To listen to the conservative media, the Daily Caller has exposed the discussion listserv Journolist as some sort of hotbed of liberal message coordination. Ann Althouse said it "was designed -- apparently -- to figure out how to structure the various news stories to serve the interests of their party," Limbaugh said the emails showed "mainstream coordination with the left," and Beck saw a plot "to help Barack Obama."The Limbaugh and Beck quotes are supported by links (to Media Matters posts with video), but there's no link for what I said. Why's that? I don't think it's mere sloppiness, because, in fact, he's quoting something I wrote on June 27th, before the Journolist archive became available. I said:
This theory of secret list coordinating all manner of nefarious activities gets debunked, however, by the latest Journolist story from the Daily Caller...
Remember the liberal meme that George Bush was "incurious"? But aren't these liberal journalists incurious? They had this email list that was designed — apparently — to figure out how to structure the various news stories to serve the interests of their party. The Journolist was a self-herding device. They wanted to be good cogs in a machine that would generate power for the Democratic Party, didn't they? For career and social rewards? That's my hypothesis. As an intellectual, I would like to study how that worked. I'll write a book about it if someone will send me the raw material I need — the complete archive of the Journolist.I'm hoping to see the archive, because I can test a theory about what was going on. I'm asking questions and using the word "apparently." I don't know the truth. I want to read. Yet Willis presents my quote as if I am already reading, as if I'm misrepresenting what has been published in The Daily Caller. In fact, I've been notably critical of the way The Daily Caller has presented quotes from the list.
Willis writes: "To listen to the conservative media, the Daily Caller has exposed the discussion listserv Journolist as some sort of hotbed of liberal message coordination." My quote couldn't form the basis for an opinion about what the Daily Caller had exposed. It was written before The Daily Caller had published anything from the archive!
Media Matters... indeed...
ADDED: Having written this post and thereby worked through my anger, I must concede to some amusement at the presentation of "the conservative media" as me, Limbaugh, and Beck — in that order!
পোস্টগুলি
১৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
Wow. The people at Media Matters hold onto a fragmentary quote from a month ago and then reference it out of context in order to deceive their own readers. What a swell watchdog group they are.
I'll never understand why Liberals prefer being lied to by the media.
Mitchell: “Fair enough! But it seems to me that a concerted effort on the part of the left partisan press could be useful. Why geld ourselves? A lot of the people on this list work for organizations that are far more influential than, say, the Washington Times.
“Open question: Would it be a good use of this list to co-ordinate a message of the week along the lines of the GOP? Or is that too loathsome? It certainly sounds loathsome. But so does losing!”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-debates-making-its-coordination-with-obama-explicit/#ixzz0ungqAuHC
Media Matters is a Soros-funded prop machine anyway. And they're desperate.
It's Media Matters. You really can't expect much better from them. They've consistently shown themselves inimical to context and fair interpretation.
Leave the last two words out of your post title and you could use that headline every day.
And gee, it's almost like their attacks are coordinated or something.
The coordinated message for today is "there is no coordinated message". Media Matters is funny. Don't believe your lying eyes just believe them.
I suppose it never occurred to MM that Ezra intended for Journolist to be a simple discussion board but the participants had other ideas.
"Oliver Willis. . .writes a shamefully dishonest post about me."
Ollie "whatchoo talkin' bout" Willis? The lefty Filet-O-Fish hack? The incompetent stumblebum who has his corpulent ass handed to him on nearly every blog post he infects? That Oliver Willis? He wrote a dishonest post?
Althouse, that's like being surprised when your septic tank backs up. It will happen; it's only a matter of time.
WV - "olify" - Willis putting his spin on the latest disaster for the presidency of Black Narcissus.
Sorry, Professor, but the tone of your post comes across as a bit defensive, and, bluntly speaking, there is no reason for you to be that way.
The point of "never complain, never explain" is that the people, like Willis, who are trying to get their talking points out there in a bald effort to get you marginalized or, they hope! maybe even get you to shut up, aren't interested in what reality is. The rest of us either don't care which of you is right and which wrong, or else already understand what you are doing.
And, FWIW, "[t]his theory of secret list coordinating all manner of nefarious activities gets debunked" does not, in fact, debunk anything.
The Washington Post's Journo-list archive contains explicit instructions about how to coordinate newspaper and media coverage so that it would be maximally damaging to the McCain/Palin campaign.
So-called journalists from every major media outlet were secretly participating in an illegal and surreptitious attempt to rig our Presidential election by writing damaging stories about McCain/Palin and suppressing both news articles and commentary deemed hurtful toward the Barack Obama campaign.
Oliver Willis himself was an active participant.
Todd Gitlin: “On the question of liberals coordinating, what the hell’s wrong with some critical mass of liberal bloggers & journalists saying the following among themselves:
“McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America.
“Repeat after me:
“McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America.
“These people are cynical. These people are taking you for a ride. These people are fakes. These people love Bush.
“Again. And again. Vary the details. There are plenty. Somebody on the ‘list posted a strong list of McCain lies earlier today. Hammer it. Philosophize, as Nietzsche said, with a hammer.
“I don’t know about any of you, but I’m not waiting for any coordination. Get on with it!”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-debates-making-its-coordination-with-obama-explicit/2/#ixzz0uniNmZoS
I suppose Ann has to address libels that the Soros puppets at Media Matters throw at her. That's sad, particularly since it's coming from Oliver Wllis. I mean, the guy's work is so predictably tendentious, dishonest, and stupid, he's obviously a graduate of the Tariq Aziz School of Journalism. Some day they'll replace Willis with a computer algorithm.
The price you have to pay for fame is too high for us mere mortals.
wv: eatom ... what Oliver Willis does when he's sat next to a box of donuts.
Media Matters/FAIR are 2 propaganda arms for the Democrat party.
As an intellectual, I would like to study how that worked. I'll write a book about it if someone will send me the raw material I need — the complete archive of the Journolist.
Come on, Ann...book-schmook. The first thing you'll do with those archives is a word search for your last name and that's the driving urge to see them.
Granted, it would be my first move too, but still... (lol)
This is the Lefty mentality - destroy all who question or object. It worked forty years ago, but doesn't do so well when people can get to the truth.
Hah! I love it.
Ann Althouse said...
I must concede to some amusement at the presentation of "the conservative media" as me, Limbaugh, and Beck — in that order!
You're a colossus, the Catherine the Great of Conservative Media, the Juno of the blogosphere, the Petraeus of the Army of Davids - and you didn't even interview for the job!
Lincolntf said...
...
I'll never understand why Liberals prefer being lied to by the media.
Perhaps because they're nowhere near as smart as they think they are.
Is New Ham and C4 the same guy?
"Shamefully dishonest" describes the entire left media, politicians, global warming scientists, and blogosphere.
What they write is bullshit until proven otherwise. It's all just been one continuous con job.
after all New Ham already blames Journolist on the Jews.
So tell me New Ham - is Moishe involved?
Professor,
Why not craft an email request to the Daily Caller, and ask them if they are able to do a search for the word "Althouse" on the Journolist archives. If they can, maybe they'll send all the emails about you.
Then you could give a good spanking to these children.
Then you could give a good spanking to these children.
...hey, just because I occasionally wear shorts...
"Media Matters..."
In my head I had you say this like Seinfeld said "Newman!".
I don't know professor that "Althouse Limbaugh Beck" tag line has an Aryan vibe to it. Heh.
They believe that you're a conservative, never mind your having voted for Obama and explaining your reasons for so doing ad nauseum.
What fools. And to think that (some) people believe that what those fools write actually matters.
Interesting that none of them have lost their jobs as yet. It is apparently okay with their employers that "journalism" means collusion in slanting all writings to favor Obama.
They might as well be employed by Castro or Chavez.
You are the new "Tri-Lateralists"!!
The story (or lie) that holds their group together is one of the necessary parts of group dynamics. In this case the comforting ideal of a higher morality existing among the Progressive's frontline writers must be defended. This bomb throwing at a simple truthful analysis dislpays a knee jerk reaction to a serious defeat.
As you are now the new titular head of conservative media,
We bow to our new overlady!
wv: ressings
What do you expect from Media Matters?
There was a girl hired in when I started work who developed a sole reputation for thinking that people were talking about her and ruining her reputation.
Limbaugh and Beck are crushed that Ann got first billing.
Shouldn't we start spelling it "Lie-berals?"
Althaus, Beck and Limbaum would be more Nazi.
Life can be funny. There are sudden victories with little effort when the opponent has suddenly been weakened. Good job Professor. That was like watching you going for a takedown and coming down to the mat in a pin hold in 13 seconds of the first period.
Oh now I see, it's about YOU.
wank on.
Well, yes, master cylinder, if Oliver Willis, at Media Matters, writes "Ann Althouse said...", that would make it about her.
Stunningly perceptive, dude.
Ann, do you remember the fable of the frog and the scorpion?
mastercylinder,
Damn, two posts about wanking today. Is Mom's day off work keeping you from rubbing one out real quick?
"New Ham already blames Journolist on the Jews."
That wasn't me ... that was lefty director Oliver Stone:
"The Jews dominate the media,” Stone announced. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has fucked up United States foreign policy for years.”
According to White House favorite Oliver Stone ... a noted Democrat ... Jews maintain strict control of the media.
Here's the list of outed Journo-Listers:
1. Ezra Klein
2. Dave Weigel
3. Matthew Yglesias
4. David Dayen
5. Spencer Ackerman
6. Jeffrey Toobin
7. Eric Alterman
8. Paul Krugman
9. John Judis
10. Eve Fairbanks
11. Mike Allen
12. Ben Smith
13. Lisa Lerer
14. Joe Klein
15. Brad DeLong
16. Chris Hayes
17. Matt Duss
18. Jonathan Chait
19. Jesse Singal
20. Michael Cohen
21. Isaac Chotiner
22. Katha Pollitt
23. Alyssa Rosenberg
24. Rick Perlstein
25. Alex Rossmiller
26. Ed Kilgore
27. Walter Shapiro
28. Noam Scheiber
29. Michael Tomasky
30. Rich Yesels
31. Tim Fernholz
32. Dana Goldstein
33. Jonathan Cohn
34. Scott Winship
35. David Roberts
36. Luke Mitchell
37. John Blevins
38. Moira Whelan
39. Henry Farrell
40. Josh Bearman
41. Alec McGillis
42. Greg Anrig
43. Adele Stan
44. Steven Teles
45. Harold Pollack
46. Adam Serwer
47. Ryan Donmoyer
48. Seth Michaels
49. Kate Steadman
50. Matt Duss
51. Laura Rozen
52. Jesse Taylor
53. Michael Hirsh
54. Daniel Davies
55. Jonathan Zasloff
56. Richard Kim
57. Thomas Schaller
58. Jared Bernstein
59. Holly Yeager
60. Joe Conason
61. David Greenberg
62. Todd Gitlin
63. Mark Schmitt
64. Kevin Drum
65. Sarah Spitz
Now that you mention it, why are there so many Jews involved in this immoral activity?
Are Jews conspiring to rig our elections by secretly agreeing to destroy conservative candidates and suppressing criticism of Barack Obama?
I, for one, am grateful for our new law professor overlord.
Wait a sec...
Hey NewHammy,
You're messing up your Moby routine. Anti-semitism is a lefty thing and you're letting it show lately.
It's clear (I would think?) that at least some of those on the list were more interested than just, as Jonathan Chait explained, shooting the breeze.
Most were just probably solely interested in exchanging views or thoughts on current events. And some innocently wanted help on a story (sources, information). A third perhaps used it for job promotion.
But others were clearly interested in promoting a ideological narrative and in helping Obama and the Democrats.
We can debate, I guess, how successful they were. But to claim that there was no desire to do so at all is belied by some of these e-mails.
edutcher wrote: the Petraeus of the Army of Davids
Awesome metaphor.
Watching the Media Matters amateurs take attack a skilled opponent like the Professor reminds me of that quote from an Airborne guy at Bastogne in 1944, "they have us surrounded, the poor bastards".
Ann,
Look at it as free advertising from an obviously incompetent foe!
"You're messing up your Moby routine. Anti-semitism is a lefty thing and you're letting it show lately."
Oliver Stone - noted Democrat - wants you to know that Jews control the news media.
And then lo and behold, it turns out that a group heavily comprised of Jews were coordinating media attacks on conservatives and working secretly to suppress negative news coverage of Barack Obama.
Was Oliver Stone right? Do Jews control our elections and have they been fucking up our foreign policy for years?
Why are elite Democrats like Oliver Stone working so hard to convince Americans that Jews control the media and Hollywood?
Ezra....Spencer....Oliver... kinda wussy names aren't they? It's like their parents knew how they'd turn out.
Media Matters is interesting in a weird way.
They’ll say anything, make whatever they want up, et cetera… so that lefties can assert, in their day to day lives, they know they’re right (ie, it was ‘confirmed’ by Media Matters).
Scott: You're suggesting that Ann wear one of these the next time she sees Willis? :-)
Boy, Ann are you ever thin skinned.
You expect everyone else to give a full presentation of your views but then you turn around and cherry pick when presenting others
viewpoints.
You would think with all the money Soros has he could hire more intelligent writers for Media Matters....
Oliver Stone isn't even pretending not to be a nut-case anymore.
But the implication, that the "bus" is about to run over the latest scapegoats (a common role for Jews) in the cause of... something...
That's interesting.
I just don't think that the left could be that coordinated - which is the problem with most conspiracy theories. So I don't buy it.
Oh, bullocks, Althouse.
You don't have a leg to stand on here. You have been promoting a theory, as you admit, for months. Media Matters calls it a "conspiracy theory," which is accurate.
The Daily Caller has also been attacking or supposedly "exposing" Journolist for some time, not just as of their latest post.
So you are claiming that Media Matters should not have cited your previous statements because the Daily Caller said something new about it, or claimed they had the emails.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You have been alleging a vast left wing conspiracy for weeks. You have been one of the most outspoken right wing bloggers on the subject. So, you are accurately quoted and the timing is not relevant to the point - your claims of a secret conspiracy.
Now if you only got paid the same amount of money as Rush and Glenn (Beck)!
Oliver refused twice to answer my inquiry as to whether he was a member of Journolist. Prof Jacobson has posted a post election meeting photo of journolisters meeting at the WH with jared Bernstein. Willis is in that shot.
Media Matters does that daily.
What they also fail to point out is that the jounolisters go on to say they need to do it anyway, and provides talking points, and it is also suggested they form a new site in which to coordinate.
MM also ignores the fact that people like Joe Klein did it - wrote an article using talking points composed by the group and that article was then read on NBC by Brian Williams.
In other words, Media Matters doesn't matter because they are full of BS.
Prof,
I think you've crafte the tag line for a new breath mint:
"Leftoids--they're shamefully dishonest."
wv: "shati"--the outlook for Dems in Nov.
Alpha Liberal...Is that your defense? "Fake but accurate" is a tactic that is not even used anymore.
You got a point, "AlphaLiberal"?
Media Matters ...
less and less everyday
I see the next meme the left is pushing: that people outraged by the election and post-election Leftist Journolist coordination are a just conspiracy theorist nutballs.
There's no conspiracy; well, except for all those conspiring colluding coordinating on e-mails.
I *could* help Althouse with this, but considering how many smears and lies I've been subjected to by her fans from the tea parties and considering this is being linked by Glenn Reynolds maybe some other time.
Does this mean Althouse is the new defacto leader of the Republican Party/Conservative cabal?
Ann Althouse is WRONG in this post, if we believe June 25th comes before June 27th:
"...he's quoting something I wrote on June 27th, before the Journolist archive became available..."
FALSE!
The Daily Caller on June 25th:
"That Journolist member, Washington Post reporter David Weigel, resigned Friday. E-mails disclosed by The Daily Caller showed he disparaged conservatives he covers for the Post and rooted for Democrats to succeed on key issues such as health-care reform."
And here is the June 25th Daily Caller "expose" of Journolist emails and David Weigel.
You have selectively chosen June 27th when the Daily Caller had an earlier "expose."
Traditional Wanker:
"Alpha Liberal...Is that your defense? "Fake but accurate" is a tactic that is not even used anymore."
No, I don't need a defense because, in my universe, June 25 comes BEFORE June 27.
the Daily Caller, June 25:
Headline: E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats
The lede:
"
Washington Post reporter David Weigel
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh famously said he hoped President Obama would “fail” in January, 2009. Almost a year later, when Limbaugh was rushed to the hospital with chest pains, Washington Post reporter David Weigel had a wish of his own. “I hope he fails,” Weigel cracked to fellow liberal reporters on the “Journolist” email list-serv."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/emails-reveal-post-reporter-savaging-conservatives-rooting-for-democrats/#ixzz0uoDweyxM
Ask Dave Weigel if that was not an expose!
Whole lot of wankin goin on today.
Let's face it, Willis is just jealous that Ann has her own Wikipedia page.
Try looking up Willis and all you will get is:
"Did you mean: olive willis?"
I bet you AlphaLiberal Ann does not address or acknowledge her mistake.
From the JUNE 25th Daily Caller:
"E-mails obtained by the Daily Caller suggest those complaints have merit."
The emails in question are emails from Journolist list serve. The story is an expose.
Pretty damned lame defense, Althouse. No wonder you teach law, not practice it!
Knowing how stubborn conservatives are to reality-based fact, let's review the public date and time for this Daily Caller expose:
"E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 3:44 AM 06/25/2010 | Updated: 10:59 AM 07/23/2010"
Contrast this with Althouse's smear on Media Matters:
"I don't think it's mere sloppiness, because, in fact, he's quoting something I wrote on June 27th, before the Journolist archive became available. "
June 27th, is it before or after June 25th?
Ollie "You owe me Honkey!" Willis is an idiot. A leftist Baboon.
He needs to stick to the grape Kool-Aid and Cheetos.
Phil:
I bet you AlphaLiberal Ann does not address or acknowledge her mistake.
Sorry I can't take that bet, as I'd lose it!
But I will bet you she and her conservative minions will attack me and Media Matters all the more harshly for her mistake.
Kind of like the American Spectator attacking Shirley Sherrod because they don't know the definition of "lynching."
The truth and personal integrity mean nothing to the modern American conservative. They feel they have license to lie and smear, because they feel they are so superior to everybody else.
Nice try, Alpha. Conflating the initial release of a few messages with the news that a substantial archive was available.
http://www.breitbart.tv/journolist-flashback-andrew-breitbart-offers-100000-for-contents-of-liberal-media-coffee-clatch/
Breitbart offered the $100,000 about 2 days after the Professor asked for the archive to write a book. He withdrew his offer July 19th, about three weeks later.
Wrong again, Alpha.
It is patently obvious why the likes of Andrew Sullivan and Oliver Willis continue to attack you.
It is because of your unending vendetta against chubbby people.
It's karma.
"The truth and personal integrity mean nothing to the modern American conservative. They feel they have license to lie and smear, because they feel they are so superior to everybody else."
How anybody who daily regurgitates Journolist/DNC talking-points can offer advice or criticism re integrity is just laughable..
Inquiring minds want to know, is this new Althouse a result of man made warming? The National Enquirer may come to Madison to do a story like they do on the Evil El Rushbo and that Crazy Beck.
Oliver Willis is also a well-known shorts-wearer.
Yes, I think June 25 comes before June 27, too.
It was lame of Media Matters not to link to Althouse, but other than that...it appears Althouse owes Media Matters an apology.
"cryptical"
you are not addressing Ann's post. She takes issue with this Media Matters statement:
"To listen to the conservative media, the Daily Caller has exposed the discussion listserv Journolist as some sort of hotbed of liberal message coordination. Ann Althouse said it "was designed -- apparently -- to figure out how to structure the various news stories to serve the interests of their party," "
She claims the "expose" occurred aft June 27th. It did not. It occurred on June 25th, when the messages were selectively leaked and published by the Daily Caller.
Evidence from that June 25th Daily Caller story:
"“Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?” Weigel lamented in one February email."
the Daily Caller, in this JUNE 25TH post, goes on to expose this private emails:
"In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to “violently, angrily divide America.” According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,” and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power."
Althouse's claim to be an aggrieved victim falls flat on it's face. Instead of being a whiny baby, she might address the substance of the Media Matters post. But she knows she loses that way so she makes up this shit.
She's becoming more and more of a typical right winger each week.
chirp. chirp. chirp. chirp.
(Waiting for Ann's response.)
Journolist would not matter if the mainstream media had roughly 50/50 split ideologically.
The problem is when its 90/10, they can influence elections. 15 points is what somebody in the media said...
BTW, there was a political science study done on this - they had people come in to take a political survey, but while they were waiting to go in, the news was on TV. In one newscast they focused on national defense, in another they did not...turned out the news cast did affect the survey results.
I think the media also uses "hounding" as a tool: endless stories on a subject wear you down and eventually you submit.
Could it really be a "nihilistic thirst for power" that motivates conservatives, but of course not the sincere Journolisters? That could also explain the motive of those clinging Americans who do not worship King Obama I.
chirp, chirp.
Does June 27th come before or after June 25th? Will Althouse render her opinion?
Alpha,
That's a mighty thin limb you've shinnied out on. And I thought you reality based lefties were nuanced.
The June 25 piece was about Dave Weigel. The controversy involved the fact that the Post had hired a very biased lefty to "cover" the conservative movement. The Caller outed him and he got fired, and the Post, rightfully embarrassed.
The speculation then centered on the real nature of the Journoliars. On June 27, Prof. Althouse wonders if "apparently" the lister liars might not be hacks and asks for the full archive to make the case.
The Caller adds fuel to the fire on July 19, which on my calendar is after June 27. So Willis turns speculaton into a positive accusation. His smear has nothing to do with Dave Weigel, and so I must conclude that you and Willis are shamefully dishonest.
As was asked on Hot Air, shouldn't Columbia be asked about their views on a professor who has so few qualms with violating basic journalistic ethiccs.
The problem with all journalists is that they are lazy, worthless, elitist, incompetent scum.
Let’s take a non political example. If you read the sports pages you will notice how all of a sudden the same nonsensical feature articles will appear in all three New York Papers. Not a game summary but a fluff piece about the back up catcher or the last guy in the bullpen. You see the reporters all coordinate their stories so nobody is left out and gets in trouble with his editor. They “manage” and “coordinate” and “slant” the news. No harm and no foul because sports are the toy department of life. But it just shows what lazy, slothful hacks all journalists really are in the real world.
Most regular Americans don’t have time to follow this but it is eventually sinking in. That is why the approval ratings for journalists are below that of used car salesmen and grave robbers. Everything that Ezra Klein and Ollie Willis do these days is just putting another nail in the coffin of the moldering corpse of the mainstream media.
That’s a great thing. Thanks guys.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
It's kind of obvious (because it's...duh... exactly what Ann wrote) that Althouse is talking about "the archive". Not the dinky Weigel e-mail that got people's ears pricked up. The resident Lefty loons are dishonestly picking nits, 'cuz that's what they do.
Anyway, for a fun diversion, Google Shirley Sherrod's racist kook of a husband. He does a great idiotic babble about the white man and "Uncle Toms" stealing elections from black folks. Pure stupidity, and perfectly in keeping with the non-coordinated "call them all racists" strategy.
Must've been a real treat for little Russia and Kenyatta to grow with these two hateful hustlers as parents.
The journolist was not so much a conspiracy as an echo chamber. Ezra Klein says the list was designed for discussion, but what kind of discussion can you have within such a homogeneous group. They all have the same viewpoint and educational background and hairstyle and favorite clothing store. The discussion is not whether or not to hate Palin, but what is the most effective way to hate her. They can claim that his is discussion and not coordination, but I would claim that it's spinach and the hell with it......Issues have been raised about the ethnic background of the journolisters. Unless there is a secret Jewish plot to destroy the state of Israel, I don't think you can claim that the journolisters in any way advance the interests of Jews. I do think, however, that it is fair to ask where's the ethnic diversity on its membership rolls.
Trooper:
Do you buy a newspaper every day? I only get the WSJ cause I finally cancelled my Philly Inquirer subscription in March. I couldn't take its liberal bullshit any longer.
But I think its sports coverage is still non-political and I wish they did the rest of the news the same way.
No, I don't buy the newspaper anymore. I do read the New York Post online. But what I was talking about is how all of these publications engage in group think and copy off of each others test papers. An original thought would never enter their wooden heads.
Don't give them any money. Read the content on-line. Drive them out of business. Make all these scumbags get real jobs.
I bet Ollie Willis has a big career as a Fred Berry impersonator.
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
Another quite humorous aspect of this is that a big tingle ran up Ann's leg because some blogger that no one has even heard of mention her name in the same sentence as her intellectual hero Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. The Althouse blog is always good for a cheap laugh!
No doubt these creeps have moved on from Journolist to other online spiderholes, whether sponsored by Media Matters or not. It doesn't take much money to set up something like that.
I am hoping that teams of volunteer investigators will continue to infiltrate their online venues and expose them to ridicule so frequently that none of them will ever be taken seriously by anybody again.
Hey, Ezra Klein said there was no conspiracy, so that settles it! Ignore all those emails from listers calling for people to coordinate. Because Ezra said there was to be no coordination, they did not listen to each other at all, or pick up each other's ideas. Nothing to see here.
Willis is a genius.
Old Dad tries to cover for Althouse's embarrassing mistake:
"The June 25 piece was about Dave Weigel."
Yes, it was about Weigel but it would have not been noticeable in the slightest without the expose of the Journolist emails in the very same article:
"Weigel cracked to fellow liberal reporters on the “Journolist” email list-serv."
From the JUNE 25TH Daily Caller article.
Ann owes an apology to Oliver Willis and Media Matters. They were correct when they quoted Ann in response to the Daily Caller expose.
Note, Media Matters did NOT say ""the archive." You said that. They were accurate and fair.
I will ignore the MM commentary.
As for the latest postings from Jornolist:
-to his credit Mr. Klein did admonish "listers" against message coordination
-assuming the previous DC Jornolist excerpts are representative, then the body of evidence WOULD suggest message coordination. Or put another way this message by Mr. Klein should have been repeated early and often no message coordination. I'm not even sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I want it to retain that character,
-today's story seemed less damning. I'm wondering if DC saved its best for first
-as a centrist I just don't understand the continued defense of the Jornolisters against the charge of "coordination". Its as if they're saying who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?
-It would be nice to have the entire archive to "judge" the overall tenor of the list (i.e. left of center folks bitching and moaning vs left of center folks bitching and moaning and coordinating message and efforts)
-And yes, if anyone has a similar body of evidence regarding right of center journalists and opinion leaders, nows the time to bring it on
Alpha,
Did you think that sentient human beings who follow politics on the internet did not know about the Journoliars months before June 25? You might exercise some of your vaunted research skills and discover that Prof. Althouse wrote a lengthy post about the Caller/ Weigel article on--wait for it--June 25. The post garnered some 243 comments, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that you might have been one of the teeming hoardes. Do you read this blog or only comment?
If you want to believe that Prof. Althouse wrote a lengthy post on the 25th about Weigel and the Caller and then forgot about it on the 27th, then be my guest. I suppose you couldn't possibly make a bigger fool out of yourself, but thanks for trying.
AL, your spinning is impressive. The archives weren't available until this week. Heck, its not available now.
See, if they were, we would know who was in the group...all 400 members. Since you and the jolly tards at MM must know since you claim the archives are available, can you tell us all the members?
Old Dad:
You sounds pretty confused.
She made a clear allegation that Oliver Willis was "shamefully dishonest." She laid out the date for the quote of hers that she takes exception to, that was June 27th.
She claims the Daily Caller expose was after that. Well, they had one on June 25th.
So, her accusation is WRONG. That is now proven. How she reacts will decide how she is regarded. Will she own up, like an adult? Or will she make excuses and keep on attacking people?
I expect the latter. Or she will ignore it.
chirp, chirp.
damikesec:
"The archives weren't available until this week."
So what? The dispute is not about the archives. It is about Ann being accurately quoted and whether there was an "expose" prior to June 27.
It's a simple concept, really. Look at the words and base your comments on those, not some fictitious conversation in your head.
Conservatives are impossible to reason with anymore.
GMay on Ham posting that the Journolist Cabal Was Heavily Jewish:
"You're messing up your Moby routine. Anti-semitism is a lefty thing and you're letting it show lately."
Half the high ranking members of the American and Soviet Communist Parties 1915-45 were Jews when they were 2-3% of the general population.
GMay - "That may be true, but it is anti-Semitic to say so."
Soviets of Jewish ethnicity were major participants in designing and executing the Red Terror and Ukrainian Famine, prime instigators in bloody communist revolutionary coups in W Europe - which partially drove the creation of Fascist Parties.
GMay - "That may be true, but it is anti-Semitic to say so."
Abe Foxman of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League said he would crucify Gibson over the Passion of The Christ because "Jews run Hollywood and we dominate media, Gibson knows that, and he will be sorry"
GMay - "If anyone else said it, it would be anti-Semitic. Foxman is of course not. He was just exaggerating the myth of Jewish power, cleverly trying to make Gibson abandon his anti-Semitic movie."
Half the people in the "prime culprit" category for the financial meltdown were Jews.
GMay - Of course, only Jews and a few others could understand complex derivative swaps and synthetic mortgage default loan insurance bundling made into marketable units. That so many Jews were involved is a tribute simply to their high intelligence - and any criticism is simply anti-semitic.
Oliver stone says....
GMay - "Oliver Stone is smearable. And he must be smeared because he criticizes Jews. He may be right, but that makes him anti-Semitic."
The Muslims and Chinese and Russians and NORKs and French are shits!
"GMay - That's OK. Any other group may be freely criticized."
AL, given that her post called for the release of the archive to test a theory that has been proven correct to date, you are clearly showing you don't know what you're talking about. Illiteracy is ugly to see.
If you're going to ask others to think for you, then find competent people to do it for you.
Oliver is an idiot. Always has been. Nice to see that he is apparently smarter than you.
No one pays attention to Media Matters. They are charlatans and frauds.
Why geld ourselves?
A lot of places only take geldings.
chirp...
chirp...
chirp...
Phil -- You are a tool.
Seven Machos said...
Phil -- You are a tool.
I dunno. I was going to guess a bird.
I dunno. I was going to guess a birdbrain.
I love when people come to Althouse's blog and demand that they be acknowledged, like Phil.
Hilarious.
"I bet you AlphaLiberal Ann does not address or acknowledge her mistake."
There's no mistake. The first Daily Caller piece based on its possession of the archive came in mid-July. Here.
Earlier writing about the David Weigel stuff wasn't the same thing.
I think it's fair to say that you have lost the argument when you are arguing semantics and you cannot even make it clear what the fuck you are talking about.
So, Ann, are you claiming that the June 25 Weigel story that published for the first time his emails posted to the Journolist was not, as Media Matters described it "an expose?"
I suspect David Weigel does (consider it an expose)!
You are accusing Willis and Media Matters of dishonesty here. They did not say "The first Daily Caller piece based on its possession of the archive." Those are YOUR words, made up after the fact!
Media Matters did not even say "archives." The word "archive" does not even show up in their post!
Hint: If you're going to accuse someone of dishonesty, base your accusation on what they actually said.
Alpha -- Your post still sucks, even though you have posted it three times now in two different threads. I repeat:
I think it's fair to say that you have lost the argument when you are arguing semantics and you cannot even make it clear what the fuck you are talking about.
Ann Althouse's logic here is just bizarre. Crazy, really.
She accuses other people of being dishonest and responds not by addressing what they actually said but addressing something they didn't even address!
Alpha -- What is your point?
Seven Machos, I'm not responsible for your lousy reading comprehension.
Here it is for simple minds:
Media Matters:
To listen to the conservative media, the Daily Caller has exposed the discussion listserv Journolist as some sort of hotbed of liberal message coordination. Ann Althouse said it "was designed -- apparently -- to figure out how to structure the various news stories to serve the interests of their party,"
The Daily Caller posted a story two days prior to the Althouse quote cited above, where they published the content of some Journolist emails.
Althouse calls them "shamelessly honest" and claims she posted before any Daily Caller expose.
Except she posted after. So, she's full of it. She wants to claim they said she posted after the Daily Caller expose. Clearly they said nothing of the sort.
My point is that Ann Althouse is being "shamefully dishonest." It's a pretty open and shut case, actually.
So you are questioning the timing of Althouse's completely truthful statement? If the timing is wrong, how does that affect its veracity?
Let me pose my question another way: how does anything you say make anyone look bad, except you for being reduced to this inane argument?
Alpha:
Take your meds for Christsakes.
"I think it's fair to say that you have lost the argument when you are arguing semantics and you cannot even make it clear what the fuck you are talking about."
Leftish strategy: If you shout a lie long enough, it eventually becomes an unassailable truth.
Corrolary: If you ignore facts long enough, they eventually go away.
Cedarford,
Next time you want to have a conversion with yourself, please leave me the hell out of it. If not, I may be forced to have Lonewhacko sue you. That is of course if he can dry his tears first from all the hell he's subjected to here on this blog.
Seven Machos:
"So you are questioning the timing of Althouse's completely truthful statement? If the timing is wrong, how does that affect its veracity?"
Did you actually read Ann's post? Her attack on Media Matters is all based on "timing." If the timing is wrong then it is false.
"I wrote on June 27th, before the Journolist archive became available"
That's why she attacks someone as being "shamefully dishonest."
However, she is the "shamefully dishonest" here as Media Matters never even mentioned the word "archive" and only said "expose." There was one such expose based on the Journolist emails, two days before the quoted post.
And these comments we're writing here? they are purportedly in reference to original post. You know, the one with "timing" as it's central point?
Now, how do your posts make you look as anything other than obtuse, intentionally or otherwise?
Again Seven Machos, from the original Althouse post above:
"My quote couldn't form the basis for an opinion about what the Daily Caller had exposed. It was written before The Daily Caller had published anything from the archive!"
Her whole post is about "timing." And she is dishonest.
Dude -- I just wish you'd step outside of yourself for a second and observe how ridiculous it looks for you to be pounding the table over semantics and something about timing.
None of that matters.
You do your side a great disservice by failing to address anything approaching substance, and by being an ass hat.
AJ Lynch,
Lay off the liquor, for Pete's sake.
I've decisively knocked down Althouse's attack and ya got nothing of substance so you attack, as I predicted above.
I've decisively knocked down Althouse's attack
You have quibbled uselessly about semantics and timing. Is this really the best argument you can come up with? That's so sad.
Let's not forget:
Ezra Klein and at least 399 Journolisters have the complete archives at their disposal.
If anything has been taken out of context or Dowdified or otherwise described inaccurately, then it is within the power of any of those 400 people to correct it.
Instead, Oliver "Free" Willy(is) is reduced to this sort of posting and exactly ZERO Journolisters have provided even an iota of proof to the contrary.
So we're left with the junior varsity spin team as represented by Mr. Alphabits who think they can score some juvenile gotcha point on dates by parsing words well beyond their obvious face value.
If I were running the Lefty Spin Squad from DNC HQ, I'd definitely consider cancelling their contract with Alphabits - they're not getting their money's worth at all.
Well this is refreshing. The house lefties are at least staying on topic this thread. After the pummeling they got last week trying to defend Sherrod & the obama administration they really look like they were on the ropes. Not even a Palin diversion. But if I can sift through their blather they are asserting anyone can read the Journalist emails and that it proves there was no coordination on media coverage? Really? That's the best you can do?
"GMay said...
Cedarford,
Next time you want to have a conversion with yourself, please leave me the hell out of it"
Your one-sided pimpery of certain matters as bigoted if any role by Jews is questioned --and insistance that Jews have an immunity amulet from criticism Muslims, NORKs, blacks, French, etc, etc cannot claim makes you fairly easy to spoof.
Jim:
"So we're left with the junior varsity spin team as represented by Mr. Alphabits who think they can score some juvenile gotcha point on dates by parsing words well beyond their obvious face value."
Actually, I directly addressed Ann's claims of dishonesty. It's a foreign concept to you, so you mischaracterize it.
Read her post. It's all about timing. And addressing claims of dishonesty requires parsing statements.
You are dumb.
I for one think Alpha Liberal deserves a Filibusterer of the Month Award. That was some highly talented talking about nothing. But Alpha still owes sarah Palin a donation on our bet to help her get the GOP's 2012 nomination. He said that he would pay that to screw the GOP into running a loser candidate. These Journolisters in secret were amazed at Governor Palins's skills and sent the signals out to start a coordinated destruction effort. Hmmm. Whom can we believe in anymore.
AlphaLiberal is just filibustering now. Ann's statements are obviously accurate when applying any attempt at context. Of course, the schmuck could care less and being honest here.
So continue to lay on the floor and scream like a 3 year old if it makes you feel better. No honest person is buying it.
By the way, Media Matters has added a link now to Ann's post, which followed the June 25 expose of Journolist emails, despite her feeble protestations.
To review how thoroughly busted Althouse is:
Ann Althouse: "I don't think it's mere sloppiness, because, in fact, he's quoting something I wrote on June 27th, before the Journolist archive became available."
Note: Media Matters did not say or in any way imply she wrote "after the Journolist archive became available." Ann invented that distinction.
Ann Althouse: "It was written before The Daily Caller had published anything from the archive!"
This is false. You can read the June 25th Daily Caller story here, which includes quotes from emails from the Journolist archive.
Actually, the headline on that story, alone, gives the lie to Althouse' claim: "E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats"
Althouse is busted on being dishonest so her legions of foaming righties continue to attack.
Some stories are emerging about Obama as a cosseted and protected "minority uplift project" at U of CHicago - sponsored by a powerful Jewish Harvard Law alumni group and 3 very wealthy Jewish families on U of Chicago Board of Trustees.
"He's lazy, teaches only one class and has been offered an adjuct professor spot Barack declined because he found publishing a distraction. And he has already far exceeded the usual 1-2 year invited lecturer time and we want to look at other recent grads for tenure track possibilities or get an ex-judge in" BOT - "keep him on as lecturer."
"Look, Barack Obama still hasn't published anything and it's been 2 more years, and he still only has that one class he had at the beginning of his time here with the same syllabus.." BOT - "Sounds like it is about time to reward his wife with a plush exec Administrator job then, as she dropped her law degree and needs part-time work to help get them the Rezko place."
"Look, what's going on? The guy doesn't even attend Faculty meetings or review others work!" BOT - "What's going on is the Crowns, Pritzkers, and Klutzniks give this school hundreds of millions. Avner Mikva loves him. Promote him to Senior Lecturer. We are doubling his wifes salary, too, now that she can do 20 hours a week instead of 10."
GMay - "That may all be true, but it is anti-semitic to discuss wealthy leftist former SDS members and Harvard radical lawyers having Obama as their pet project. If his mentors happen to be radical Jews, it is bigoted to even bring that up about Obama. Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rev Jerimiah Wright, and Blago aren't, so by GMay rules, they may be freely talked about."
GMay - "You are still free to talk about Obama's radical background and wealthy liberal-to-radical sponsors, as long as you leave one group out of it. To mention them is anti-semitic"
AlphaLiberal, since your argument is that the Journolist archives was available for the past month, you must feel like an absolute idiot that you didn't take Breitbart up on his $100,000 offer for the Journolist archives.
Media Matters looks pretty stupid too, with their June 30 article criticizing Althouse for wanting to see the entire archive. Didn't they realize that the entire archive was already available?!
Not to mention, Jonathan Chait (on June 28, 2010) and Matt Yglesias (on Jun 26th, 2010) writing about how there was no need to release the Journolist archives because they were too mundane for public viewing.
I bet if you got corrections from Media Matters, Chait, Yglesias, etc. then people might take your argument that the release of a few excerpts equals the release of the entire archive seriously.
I've had my share of convo's with OWillis on twitter.
"ALL" that he is, is a treasure trove of MM links. Everything that he says and does links back to MM.
It's not worth even one pixel conferring with him.
Apparently, to AL, asking for clarification is weakness. She asked for the archves to see if it was what she thought.
J-List member Oliver Wills decides the concerns have been debunked...because he said so, mind you...and calls Ann a conspiracy nut because she...actually wanted to verify info before making a judgment.
I know, facts are insignificant for AL or the collection of fetal alcohol syndrome victims at MM.
AC245:
"AlphaLiberal, since your argument is that the Journolist archives was available for the past month,"
That's not my argument. That is not Media Matters' argument.
Nowhere did I say or imply that. As far as I know, the Journolist archive is STILL not available.
No, the point she was referring to was the "the Daily Caller has exposed the discussion listserv Journolist."
You and Ann Althouse LIE when you say that is the same thing as when the Journolist archives being available.
See, this is why I think conservatives these days are so disgracefully dishonest. You're lying right in plain black and white.
damikesec:
"Apparently, to AL, asking for clarification is weakness."
Liar. Nowhere did I say that.
I said that the Daily Caller posted an expose story that included several of the emails on June 25.
You have such a weak argument you have to resort to these lies.
Ann, that is a pretty weak response at 3:43 p.m. for someone accusing another blogger of being "shamefully dishonest."
The archive was not available to her then, Alpha Liberal, and it's not available to her now.
Willis quoted her out of context.
If you want to hang your argument on a few words of Dave Weigel's, have at it.
The archive was not available to her then, Alpha Liberal, and it's not available to her now.
Willis quoted her out of context.
If you want to hang your argument on a few words of Dave Weigel's, have at it.
Janis, I am hanging my argument on Ann Althouse's words responding to Media Matters' words.
And, if you read her post here, you will see you are further wrong in that the archives is not yet available to her:
"I'll write a book about it if someone will send me the raw material I need — the complete archive of the Journolist."
you are doubly wrong and demonstrate very poor reading comprehension.
Phil:
Ann, that is a pretty weak response at 3:43 p.m. for someone accusing another blogger of being "shamefully dishonest."
Yes, isn't a weak defense? I invite her to do better, rather than let he attack keyboardists try to change the subject for her.
George Soros isn't paying Media Matters to be accurate.
nuff said
I don't know why you're all coming after Alpha. Althouse wanted us to think MEdia Matters had just posted something "shamefully dishonest" about her, but they did not.
But I guess Althouse won't apologize for that. She's busy helping the right-wing blogosphere find a way to attack Shirley Sherrod all over again, and play defense for her defamer, Andrew Breitbart. It's almost as if she's working in coordination with the right-wing blogosphere. And what a wicked and shamefully dishonest pack that is.
What would you think is a fair criticism of Willis' statement?
He did select a quote out of context and out of time.
Liar. Nowhere did I say that.
Your inability to communicate your beliefs is hardly my concern.
Heck, Media Matters is "lying" since the person who leaked the existence of Journolist was...Mickey Kaus.
About a year or two ago.
I said that the Daily Caller posted an expose story that included several of the emails on June 25.
Just checking...could you have somebody who speaks English as a primary language look over your work? Thanks.
Phil:
Ann, that is a pretty weak response at 3:43 p.m. for someone accusing another blogger of being "shamefully dishonest."
Yes, isn't a weak defense? I invite her to do better, rather than let he attack keyboardists try to change the subject for her.
My, responding to your own sock puppetry...
The only purpose for Journolist to exist was to coordinate the leftard message screed for other leftards to promote leftard messages and ideology. Even if Klein said no to that type of coordination, for these idiots to claim that it is a right wing conspiracy coming out of a leftard dead-bolt wing of journolist is insane. These people are fucking insane with a capital crazy. They need to be committed for this type of fundamental reality altering make-believe bat-shit crazy lunacy.
In spite of myself I took AL's advice and re-read the Professor post to discern the essence of the "timing" issue.
My conclusion:
WTF!
AlphaLiar, you are such a spineless lying piece of shit that it is sickening that I have to share the same atmosphere with the likes of verminous traitorous sub-human filth such as you. Are you going to deny that someone like Ackerman et al. conspired to start a racist meme to paint several conservatives with the racist brush, just because to take the heat away from Obama with regards to Rev. Wright? So what is Media Matters calling, A vast right-wing conspiracy instead? Seriously? Who is the ardent Conservative media you would like to point out other than Fox News? Who the fuck are you defending, you leftard stooge?
Haha. Oliver Willis. I can't believe that fucking idiot is still around. Seriously, try reading some of his shit, it's astoundingly bad.
I can't believe so many people let AlphaLiberal spew that BS for so long without pointing out that there were two Daily Caller articles.
The one Althouse commented on was on June 25th, but the article discussed by Willis at Media Matters, which was commented on by Beck and Limbaugh, was on July 19th.
AlphaLiberal was running around here screaming that June 25th comes before June 27th, therefore Althouse is dishonest!
I see a lot of people arguing with him about tangent points but nobody nails him down on his basic lie.
Janis Gore said....
"What would you think is a fair criticism of Willis' statement?
He did select a quote out of context and out of time."
No. He didn't. Not at all. That charge is false.
I've demonstrated that several times on this page. here is a link to one of my comments on this page debunking Althouse's false charge.
Here is my first post on this very page on this very subject.
And another.
I have posted this multiple times because the conservatives, including Althouse, cannot seem to wrap their minds around it.
Media Matters never even used the word "archive." Ann keeps talking about that when they said, in plan English, that the Daily Caller "exposed" some blah blah about Journolist.
And they had done that before Ann's story.
So, keep playing dumb if you must, conservatives but don't be surprised when you look dumb in the process.
AlphaLiberal says: I have posted this multiple times because the conservatives, including Althouse, cannot seem to wrap their minds around it.
No matter how many times you repeat the lie, that doesn't make it true. You're conflating an article written on June 25th with one from July 19th. You know full well the one referenced in the Willis piece is the latter, because it is the one on which Beck and Limbaugh comment.
And neither have you, Bilbys!
"The one Althouse commented on was on June 25th, but the article discussed by Willis at Media Matters, which was commented on by Beck and Limbaugh, was on July 19th."
Willis was not restricting his comments to the July 19th.
Mr Willis, from the article:
"This theory of secret list coordinating all manner of nefarious activities gets debunked, however, by the latest Journolist story from the Daily Caller:"
You may be new to the English language, so let me explain:
When a writers says the "latest story" he is discussing more than one. That is, earlier stories are relevant to the discussion.
Really, do you guys speak English as your first language?
"When a writers says the "latest story" he is discussing more than one. That is, earlier stories are relevant to the discussion."
So what? The article Limbaugh and Beck are referring to is this one:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
Althouse commented on this one:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/emails-reveal-post-reporter-savaging-conservatives-rooting-for-democrats/
At the second link, from June 25th, you'll find this:
Weigel was hired this spring by the Post to cover the conservative movement. Almost from the beginning there have been complaints that his coverage betrays a personal animus toward conservatives. E-mails obtained by the Daily Caller suggest those complaints have merit.
See that? They only had emails specific to Dave Weigel, no "archive" as was reported on July 19th.
Ann, you know me. I am a democrat. I support Obama/Biden. I campaigned for them. Yet, your blog welcomes me. You are a scholar. A better blogger than others - even among democrats (who play dirty). These dirty bloggers include Oliver W., Ezra K., Matt Y., Andy Sully, etc. I would not worry about these losers. I hope one day we in the democrat party can get rid of these dirty bloggers.
They are the America's Best Pseudo-Intellectuals. My guess is that they are jealous of you. You have tenure. They do not; they are not qualified to ever get one. You are a scholar; they only pretend to be one. Enough said.
You're making a mistake, Alpha Liberal, because I'm not that conservative.
If you disagreed with her hypothesis, say so, but it doesn't change the facts as I see them.
Again, if you object to the title of the post, what do you see as a proper alternative? I think it's overstated, but that's my opinion, and it's Ann's blog.
It wasn't a rhetorical question.
A straight jacket is missing its lunatic.
Janis Gore, I answered your previous question here. And you ignored the substance of the debate.
To answer your new question, A better title for this post would be "I, Ann Althouse, apologize to Oliver Willis for shamefully bearing false witness against him."
She could then go on to admit the Daily Caller was running their "expose"'s on the Journolist before June 25th.
And that she has disproven nothing that Willis said.
Okay, then.
bilbys:
"See that? They only had emails specific to Dave Weigel, no "archive" as was reported on July 19th."
"Archive" is Althouse's dodge, her invention, her strawman.
OK, find in the Media Matters story where they even mention an "archive".
They do not. The refer to the Daily Caller "exposing" the Journolist, which has been going on since June. THAT's what Althouse referred to.
Here are the tagged stories by the Daily Caller where they are engaged in exposing the Journolist. It's a long list!!
Here is a Google search for Daily Caller stories with Journolist in them. They go WAY back.
Oliver Willis referred to "the latest story" as one of a long series of these Daily Callers stories that seek to "expose" Journolist. Althouse suffered no dishonesty.
Really, is English a second language for you?
Funny.
Double standards here for sure.
The clear implication of the Media Matters post is that Althouse, having seen what the Daily Caller "exposed" is characterizing it a certain way. She's not. Not only is she not doing that but she's put up more than one post, IIRC, essentially saying that there is less "there" there than the Daily Caller and others (Limbaugh and Beck?) are making it out to be.
As such, the quote "out of time" implies something that isn't true if anyone bothered at all to find out what Althouse has been saying about the Journolist archives, or what parts of them we've seen. Shamefully dishonest is putting it mildly.
And we should remember that what our resident liberal crusaders call blatantly lying is something as mild as wearing a fedora and a chinchilla coat in the opening credits but taking off the "pimp costume" during interviews - nevermind outright using the term "prostitution" to describe what the girl will be doing.
Synova:
"The clear implication of the Media Matters post is that Althouse, having seen what the Daily Caller "exposed" is characterizing it a certain way."
How can you make these arguments with a straight face?
The expose is not restricted to the "archive." In my mother tongue, (English) when we say "latest story" that means we are talking about more than one story.
You guys are a like a fucking cult.
Looking through the archives of The Daily Caller, we find another story predating Ann Althouse's June 27 post, titled and dated thusly:
July 27, 2010
Washington Post reporter David Weigel resigns amid political e-mail revelations
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 2:44 PM 06/25/2010 | Updated: 10:59 AM 07/23/2010
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/washington-post-reporter-david-weigel-resigns-amid-political-e-mail-revelations/#ixzz0uqUkamTD
Let's review:
1) In plain English, the term in this story "political e-mail revelations" is nearly synonymous (a.k.a. "the same as" "exposed," the term used by Willis in bringing up Ann Althouse's quote that alleges conspiracy.
2) this story is date June 25, two days prior to the June 27th date Althouse claims shows she commented before any Daily Caller so-called expose. So, for those new to English, that would mean the Daily Caller "exposed" some Journolist emails before Ann Althouse wrote her June 27th post.
4) Oliver Willis never used the word "archive" nor referenced a particular story when quoting Ann Althouse. The timing of the "archive" stories are not relevant.
Ann Althouse has been done no harm and has, herself, been shamefully dishonest.
Double standards, Alpha.
There is the common sense "how will the average reader understand this" test and this fails it.
And Althouse's first couple of posts about what the Daily Caller wrote about what the revealed emails showed were cautious and somewhat critical.
More is being put out there now and it's even more obvious that people who call themselves journalists felt free to not even pretend to be objective or anything other than a Democrat party hack.
Which seems to be okay with you.
Who's in a cult Alpha?
This is like a prize fight from the early 20th century.
Every time a fighter got knocked down, the round ended and fights could last for many many rounds.
For you Alpha, I'd estimate it's approx the 115th round and you are still looking for your 1st knockdown of Althouse.
Synova, whatever you're talking about it's not the subject of this post: Ann Althouse's claimed victimhood for having been quoted.
A reader will plainly see that Willis is addressing more than one article as he says "last story." And nowhere does he say "archive." You have not disputed any of that.
Althouse was fairly quoted as she has been flogging this story, with right wing distortions, for a while now.
You know, "cult" was probably a poor choice of words.
I should have said "zombies."
"Archive" is Althouse's dodge, her invention, her strawman.
Here's a little context-creating snippet from the actual June 27 Althouse post that was cited:
But aren't these liberal journalists incurious? They had this email list that was designed — apparently — to figure out how to structure the various news stories to serve the interests of their party. The Journolist was a self-herding device. They wanted to be good cogs in a machine that would generate power for the Democratic Party, didn't they? For career and social rewards? That's my hypothesis. As an intellectual, I would like to study how that worked. I'll write a book about it if someone will send me the raw material I need — the complete archive of the Journolist.
Obviously Althouse can see into the future, and had the foresight to "invent" a "strawman" "dodge" almost an entire month before she needed it to defend herself against this duplicitous diatribe from the Soros stooges.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন