Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
======================================================
Jimmy crack Corn and I don't care, the master liberal journalist got fired today.
News Nirvana will occur tomorrow, see conservative news updates at 11 PM the day after tomorrow.
Umm... So?
Maybe, just maybe the Conservative get "bad press" because, well... They really are bad?
Maybe, just maybe the Conservative get "bad press" because, well... They really are bad?
manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
Wonder how many of you would like your private words in a closed setting being outed? Dave Weigle is a blogger, he never represented himself as a liberal. Comb trough his published works and his interviews on msnbc and he was usually very fair.
To those that are lamenting the old days of fair and balanced didnt live though the old days of media. I worked in TV and journalism through the 80s and 90s and it was seldom fair and never balanced. Anyone that advertises these claims-fox news I am looking at you-is the farthest thing from it...
What has changed over the last 20 years is advertising. Revenue is king and with so many commercial spots to sell media has been bought and sold to ratings. Roger Ailes recently mentioned that his number one goal for fox is ratings.....period...
looks like the politically correct police are back in town.....
To those that are lamenting the old days of fair and balanced didnt live though the old days of media. I worked in TV and journalism through the 80s and 90s and it was seldom fair and never balanced. Anyone that advertises these claims-fox news I am looking at you-is the farthest thing from it...
What has changed over the last 20 years is advertising. Revenue is king and with so many commercial spots to sell media has been bought and sold to ratings. Roger Ailes recently mentioned that his number one goal for fox is ratings.....period...
looks like the politically correct police are back in town.....
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Why is it that when a journalist says lots of bad things about particular conservatives, that MUST mean the journalist is biased? What if the journalist is being 100% accurate?
I mean, I could write a ton of bad things about the beliefs and behavior of the National Socialist German Workers' Party from 1933 to 1945. Does that mean I'm "biased" against Nazis?
PGibberish seems to think that the views of left and right are "intellectually equivalent." Thus, anyone who writes - for example - that Joe Barton's pro-BP views ("I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private company would be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown.") are flat out crazy is "biased" against conservatives.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I certainly don't believe the views of the left and the right are equivalent. I do believe the extremes of the left and the right are, for all practical purpose, indistinguishable, as they equally advocate for authoritarianism.
In general, the left has wonderful theories and hypotheses that never work in practice. That is why they appeal so much to the young and the young at heart that don't have to live in the real world.
In general, the right has wonderful ways of making things actually work, but they sacrifice dreams for efficiency. That is why they appeal to those who make a living for themselves, run businesses, etc.
My issue here is with secrecy and hidden agendas.
These writers are not center left or moderate, they represent the extreme left fringe. They are true believers. Yet they publicly pose as unbiased and neutral, claiming the innocence of having no agenda.
In private, they seek out people of the same mind set to reinforce their dogmatic views and to lambaste those on the right they hold to be mortal enemies. Under cover, they are free to be themselves.
Yet, these are not exactly private individuals as we have posting on ATP&N for personal entertainment.
These "journalists" have public profiles that should be subject to review as any politician or government official. They seek to sway and to influence and by the power of their access to mass communication they can be more effective in their actions than any bureaucrat.
Consider the guy who sat with General McChrystal and his staff in a Paris bar recently to such damaging effect. He heard private conversations, that because he was a left wing writer with an antipathy for the military no longer could be considered private.
When Rolling Stone published the article recounting private statements made in the relaxation of a bar setting, again likely never expressed in public settings, they took down America's top special operations general, the commander of U.S. military efforts in a war, as effectively as an assassin's bomb or bullet.
While it was extremely foolish for a guy like McChrystal to go near someone as toxic as that Rolling Stone reporter, much less invite him to socialize with a rambunctious and opinionated staff (the best kind, by the way), it was up to the writer, if he were honorable, to consider the consequences of replaying what he heard in social conversation.
The writer did not know enough about military operations to comment on the effectiveness of what this group of military officers was doing in support of American national goals. But he knew that what he heard was good for scandal and that was enough.
The Rolling Stone writer has an agenda, and based on his long history, it is one where he aims to destroy America's war effort. Though his writing exposes him, he likely suppressed expressing his agenda in the midst of those he spent so much time with so that he could become that fly on the wall that everyone knows is there but pays little mind to.
Gaining the confidence of the high ranking military he was embedded in, invited into their midst out of the government's interest in having the story of an extraordinary military action told, he did not hesitate to use their casual words against them to destroy their careers and affect the outcome of the war as effectively as any spy or assassin. Again, because that is his agenda and anyone who was diligent enough to read what he wrote before would realize this.
Wiegel, on the other hand, claimed he was someone different than he was. He claimed non-partisanship, even libertarian impulses when he is somewhat of a left wing loon. Only in the course of private emails, conversations and a listserv soundboard of his peers did his true persona emerge. Yet he, too, has an agenda. As do all of the people that populated that listserv.
The question is, do we, as the targets of these writers with a partisan agenda, have a right to know their agenda before we read what they write? I believe we do, even if only in a short paragraph, so that we can understand that they do not intend to just inform, but to sway.
This story is an important one for it gives us a peek into a group that has the power to affect the outcome of war, to sway elections, to destroy or to make careers, to affect the cycle of financial markets.
That this particular group of left wingnuts chose to hide their true agenda is indicative of how much they themselves fear the exposure they seek to impose on others.
Not all journalists hide their views, they are as open as their writings. It is those who seek to hide behind false facades that I find troubling, for they intend to damage under the guise of being in another camp altogether.
Oh, please, PJ. Your characterizations are ridiculous, particularly wrt McChrystal's remarks. He knew he was "on the record", and hasn't disputed that in the slightest. Just because the reporter didn't sugar coat the general's attitude and remarks doesn't mean he exposed any personal bias other than telling the truth, something a more sympathetic interviewer wouldn't have done. McChrystal's intent was clearly to go out in fit of pique or a blaze of glory (take your pick) and he got what he wanted.
If the truth hurts, just tune in to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, or Beck- they'll tell you what you want to hear, and you'll obviously believe them on that basis alone...
Weigel's remarks, otoh, were actually intended to be private, and really didn't affect the wingnuts' holy grail of "national security" in the slightest. He, too, was being honest, expressing his frustration, but it wasn't calculated to undermine the authority of the govt. He cracked a little under the pressure of one of the rabid right's favorite methods- hate mail. Was one of them yours?
If the truth hurts, just tune in to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, or Beck- they'll tell you what you want to hear, and you'll obviously believe them on that basis alone...
Weigel's remarks, otoh, were actually intended to be private, and really didn't affect the wingnuts' holy grail of "national security" in the slightest. He, too, was being honest, expressing his frustration, but it wasn't calculated to undermine the authority of the govt. He cracked a little under the pressure of one of the rabid right's favorite methods- hate mail. Was one of them yours?
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I don't believe the reporter falsely reported. But I also know that he and the editors had a choice to make as to whether to report this perspective or another one. And the latest news coming out is that the reporter had been specifically told that anything discussed in that bar was strictly off the record as they were there just to relax on an unexpected layover.
For example, more on the nature of how this team viewed the enemy, how the troops related to the leadership, how there was a multinational team conducting the war and how this affected the conduct of war.
In retrospect, there should never have been a reporter in the midst of this headquarters group as ANY information gleaned from this level of command can only be useful to an enemy eager for advantage.
The writer and the editor are always going to bring a personal perspective to their work. What to emphasize, where to detail. And I do not believe the Rolling Stone people did much to hide their personal perspectives as opposed to a guy like Weigel that presented his perspective as neutral when it was much more than that. How much, we only learned because one of his peers captured and publicized his private agenda.
Though it boggles the mind, I don't think a special ops heavy command is necessarily as threatened as they should be by agenda reporting. They have spent their professional lives fighting both military and political hierarchies as much as any anti-establishment reporter. They would have a lot in common.
What really concerns me is that this particular group should have a very high level of OPSEC (Operations Security) and they apparently felt like this doesn't matter. I mean, they each have been mission tasked their entire professional lives and that means going into isolation regularly. I don't know anyone in the spec ops community that openly discusses anything in any detail outside of secure environments but here we have conversations that should never be made to anyone not trusted implicitly to maintain confidentiality.
While I do not believe in censorship I am concerned that the current generation of reporters and editors have no self control in their rush to publish. All kinds of information can be gleaned that can be a story at the cost of the lives of troops. Maybe the loss of our soldiers' lives and the removal of one of our most competent and accomplished military leaders matters not at all to some reporters or to Rolling Stone readers but it bothers the hell out of me.
Last edited:
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Funny how they get all PC bent out of shape when someone dares talk shit (or refuses to do the patriotic thing and lie/cover up for) the Sacred Big Government Socialist Military.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if I can quite agree with you, there is nothing wrong with having a token conservative at a great American Newspaper with a long and proud tradition of investigative journalism. Especially if said conservative journalist can be an intellectual and not a your typical right wing slogan spouter. But trying to foist off a Liberal substitute will not fool the more conservative part of the readership.
As for readership, the internet has really cut into every newspapers readership. And in this modern day and age, financing a big set of first class journalists has become almost impossible for Newspapers like the NY, the LA times, and the Washington Post..
Repeating and embellishing obfuscations doesn't change what they are, PJ-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-editor-mcch_n_620970.html
The material for the article was gathered over a period of months, not just one night in a bar, but you already knew that. The material for the article was also fact checked with McChrystal by rolling stone, who did not dispute the content then or now, nor did he claim dirty pool, of the reporter using material that had been agreed to be off the record...
Rush to publish? How lame. The story was fact checked for a month.
None of that fits your agenda, however, so you'll continue to pretend it didn't happen that way...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/rolling-stone-editor-mcch_n_620970.html
The material for the article was gathered over a period of months, not just one night in a bar, but you already knew that. The material for the article was also fact checked with McChrystal by rolling stone, who did not dispute the content then or now, nor did he claim dirty pool, of the reporter using material that had been agreed to be off the record...
Rush to publish? How lame. The story was fact checked for a month.
None of that fits your agenda, however, so you'll continue to pretend it didn't happen that way...
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
He called the Ron and Rand Paul supporter Paultards? I love this guy! I hope he's able to get a job for a more independent press.
Is there anyone making the argument that his COVERAGE was actually slanted against conservatives? Assuming that he's a bad journalist because he holds liberal viewpoints is basically making the argument that NOBODY can be a good journalist if they hold any political view whatsoever. Which sort of limits our options a bit, doesn't it?
PJabber, the propagandist using the big lie again. The thing is, he seems to believe the big lie himself, blinding him all the more.
He's a pro at gaming the ref. When the media has a pro-corporate right-wing bias - for just one example, how they served the right to demonize ACORN - he knows that saying 'the media has a left-wing bias' thousands of times has the big lie effect to make it harder for people to understand the accurate situation.
They don't even notice the irony that all you ever here in the media is about the 'left-wing media bias' - not because it's accurate, but because it's not.
He's a pro at gaming the ref. When the media has a pro-corporate right-wing bias - for just one example, how they served the right to demonize ACORN - he knows that saying 'the media has a left-wing bias' thousands of times has the big lie effect to make it harder for people to understand the accurate situation.
They don't even notice the irony that all you ever here in the media is about the 'left-wing media bias' - not because it's accurate, but because it's not.
Indeed. Media fawning towards right wing figures is more common than not. They loved Ronnie, fell all over themselves to suck up to Ken Starr, acted as Bush's grupenfuhrer goose-stepping to the invasion of Iraq, and a lot more. Hell, they've fluffed up the Tea Party to the point that people think it's something other than astroturfing...
And Weigel, poor bastard, probably found his inbox jammed with hate mail any time he didn't paint a really, really rosy picture of the stuff he was covering. Righties have no interest in objective journalism whatsoever, and will even devour their own in support of their agenda. Witness David Frum...
I don't know about media fawning over right-wing figures in particular...I just think the media is, in general, pretty lazy. And it's not just journalists, in fact it's mostly the corporate owners that want to do whatever is most profitable, not what represents the best news coverage.
But I do find it very enlightening that the alternative to "mainstream media" doesn't seem to be a new breed of impartial super-journalists that the anti-MSM rhetoric would seem to be demanding. Instead, the folks complaining most about media bias seem to be turning to alternatives that don't even pretend to be unbiased. Which makes me think that their problem with alleged liberal bias in the media isn't that it's biased, it's that it's liberal.
Would folks raise a storm if a journalist that covers liberals was revealed to secretly dislike "libtards"? I'm not sure...but I *DO* know for sure that very few people having a hissy fit in THIS thread would object.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I have three things to say.
(1) If the Washington posts wants to hire a token conservative journalist, specifically to appeal the its more conservative readers, this Weigel guy should not have tried to apply for the job he could not do.
(2) When we have conservative posters like PJABBER, and more mainstream posters both viewing the same exact data inputs, and coming to two radically different types of conclusions, its pretty obvious that some human logic and human viewpoints are simply not shared by all humans? I or anyone else can put on our amateur Psychologist hat to determine where someone like PJABBER's twig got bent, but at the end of the day, people like PJABBER wonders why the rest of the world's twig got bent.
(3) If we wonder why most journalists do not think like PJABBER and tend to have a more liberal bias, I suggest its likely because people inspired to become journalists seldom think like PJABBER.
(1) If the Washington posts wants to hire a token conservative journalist, specifically to appeal the its more conservative readers, this Weigel guy should not have tried to apply for the job he could not do.
(2) When we have conservative posters like PJABBER, and more mainstream posters both viewing the same exact data inputs, and coming to two radically different types of conclusions, its pretty obvious that some human logic and human viewpoints are simply not shared by all humans? I or anyone else can put on our amateur Psychologist hat to determine where someone like PJABBER's twig got bent, but at the end of the day, people like PJABBER wonders why the rest of the world's twig got bent.
(3) If we wonder why most journalists do not think like PJABBER and tend to have a more liberal bias, I suggest its likely because people inspired to become journalists seldom think like PJABBER.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
True, but those with a liberal/progressive bias actually do believe they are in the mainstream and/or correct in their perspective and do not brook any challenges to their faith. Wiegel knows perfectly well that he is on the extreme left in his opinions but he also believes those who do not hold the same opinions are "ratfuckers" who need to "die in a fire."
Anyway, as I predicted, Wiegel has just joined the staff of the Herr Olbermann show at MSLSD, where he will be surrounded by a whole host of conservative, libertarian, Republican hating Democrats. It will be a perfectly validating environment for his hate speech.
Though I have lately been expressing conservative and libertarian (more accurately classical liberal) positions, I am like anyone who grew up idealistic and democrat and then, with the wisdom that comes from working very hard for a living and offering a helping hand to the disadvantaged, saw the light. You haven't yet, so we can conjecture that you have not had the same experiences that may cause people to grow into adulthood.
My undergraduate degree is in journalism and I worked as a broadcast and print reporter/editor for a short while before I went into the Army, a verrrrrrryyyyy long time ago. Hence, my disgust for secret agenda characters like Weasel, I mean, Wiegel.
You can regularly find me in the bar or lunching at the National Press Club. :awe:
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Andrew Breitbart has just offered a cool $100K reward for the entire Journolist postings archive.
Journolist, closed down by its founder, liberal Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein last week in an attempt to avoid further disclosures, was used by 400 prominent liberal/progressive journalists, many of whom chose to hide their bias, reportedly extreme bias, while proclaiming impartiality.
Please note how Breitbart defends Wiegel in this offer. He does not suggest that an opinionated reporter be stopped from reporting. Breitbart believes, as do I, that anyone with an agenda or a palpable bias express that clearly so as to not mislead either employers or the reading audience.
Breitbart believes Wiegel was outed by an even more extreme leftist journalist who wanted Wiegel to put out more stories reflecting the perspective of the far left. That is, write in public what he was writing in private.
Full disclosure is obviously required.
Journolist, closed down by its founder, liberal Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein last week in an attempt to avoid further disclosures, was used by 400 prominent liberal/progressive journalists, many of whom chose to hide their bias, reportedly extreme bias, while proclaiming impartiality.
Please note how Breitbart defends Wiegel in this offer. He does not suggest that an opinionated reporter be stopped from reporting. Breitbart believes, as do I, that anyone with an agenda or a palpable bias express that clearly so as to not mislead either employers or the reading audience.
Breitbart believes Wiegel was outed by an even more extreme leftist journalist who wanted Wiegel to put out more stories reflecting the perspective of the far left. That is, write in public what he was writing in private.
Full disclosure is obviously required.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter