiming to be journalists? Jon's exactly right that these sites aren't journalistic in many meaningful senses of the word. But I'm guessing if you asked Breitbart, he wouldn't claim to be a journalist, or claim to run a journalistic program. Carlson started The Daily Caller specifically to try and create a right wing alternative to the Huffington Post. I'm not sure I'd call either of those sites journalistic. This is, however, an indictment of the more mainstream sources that pick up these stories and run too far and too fast with them. But that's a different kettle of beans.

AemJeff
07-22-2010, 12:57 AM
Ok, but the problem here is, are Breitbart and Tucker Carlson claiming to be journalists? Jon's exactly right that these sites aren't journalistic in many meaningful senses of the word. But I'm guessing if you asked Breitbart, he wouldn't claim to be a journalist, or claim to run a journalistic program. Carlson started The Daily Caller specifically to try and create a right wing alternative to the Huffington Post. I'm not sure I'd call either of those sites journalistic. This is, however, an indictment of the more mainstream sources that pick up these stories and run too far and too fast with them. But that's a different kettle of beans.

They (Breitbart especially - and Carlson seems to following directly in his footsteps) claim explicitly to be an alternative to the "MSM." They see it as their mission to correct the "bias" in news reporting. I don't think they can reasonably claim not be in the same business as journalists.

Whatfur
07-22-2010, 07:45 AM
Right, yet still managed to further disparage Sherrod, take a cheap shot at us inquinxs posters and barely slaps Breitbart on the wrist for his "mistake."

Breitbart accepts no such responsibility. whatfur, like Frum, must not be a real conservative(TM).

I started writing something about my superiority over your kind but have stopped to give you two the simple "Ho Hum" you deserve.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 07:50 AM
Ok, but the problem here is, are Breitbart and Tucker Carlson claiming to be journalists?

They have in the past, and more importantly, they are viewed that way by their core audience. But your quibbling over a label is comically irrelevant.

What's important is this: Both Breitbart and Carlson are part of the media, they make it their business to publish and promote information that they represent as factual, they claim to present analysis and commentary based on facts, and they spend an enormous amount of time railing against the MSM for being "liberally biased," "suppressing the truth," etc. And they frequently do these things in a manner that can only be called disgraceful.

I don't know about you, but as far as I am concerned, saying "I'm not a Journalist™" does not equate to possessing a license to lie.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 07:57 AM
I'm just a cub reporter learning the ropes. Go ez on me Editor in Chief.

Not at all. You already did the hard part -- unearthing the gem. The rest is just polishing*.

==========

* [Added] A word sure to make 'fur tumesce, as he will spend the rest of the day thinking of knobs. Ah, well. Can't let (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170995#post170995) the wingnuts make our word choices for us, now can we?

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 08:05 AM
I started writing something about my superiority over your kind but have stopped to give you two the simple "Ho Hum" you deserve.

Gold, I tell you. Pure comedy gold.

graz
07-22-2010, 10:46 AM
... the simple "Ho Hum" you deserve.

I've got to praise you fur holding back on the keystrokes... You were thinkin Hummer... and not the big truck that your kind(TM) favors.

Knobs, polishing, etc.

Whatfur
07-22-2010, 11:12 AM
I've got to praise you fur holding back on the keystrokes... You were thinkin Hummer... and not the big truck that your kind(TM) favors.

Knobs, polishing, etc.

Is this not indicative of some phobia?

graz
07-22-2010, 11:26 AM
Is this not indicative of some phobia?
fur shure:

http://blog.loukavar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/glenn-beck.jpg

http://teamowens313.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fear-of-a-black-planet-400x400.jpg

Whatfur
07-22-2010, 11:47 AM
fur shure:

[

Ho Hum.

Whatfur
07-22-2010, 11:07 PM
I come at this story a little uniquely.

Just discovered that I did not "come at this story" uniquely. I assumed I had seen a version that added Sherrod's reverting to the rich vs. poor from black vs. white based on everything I was hearing on the news. But no...that is a myth. Brietbart showed all the video he had available including what I thought people were complaining about being missing. He did not edit anything from the clip he was provided. Before airing he asked the NAACP for a copy of the entire speech and they declined. Both the good and the bad were there. The context was there. Add the other 35 minutes and it gets worse for Sherrod. Brietbart made no mistake.

I like how some in the media are trying to also make this a Fox thing when they did not even show the video until after Sherrod had been fired.

Nice Try. You suck.

TwinSwords
07-23-2010, 12:37 AM
Ok, but the problem here is, are Breitbart and Tucker Carlson claiming to be journalists?

Tucker Carlson, today (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/letter-from-editor-in-chief-tucker-carlson-on-the-daily-callers-journolist-coverage/): One final note: Editing this series has been something of a depressing experience for me. I’ve been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It’s harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong."

One final note: Editing this series has been something of a depressing experience for me. I’ve been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It’s harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong.

So, yeah.

TwinSwords
07-23-2010, 12:40 AM
From The Daily Caller's About Us page (http://dailycaller.com/footer/about-us/):

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news site providing original reporting from an experienced team of professional reporters, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news. In addition to hard news reporting and commentary, The Daily Caller features ...

That sounds nothing like journalism.

uncle ebeneezer
07-23-2010, 12:59 AM
Well a certain kind of "journalism" at least.

From another thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171277#post171277) Ezra points out: (emphasis added by me)

Tucker's note doesn't bother to mention the actual questions that have been raised: That his stories have misstated fact, misled readers, and omitted evidence that would contradict his thesis. He doesn't explain how a thread in which no journalists suggested shutting down Fox News can be headlined "Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News." He doesn't tell us why an article about the open letter that originated on the list left out the fact that I subsequently banned any future letters from the list. He doesn't detail why his stories haven't mentioned that one of his own reporters was on the list -- his readers would presumably be interested to know that the Daily Caller was part of the liberal media conspiracy.

and

My mistake, obviously. But if this series rests on Tucker's credibility, that's a soft foundation indeed. At every turn, he's known about evidence that substantially complicates his picture of an international media conspiracy. He knows I tried to let him in, odd behavior for someone with so much to hide and so much to lose. He knows I let one of his reporters remain a member. He knows I banned -- and enforced the ban -- on the sort of coordinated letter that served as example one of the list's conspiracy. He knows -- and never, to my knowledge, corrected -- that his reporter misrepresented the dates of Dave Weigel's posts to make it look like things he wrote at the Washington Independent were written at the Washington Post. And that's not even to mention the more prosaic deceptions of his selective choice of threads, truncated quotations, and misleading headlines.

When I e-mailed him to ask about some of these omissions, his response was admission mixed with misdirection. "I don't have nearly the grounding in this that Strong does, but according to him you often come off as a voice for moderation, and I'm pretty sure he will make that clear in a subsequent story." Ah, the old "we'll be more truthful later."

Tucker chose the good story over the real story. His traffic numbers reflect the popularity of his choice. Journolist has taken the Daily Caller from about 50,000 hits a day to more than 200,000. There are a lot more answers in those numbers, I fear, than in his editor's note.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 01:00 PM
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
I come at this story a little uniquely.
[...]

Nice Try. You suck.

Talking to yourself?

graz
07-23-2010, 01:15 PM
I don't think that the dolt recognizes the fail of "a little uniquely, to say nothing of his failure to explain why his interpretation of events is convincing. It's all assumption with this clown. If he says it, it must be so. No challenges accepted, because he fails on both counts: writing and reading. His arithmetic is suspect as well. Just spy the "lefto" thread.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 03:29 PM
Ok, but the problem here is, are Breitbart and Tucker Carlson claiming to be journalists?
They have in the past, and more importantly, they are viewed that way by their core audience. But your quibbling over a label is comically irrelevant.

What's important is this: Both Breitbart and Carlson are part of the media, they make it their business to publish and promote information that they represent as factual, they claim to present analysis and commentary based on facts, and they spend an enormous amount of time railing against the MSM for being "liberally biased," "suppressing the truth," etc. [...]

More along these lines from occasional B'head Michelle Cottle (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76493/the-end-andrew-breitbart) (via (http://gawker.com/5593903/shirley-sherrod-gets-her-phone-call-from-barack-obama)):

More and more Americans consider journalism just another front in the bloodsport of partisan politics, where the ends justify damn near any means. Increasingly no one cares about (or recognizes) the difference between marshalling facts to make your argument and just completely making shit up. Breitbart already caters to an outraged lunatic fringe that, like Erick Erickson, will mostly cheer him for sticking it to the lefties. And if Breitbart’s readership doesn’t abandon him, you can bet he’ll always be able to find advertisers who’ll stick by him as well.

I suspect some will say that Breitbart is not a journalist. (I know I’d say that.) This is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that allows Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to spew the most outlandish garbage, then retreat behind the mantle of entertainer or “rodeo clown.” For a not insubstantial number of people, however, these guys are the definition of journalists: truth-tellers in an otherwise corrupt, hopelessly biased field.

bjkeefe
07-31-2010, 04:39 PM
The Gore complaint (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/The_Gore_complaint.html) [Misleading link title fixt --bjk]

Short note in the Guardian (Associated Press): "Al Gore cleared of assault allegations made by masseuse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/31/al-gore-cleared-assault-allegations-masseuse)"

Slightly longer story in the Oregonian: "Prosecutors will not pursue criminal case against Gore in alleged sex abuse of massage therapist (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/prosecutors_will_not_pursue_cr.html)"

(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/417071/portland-police-say-al-gore-is-not-a-sex-monster))

return furfail+2;

Whatfur
07-31-2010, 04:53 PM
Short note in the Guardian (Associated Press): "Al Gore cleared of assault allegations made by masseuse (http://www.guardian.o.uk/world/2010/jul/31/al-gore-cleared-assault-allegations-masseuse)"

Slightly longer story in the Oregonian: "Prosecutors will not pursue criminal case against Gore in alleged sex abuse of massage therapist (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/prosecutors_will_not_pursue_cr.html)"

(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkte.com/417071/portland-police-say-al-gore-is-not-a-sex-monster))

return furfail+2;


Fur's actual initial response:

"I actually kind of hope it isn't true. Actually... if it is, then I am going to speculate that there is going to be a surge of "similar" against him. Just a hunch based on the fact that the behavior described by the masseuse is not something I see reigned in at most ports...not to mention other odd things going on with his relationships.

In any case, this is on the front of Drudge so I probably didn't uncover anything. Sorry about getting your hopes up with the Cheney thing. Your response portends either a lack of understanding or a wish to avoid my real point and the reason for this thread. I refuse to continue to draw you stick people, however."

Wow, psychic I be.

bjkeefe
07-31-2010, 10:43 PM
Fur's actual initial response:

"I actually kind of hope it isn't true. Actually... if it is, then I am going to speculate that there is going to be a surge of "similar" against him. Just a hunch based on the fact that the behavior described by the masseuse is not something I see reigned in at most ports...not to mention other odd things going on with his relationships.

In any case, this is on the front of Drudge so I probably didn't uncover anything. Sorry about getting your hopes up with the Cheney thing. Your response portends either a lack of understanding or a wish to avoid my real point and the reason for this thread. I refuse to continue to draw you stick people, however."

Wow, psychic I be.

Think if you shout it we'll forget that you were backpedaling as fast as you could, after you got smacked down by Jeff?

Think again.

Also: reined in, not "reigned in."