April 20, 2009

WaPo commenters lame, thinks Dana Milbank.

"On Tuesday, I learned that I am a right-wing hack. I am not a journalist. I am typical of the right wing. I am why newspapers are going broke. I write garbage. I am angry with Barack Obama. I misquote Obama. I am bitter. I am a certified idiot. I am lame. I am a Republican flack. On Thursday, I realized that I am a media pimp with my lips on Obama's butt. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who wants nothing more than for the right to fall on its face. I am part of the ObamaMedia. I am pimping for the left. I am carrying water for Obama. Lord, am I an idiot."

56 comments:

Original Mike said...

Lord, I am an idiot.

Tell us something we don't already know, Dana.

Maguro said...

The old "everybody hates me equally so I must be a completely unbiased paragon of journalistic integrity" self-apologia. Every hack in the media churns one out periodically.

john said...

I hate it when these people ramble on and on.

AJ Lynch said...

I have found the commenters (in general) on newspaper websites seem far more informed than the paid reporters and columnists.

The commenters deliver the facts, solid arguments and the cynicism which is what newpapers once did.

But the newspapers have not changed their ways and neither has Dana Milbank.

Peter V. Bella said...

"So why is the left so angry?"

Derangement and a refusal to take their psychotropic drugs. Of course, since they invented anger management, they do not have to take those classes either. Then, of course, they are people who consistenty find fault with everything. Complaining, whining, and keening are just a natural facet of their personalities.

Dark Eden said...

I hate the whole 'I get attacked from both sides so that proves I'm an unbiased journalist' thing too.

Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly and Jon Stewart all get attacked from the left and the right too. That must mean they're unbiased journalists too!

Bissage said...

Unlike Robert Wright, it seems we cannot count on Mr. Milbank to spend a large part of his life whoring after the affections of 12 people.

Peter V. Bella said...

"Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly and Jon Stewart all get attacked from the left and the right too. That must mean they're unbiased journalists too!"

Limbaugh and O'Reilly are not journalists, they are editorialists. Stewart is not a journalist, he is a stand up comic.

rcocean said...

Every lame liberal MSM has said this for years. They hand this column out at Journalism School graduation.

Just fill in the name and print.

Hoosier Daddy said...

(Stewart is not a journalist, he is a stand up comic.)

He should probably try journalism since Titus' loaves are funnier.

Brent said...

Maguro,

You got to the bottom line!

Every journalist - at least every left-leaning journalist - without fail seeks to use such a comment to provide them cover. It's their constant attempt to redefine the argument. Dan Rather - who I actually liked - was the template for this. He always liked to say that he was disappointing liberals as well as "right wingers". But he never had a liberal name he could use to illustrate his statements.

I stand behind no one in my disdain for Keith Olbermann's "journalism", but I respect the fact that he is honest about who he is.

traditionalguy said...

The leftards are just keeping their political-paintball sliming skills sharpened up in case The Dear Leader needs to threaten to use them again. It's like military war exercises used as a threat. The refusal of most American citizens to risk taking such a sliming over a silly political argument has been a lever to keep opposition comments suppressed. The Tea Parties are now the only out of control activity. Look for lots more sliming of those good citizens attendees as "hooligans", which is Communist newspeak for free citizens assembling to protest being robbed by Communists. There are nothing but "Hooligans" everywhere in Venezuela since Chavez started his organized robbery of that country's citizens.The Obama/Chavez relationship is one of mutual respect since they face the same problems.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Maybe both views are wrong, but perhaps one of them is right.

Pogo said...

The 'idiot' thing keeps coming up.

Is Milbank a Congressman, too?

Freeman Hunt said...

Stewart is not a journalist, he is a stand up comic.

He was a stand up comic. Now what is he? Seems like he's become lost in some strange no man's land where he's not about comedy because he's too partisan and not about reporting because he's too unserious. What happened to the funny?

paul a'barge said...

Maguro +1.

Spot on.

paul a'barge said...

He was a stand up comic. Now what is he? Well, he's not funny. And he's not fair. And he certainly doesn't give a crap about either.

So.

He's a mutt.

knox said...

But now, even under Obama, the anger on the left is, if anything, more personal and vitriolic than on the right.What does he mean "But now" ?

madawaskan said...

So he rests on comments like that to be the sticks with which he measures himself.

Hey! look at these cccrrrraaaaazzzzy comments.

Yes! they are so correct in total that they are the proof that I am good.

It's kind of like measuring your dick with...oh forget it.

tim maguire said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Maybe both views are wrong, but perhaps one of them is right.
I think both views are probably correct. Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense), but other times I think the problem is simple MSM incompetance.

The MSM tends left and tries to help left causes (thus angering the right), but they are not too bright and do a lousy job of it (thus angering the left).

knox said...

Jon Stewart's not funny because you can't be self-righteous and funny at the same time. It's like Sean Hannity trying to be funny. Never works.

madawaskan said...

Your experiment is only as good as your tool.

Your "tool" is Dana Milbank....

Yes you are one baboon short of a full zoo.

madawaskan said...

I know the baboon thing makes no sense I couldn't do any better-crap.

TML said...

Did Milbank just admit that he's a leftie, i.e. biased reporter, with his sign off line: "I'm taking one for the team."?
Interesting.

Franco said...

As has been said, the classic "both sides hate me therefore I must be in the middle" is in full operation, however he did single out the left as being more vitriolic. The ratio has to be at least 5:1 for him to cop to that.

Of course he didn't post any thoughtful comments that disagreed with him. They had to have some at WaPo right?

Darcy said...

Ohhh...good catch, TML. Just exactly what "team" is there in journalism?

Minzo said...

"Derangement and a refusal to take their psychotropic drugs. Of course, since they invented anger management, they do not have to take those classes either. Then, of course, they are people who consistenty find fault with everything. Complaining, whining, and keening are just a natural facet of their personalities."

And presumably-after writing a sentence like that- you'll be pontificating about the left's penchant for ad hominem attacks and generalization...oh, the irony.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Here's a list of some of Dana Milbank's lies and smears; click each link to see the full post.

I sometimes posted about those to WaPo's blogs (example here); I guess I just posted them at the wrong time otherwise I'm sure he would have provided an intellectually honest reply.

Anthony said...

"Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense)"

I've been thinking about this as well. I tend to think that a lot of liberals just don't see themselves as "liberal", they just see themselves as "smart" or "educated" or "enlightened". Makes everyone who disagrees with you as stupid and ignorant rather than simply having a different opinion.

Minzo said...

"Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense)"

How is this limited to the left? We are all a petri-dish of biases and prejudices irrespective of political leanings. We all cling to dogmas and ignore or rationalize things that dont agree with us. Thats a human trait.

rocketeer67 said...

And presumably-after writing a sentence like that- you'll be pontificating about the left's penchant for ad hominem attacks and generalization...oh, the irony.Presumably, after putting words in another commenter's mouth, you'll pontificating about the right's penchant for building straw men...oh, the irony.

Minzo said...

rocketeer- I quoted exactly what he said. How is that putting words in his mouth?

Chip Ahoy said...

He wasn't saying both sides hate me so I must be doing something right. He said he was told it's instructive to read the comments and a mistake to ignore them, then when he does, they amount to thoughtless aspersions cast incoherently and with incomprehensible anger.

You must admit, certain terms red flag comments to what follows is not well considered. Leftard for example, used above, suggesting the individual on the left is retarded but impugning the entire left to retardation, wingnut, seen here often, its opposite. Moonbat originally referencing British radical George Monbiot now applied exclusively to the left but implying they're all insane, knuckledraggers its opposite for the right, suggesting atavism to hairier hominid forms not quite yet walking entirely erect. And many many many other common disparagements sprinkled liberally in comments as if carelessly shaken like salt from a neologism-shaker, at one time amusingly creative but now so outworn they mark the user as incapable of thinking and expressing without them.

treeman said...

I like the Shakers. They were cool.

Trooper York said...

Yeah, especially when they started hanging out with the Movers.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

I agree Chip.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Clearly, new and better terms of flippant disparagement and mockery are needed.

"Socialista": Socialist because it's "in" this year.

Beavis Teabagger: TV announcer who uses a gross sexual joke on a regular newscast.

"Libertardian": Wants to put toll booths up on every street.

"Buckley Firster": Conservatives who have read WFB a little too closely. Are likely to be stalking his son for heresy.

"Ex-Comicos": People who used to be funny but since they got into political stuff, not so much. See Garofaload

"Garofaload": Career path for an Ex-Comico. As in "Her movie career really Garofaload."

"Senator: Career path for Ex-Comicos from Minnesota. See also "professional wrestler".

rocketeer67 said...

"...you'll be pontificating about the left's penchant for ad hominem attacks and generalization...THAT'S the part that's putting words in his mouth. If you want to whine about the irony, you'll have to wait until he actually says it. You're better than that, Minzo. SLOPPY.

Pogo said...

"Waiter:" Former NYTimes journalists.

"Sub-uterine nihilists in short pants:" Blog trolls living in momma's basement.

"Raging bullshit": Sees the red flag of communism behind everything done by anything higher than the city zoning board, and charges in.

"Disciples of St. Ponzi": The current US Congress. Madoff was a piker.

madawaskan said...

"Wankologist"-Andrew Sullivan

"Pelosidom" The U.S.House

"Neo-Alamo"-Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito

"St. Barney the Irregular" Barney Frank

madawaskan said...

"Nine-Fingered Thumbelina"-Rahm Emmanuel

John Lynch said...

People get radicalized by joining angry groups, whether at demonstrations in real life or in the virtual world of the internet. If you see a lot of angry people and agree with them, then you tend to think the angry behavior in public is acceptable.

After a while you're waving signs and chanting silly slogans, or leaving acid (though stereotypical and utterly predictable) comments on the internet.

I'm not a big fan of radicalization, because it's usually just hate dressed up with a few slogans that adherents rarely question. Appealing to reality doesn't find the slightest chink in the armor of a believer, because he hears the holy writ of his own side every day, on partisan TV shows or blogs.

People tend to believe what they hear most often. It's simple human nature, and partisans take advantage of it to create echo chambers for their true believers.

The Left got so used to it that they can't drop the hatred of the Bush years. Once radicalized, with all the radical TV programming and blogs still here, they aren't going to stop. The Right is doing their best to catch up by imitating the Left style on Glenn Beck, the internet, and in street protests.

It's sad, it's not really democratic in that it blinds much of the electorate to reality, and it's going to continue because it fills a need for absolute truth rather than messy reality.

John Lynch said...

There's also Sturgeon's Law--90% of everything is crap.

There are a few commenters who are really funny and perceptive and almost always worth reading. Then there are the rest...which includes me.

Althouse is unusual in having more than her share of good commenters, which is why I bother to read here.

Pogo said...

John Lynch is an Extreme Middle of the Roader.
They're the worst. =P

AJ Lynch said...

"Libertardian- wants to put tool booths on every street".

That is the best one Pogo cause how true it is.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Sometimes I think the misunderstanding is the result of a liberal inability to see liberal bias (because liberalism is not a bias, it is just good common sense), but other times I think the problem is simple MSM incompetance.



Liberals don't have a problem seeing liberal bias. They really aren't that stupid. Rather, they deny it because they know it works in their favor. They also know that admitting the bias is the first step towards losing that advantage.

Sofa King said...

John Lynch is an Extreme Middle of the Roader.
They're the worst. =P

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Pogo said...

We made my cat neutral. She didn't like it one bit.

I hope their's a way different process for peoples.

John Lynch said...

I think my decent into "neutrality" is from reading enough history to see the damage when radicals get their way.

There's a difference between goals and methods, ends and means.

I think we have all these rules, laws, traditions, and constitutions for a reason. Let's use them. They are a way of allowing change without letting the nutballs radically transform society in their image.

The US system is designed to block rapid change. That's why it's still around. Even FDR was stopped by the Court.

What seems crystal clear one year is foolish the next. If something is the right way to go, eventually it'll convince enough people that it will be implemented. If not, then it probably wasn't. The US and the West didn't become the best places to live (and powerful besides) by allowing a few people with all the answers to dominate society. Such people have led many nations (Russia, Germany, France, and China) to disaster.

At some point we need to trust our elections to work in the long run, even if we lose half the time.

I'm fine with protests, rowdy commenters, etc. That's protected speech. It's just that the kind of people who tend to engage in that speech aren't typically very open to the idea that their opponents aren't evil invaders from Sirius bent on enslaving their children. There is no one ideology with all the answers all the time. Marx started that fad, and too many people fall into it.

Kensington said...

"How is this limited to the left? We are all a petri-dish of biases and prejudices irrespective of political leanings."Having biases isn't limited to the Left, but the Left seems to have an especially difficult time acknowledging theirs.

Kirk Parker said...

"The commenters deliver the facts, solid arguments and the cynicism which is what newspapers once did."

How I miss Mike Royko.

David said...

Milbank's self view is the central self view of most journalists: "I am really a lot better than my readers."

Peter V. Bella said...

WaPo commenters think Dana Milbank is Lame.

Headline all fixed.

Frodo Potter said...

“There is no one ideology with all the answers all the time. Marx started that fad, and too many people fall into it.”

John Lynch, you nailed it. We would do well not to fall into it ourselves. My strong hunch is that the Democrats are going to get devastated in the 2010 midterm elections. If that is the case, it is an opportunity to NOT engage in self-serving partisanship. Let’s take that opportunity and try to make something of it.

Pogo said...

John Lynch,
Well said.
I am becoming less convinced it remains true, however.

For example, while "Even FDR was stopped by the Court", that was only briefly. Threatened with being replaced or overwhelmed by 9 more justices, they capitulated.

After that, the deluge.
Now voters have given themselves an increasing amount of the treasury, taken from a smaller amount of the citizens, who can no longer object.