८ जुलै, २०१०
The Davids, Weigel and Frum on Bloggingheads.
They talk about Weigel's recent Journolist-related ouster from the Washington Post, among other things. I haven't watched yet, so I can't vouch for how interesting the discussion is. It's interesting that they're on, so that's how my interestingness standard is met. Will they push each other or just natter on? Maybe listen while you're cooking dinner or something.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
A Smarmy of Davids . . .
Er, why? No offense to our hostess, but who watches any of those? Who has an hour or even a few minutes to spare to hear minor pundits trade convivialities? They could be good if they'd get people on there who'd go for the jugular, but none of them do. It's like watching a MiniEstrellas match where both contestants are covered with thick padding.
Instead of watching, I just left the following comment:
He wasn't really covering conservatives, he was just going after the powerless freaks (or what the establishment thinks of as freaks). He never took on anyone with any power and in fact before the WaPo he worked for the Soros/Rockefeller-funded TWI and before then he worked for the Kochtopus' own Reason Mag. At the latter establishment, I used to point out that the only public figure he'd dared ask a tough question of was Larry Sinclair, and that continued to hold true during his TWI and WaPo years (er, months).
And, his WaPo gig was actually better for his opponents because he was more constrained there than elsewhere; he's probably going to be able to do more damage to the 'partiers at MSNBC (even if only a few dozen people watch it).
For more, see my posts about Dave Weigel, which go back to 2006:
1. He's repeatedly misled about one issue in particular, but it happens to be an issue that the establishment has also repeatedly misled about so you won't hear about that from anyone else. Yet, if - unlike Weigel - you endeavor to understand my point and the difference between evidence and proof, you'll see that he's misled about the facts of that matter.
2. He wrote about me on his personal site and then refused to approve a comment I left pointing out how he's wrong. Yes, he's that low.
I listen to BH when I ride my back, and sometimes at work. I'll have to miss this one, though.
"Maybe listen while you're cooking dinner or something."
Sounds like you've invented a new weight-loss regimen.
He ends a lot of his declarative sentences in question marks?
it was private, off the record venting.
It was? Apparently you have access to the archives, because ... how would you know?
... everyone has opinions, and everyone vents, and everyone should be allowed to keep these things off the record.
Not when they are simultaneously representing themselves as independent-minded, objective and critical thinkers, opinion makers and purveyors of information.
Even liberals--if they are interested in the role of the media and journalism--should have a big problem with Journolist.
For example, what if they decided amongst themselves to bury the John Edwards story? I'm not saying they did, I'm just providing a "for instance." Can you see how that would ultimately have hurt the democrats, if Edwards had made it to the presidency?
My point is, we all do have a collective interest in the truth, much as I hate the word "collective." And much as I hate that we are all so very dependent on journalists, such as they are.
Why should anyone watch?
To see if maybe they might start making out? Ew. Who would want to see that?
He ends a lot of his declarative sentences in question marks?
It's called a high rise terminal.
Canadians and Valley girls.
Hi, I'm Pat? From Vancouver?
Er, why? No offense to our hostess, but who watches any of those?
More people than pay attention to the rants you incessantly self-link to.
danielle,
Who here disagrees with everyone of any political stripe having a private place to vent, and that such should be kept private?
There is one charge about Journolist that matters - that it was also a place that liberal journalists agreed on storylines across multiple news outlets and how to slant the news so that it favors the Democrats, keeping out facts that make Democrats look bad. Some of the leaked posts prove that was happening, though we don't know how much. That's what should concern every American.
We're not talking Fox News here or MSNBC - they are up front about it. We're talking about the media outlets that cry that they are down-the-middle, and cry that they are not liberal - the Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, et al
The question for you danielle is: What do you think about that kind of behind the scenes political slanting collusion?
I'd rather watch Charles Johnson talk to his bicycle than to watch these two.
It's called a high rise terminal.
In my small, unscientific sample, this phenomenon does seem to be on the rise among under-30 North American males, even non-canucks.
I blame estrogens in the water supply.
How do you figure it's ESTROGENS getting in the water supply?
Also, what about the point Hanna Rosin was making in her Atlantic article this month?
if it was called ManagementList where owners and managers in union industries came together bitch off the record about union members and collude about collective bargaining, danielle might get it.
"More people than pay attention to the rants you incessantly self-link to."
What you quoted was the most that I've read LoneWhacko in months.
Couldn't help but notice this juxtaposition:
Who has an hour or even a few minutes to spare to hear minor pundits trade convivialities?
AND
For more, see my posts about Dave Weigel, which go back to 2006
"Will they push each other or just natter on?"
They just natter on.
They totally natter on. I tried to find out what Journolust was, but couldn't even achieve that.
David Frum is strangely compelling for me. Has he lost weight? He's more attractive than before (not JUST because he has lost weight). There's something else too.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा