New on the Web: Politics As Usual ?
December 8, 2006 5:39 PM Subscribe
Remember when folks were "up-in-arms" after learning that the Bush administration paid prominent political commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote 'No Child Left Behind' legislation? It turns out that a handful of liberal bloggers pulled in some decent cash this past year from various political campaigns as consultants, while maintaining their "independent" blogs. Case in point: Jerome Armstrong (MyDD) made $115,000+ from Sherrod Brown (over 15 months) and $65,000 from Mark Warner (over 12 months). Turns out Armstrong admitted this week that he has been writing on his blog under various aliases -- including 'Scott Shields.' 'Shields' received payments from the Robert Menendez campaign.
Are you claiming that the following (from your "admited" link) is not meant to be sarcastic?
Chris, Matt and Jonathan do not exist, despite any previous claims. He got me. We're all the same person. I (Jerome) have been writing under these aliases the entire time I have been working on other campaigns. I also used to write under the name of Scott Shields until I got hired under that pseudonym by another campaign. Thought you met Matt, Chris or Jonathan at Yearly Kos or some other event? Most likely you met one of the young fellows I paid to play those roles. They're just out of work, dime a dozen actors from Los Angeles. Anyone could have played them.posted by monosyllabic at 5:50 PM on December 8, 2006
The interpretation here in Boston, as reported this evening on WGBH's 'Meet the Press,' is that Shields is an "admitted" alias used by Armstrong.
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on December 8, 2006
So wait, there's no difference between a private political campaign funding shills using their own money, and the government of the United States funding shills using my money?
This is, indeed, news to me.
posted by tkolar at 5:59 PM on December 8, 2006 [3 favorites]
This is, indeed, news to me.
posted by tkolar at 5:59 PM on December 8, 2006 [3 favorites]
Blogs are by their nature not reputable. Blogs are nothing more than modern pamphleteers. I bet this is the tip of the iceberg, these types of payola arrangements are happening all over the political blog scene and also within the tech blog scene (TechCrunch, etc.) It isn't the payments that surprise me, but rather that people seem surprised by the disclosure that there are these types of payments.
posted by bhouston at 5:59 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by bhouston at 5:59 PM on December 8, 2006
Blogs are nothing more than modern pamphleteers
Brings to mind Dan Bricklin's online essay: Pamphleteers and Web Sites.
posted by ericb at 6:03 PM on December 8, 2006
Brings to mind Dan Bricklin's online essay: Pamphleteers and Web Sites.
posted by ericb at 6:03 PM on December 8, 2006
I see no proof whatsoever of this allegation ericb.
What I see is a snarky dismissal (which, granted, could be misinterpreted) and an explicit refutation in a post by Chris Bowers linked from the "admission" you cite. I'm also pretty sure Chris Bowers is an actual, real life ward chairman here in Philly.
I'll wait for more evidence before rendering judgment. But so should you have presented far more evidence in making this post.
posted by edverb at 6:11 PM on December 8, 2006
What I see is a snarky dismissal (which, granted, could be misinterpreted) and an explicit refutation in a post by Chris Bowers linked from the "admission" you cite. I'm also pretty sure Chris Bowers is an actual, real life ward chairman here in Philly.
I'll wait for more evidence before rendering judgment. But so should you have presented far more evidence in making this post.
posted by edverb at 6:11 PM on December 8, 2006
Heh. Actually, some pamphleteers were exponentially more talented than today's bloggers (Tom Paine (the original one), Daniel Defore, to name just two).
But this is pretty crappy. I've always thought Mydd was one of the weaker librul blogs anyways, but Dems always find ways to give the wingnuts more ammo, even when they're winning for once.
posted by bardic at 6:15 PM on December 8, 2006
But this is pretty crappy. I've always thought Mydd was one of the weaker librul blogs anyways, but Dems always find ways to give the wingnuts more ammo, even when they're winning for once.
posted by bardic at 6:15 PM on December 8, 2006
matthewr writes...
Tu quoque, tkolar.
Ah. Now that I reread the [more inside] portion I see that I was outraged by the wrong thing.
Damn it's hard to be reactionary these days.
posted by tkolar at 6:18 PM on December 8, 2006
Tu quoque, tkolar.
Ah. Now that I reread the [more inside] portion I see that I was outraged by the wrong thing.
Damn it's hard to be reactionary these days.
posted by tkolar at 6:18 PM on December 8, 2006
I should be more specific -- is there any evidence whatsoever that "Scott Shields" is Jerome Armstrong's sock puppet?
posted by edverb at 6:20 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by edverb at 6:20 PM on December 8, 2006
What I see is a snarky dismissal (which, granted, could be misinterpreted) and an explicit refutation in a post by Chris Bowers linked from the "admission" you cite. I'm also pretty sure Chris Bowers is an actual, real life ward chairman here in Philly.
I see your point ... and agree that more evidence is needed. It does indeed appear to be a snarky, "tongue-in-cheek" posting.
Fascinating that Emily Rooney, host of 'Greater Boston' and its Friday edition "Beat the Press" interpreted and portrayed the aliases as fact and that Armstrong = Shields. If they were wrong in doing so, we'll see if they present a retraction next week.
posted by ericb at 6:21 PM on December 8, 2006
I see your point ... and agree that more evidence is needed. It does indeed appear to be a snarky, "tongue-in-cheek" posting.
Fascinating that Emily Rooney, host of 'Greater Boston' and its Friday edition "Beat the Press" interpreted and portrayed the aliases as fact and that Armstrong = Shields. If they were wrong in doing so, we'll see if they present a retraction next week.
posted by ericb at 6:21 PM on December 8, 2006
Advertising is America's last great product.
full disclosure: I was paid $18 to write this comment.
posted by carsonb at 6:22 PM on December 8, 2006
full disclosure: I was paid $18 to write this comment.
posted by carsonb at 6:22 PM on December 8, 2006
ericb, this is last week's bullshit story, and you're spinning what out of what, exactly? It's close to libel, if you ask me.
posted by dhartung at 6:23 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by dhartung at 6:23 PM on December 8, 2006
Great, I feel like I've been strong-armed by Armstrongs. If only I too could hide behind a 'shield.'
posted by semantic scope at 6:24 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by semantic scope at 6:24 PM on December 8, 2006
I just replayed the segment on TiVo and admit that I was influenced by WGBH's interpretation that Armstrong admitted to being Shields. My bad. Yet another interesting point to be made relative to accuracy in reporting -- whether by MSM or on the "blogosphere."
posted by ericb at 6:24 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by ericb at 6:24 PM on December 8, 2006
I became pretty suspicious of several blogs during the 2004 campaign--blog ad services were only just starting to kick in that year, and I wondered how some of them could post so often and about every single issue without a little cash motivation. It would be great to see how many were getting kickbacks, but I don't think there's any way to know for sure.
Is there any way the disclosures could be mandatory? Even if there were, we'd probably still be clueless about the payments going on under the table. Political blogs risk obsolescence if no accountability norms are put into place.
posted by whatnot at 6:27 PM on December 8, 2006
Is there any way the disclosures could be mandatory? Even if there were, we'd probably still be clueless about the payments going on under the table. Political blogs risk obsolescence if no accountability norms are put into place.
posted by whatnot at 6:27 PM on December 8, 2006
ericb, you should ask Matt or Jess to edit out that false accusation ("Turns out Armstrong admitted this week that he has been writing on his blog under various aliases") so it doesn't continue to spread via the front page.
posted by mediareport at 6:32 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by mediareport at 6:32 PM on December 8, 2006
you should ask Matt or Jess to edit out that false accusation
My thoughts exactly -- except I'd call it an "unproven" accusation with no supporting evidence.
posted by edverb at 6:35 PM on December 8, 2006
My thoughts exactly -- except I'd call it an "unproven" accusation with no supporting evidence.
posted by edverb at 6:35 PM on December 8, 2006
I see no proof whatsoever of this allegation ericb.
Proof? hmm. There are a lot of unrefuted allegations. If this is true I can only hope that it is career ending. "Would you like fries with that?" That chart from the NYT op-ed was very interesting.
posted by caddis at 6:40 PM on December 8, 2006
Proof? hmm. There are a lot of unrefuted allegations. If this is true I can only hope that it is career ending. "Would you like fries with that?" That chart from the NYT op-ed was very interesting.
posted by caddis at 6:40 PM on December 8, 2006
Anyone know how to arrange to whore yourself like this? For a 100 Gs a year I'd be willing to flog the subject of your choice like a Singaporean prison officer on a vandal.
posted by Mitheral at 6:40 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by Mitheral at 6:40 PM on December 8, 2006
mmmmm...I love the way Three Cherries vodka goes down so smooth. It is both simple and complex. All my friends and I, when we're at the club, get Three Cherries vodka for our table service. It's all models 'n' bottles with Three Cherries vodka!
posted by Falconetti at 6:41 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by Falconetti at 6:41 PM on December 8, 2006
ericb, this is last week's bullshit story, and you're spinning what out of what, exactly? It's close to libel, if you ask me.
Personally, I think there are some interesting questions raised when folks who are blogging -- be they on the right, center or left -- are being paid separately as consultants to political campaigns. Need they and their readers be concerned about issues of impartiality and objectivity in the postings onlines? When folks learned recently that some tech reviewers were being paid to review certain products they felt betrayed (e.g. Corey Greenberg, tech editor for NBC's "Today" show was paid to promote products). Granted, the circumstances here are different and these bloggers state that their consultancies are separate and have no influence on their writings, but how does the general public view such arrangements? As blogging continues to become more prevalent and folks continue to rely evermore on them as "trusted" sources of news and information, what standards and ethical boundaries need to be defined?
posted by ericb at 6:42 PM on December 8, 2006
Personally, I think there are some interesting questions raised when folks who are blogging -- be they on the right, center or left -- are being paid separately as consultants to political campaigns. Need they and their readers be concerned about issues of impartiality and objectivity in the postings onlines? When folks learned recently that some tech reviewers were being paid to review certain products they felt betrayed (e.g. Corey Greenberg, tech editor for NBC's "Today" show was paid to promote products). Granted, the circumstances here are different and these bloggers state that their consultancies are separate and have no influence on their writings, but how does the general public view such arrangements? As blogging continues to become more prevalent and folks continue to rely evermore on them as "trusted" sources of news and information, what standards and ethical boundaries need to be defined?
posted by ericb at 6:42 PM on December 8, 2006
Wait, the Armstrongs are up to what, now? Kickbacks from the Pop Tarts industry?
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:43 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:43 PM on December 8, 2006
ericb....as I see it, there are two different issues here.
One is the matter of paid consulting gigs and their disclosure or lack thereof, which is a worthwhile subject for debate.
The other is a completely unsubstantiated accusation of sock puppetry and graft.
posted by edverb at 6:46 PM on December 8, 2006
One is the matter of paid consulting gigs and their disclosure or lack thereof, which is a worthwhile subject for debate.
The other is a completely unsubstantiated accusation of sock puppetry and graft.
posted by edverb at 6:46 PM on December 8, 2006
matthewr writes...
Tu quoque, tkolar.
Actually, since I'm feeling blissfully pedantic right now I think I'll follow up on this with a completely pointless logical breakdown.
The initial post outlined an attempt at a classic "Tu quoque".
A "Tu quoque" looks like this:
1) A makes criticism P.
2) A is also guilty of P.
T) P is dismissed.
The post presents the argument
1) Liberal Bloggers [LIBS] criticized the Bush Administration for paying biased bloggers.
2) LIBS have also been paid to work as biased bloggers.
T) Paying for biased blogging should therefore be a wash (or punished equally, or whatever)
Now "Tu quoque" is a classic fallacy in any case, but that is beside the point. The reason I said that it is an *attempt* at a classic "Tu quoque" is that in order for the argument to work, P must be equal for statements 1 and 2.
That is to say, this is only a "Tu quoque" if, and I quote, "there's no difference between a private political campaign funding shills using their own money, and the government of the United States funding shills using my money."
In other news, I can not believe how bored I am right now. Is it too soon to get ready to go out? Probably. Maybe I'll shave again.
posted by tkolar at 6:48 PM on December 8, 2006
Tu quoque, tkolar.
Actually, since I'm feeling blissfully pedantic right now I think I'll follow up on this with a completely pointless logical breakdown.
The initial post outlined an attempt at a classic "Tu quoque".
A "Tu quoque" looks like this:
1) A makes criticism P.
2) A is also guilty of P.
T) P is dismissed.
The post presents the argument
1) Liberal Bloggers [LIBS] criticized the Bush Administration for paying biased bloggers.
2) LIBS have also been paid to work as biased bloggers.
T) Paying for biased blogging should therefore be a wash (or punished equally, or whatever)
Now "Tu quoque" is a classic fallacy in any case, but that is beside the point. The reason I said that it is an *attempt* at a classic "Tu quoque" is that in order for the argument to work, P must be equal for statements 1 and 2.
That is to say, this is only a "Tu quoque" if, and I quote, "there's no difference between a private political campaign funding shills using their own money, and the government of the United States funding shills using my money."
In other news, I can not believe how bored I am right now. Is it too soon to get ready to go out? Probably. Maybe I'll shave again.
posted by tkolar at 6:48 PM on December 8, 2006
ericb, you should ask Matt or Jess to edit out that false accusation ("Turns out Armstrong admitted this week that he has been writing on his blog under various aliases") so it doesn't continue to spread via the front page.
Done. I hope jessamyn removes it. It's interesting that this evening's panel on WGBH's "Beat The Press" interpreted the blog posting regarding aliases to be fact.
posted by ericb at 6:50 PM on December 8, 2006
Done. I hope jessamyn removes it. It's interesting that this evening's panel on WGBH's "Beat The Press" interpreted the blog posting regarding aliases to be fact.
posted by ericb at 6:50 PM on December 8, 2006
I think the general idea behind the fpp is somewhat worthy, but hell, it's constructed poorly with a hint of baiting, a dash of editorializing, a good shake of unproven innuendo, and a sprinkle of comparing two completely separate media sources.
posted by edgeways at 6:50 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by edgeways at 6:50 PM on December 8, 2006
plus a category error.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:53 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:53 PM on December 8, 2006
Everyone knows that Armstrong Williams and Jerome Armstrong are actually the same person: Armstrong Armstrong, the wily and mischievous political commentator who also gets paid to ride his bike under yet another pseudonym: Lance Armstrong.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:54 PM on December 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:54 PM on December 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
Okay -- let me restate, if I may...
Turns out Armstrong admitted this week that he has been writing on his blog under various aliases -- including 'Scott Shields.' 'Shields' received payments from the Robert Menendez campaign.
"Turns out that some media commentators may have misinterpreted that Armstrong admitted to writing on his blog under various aliases -- including 'Scott Shields.' They seem to have misinterpreted a snarky post as a factual claim of admission. Nonetheless, 'Shields,' too received payments from the Robert Menendez campaign."
posted by ericb at 6:56 PM on December 8, 2006
Turns out Armstrong admitted this week that he has been writing on his blog under various aliases -- including 'Scott Shields.' 'Shields' received payments from the Robert Menendez campaign.
"Turns out that some media commentators may have misinterpreted that Armstrong admitted to writing on his blog under various aliases -- including 'Scott Shields.' They seem to have misinterpreted a snarky post as a factual claim of admission. Nonetheless, 'Shields,' too received payments from the Robert Menendez campaign."
posted by ericb at 6:56 PM on December 8, 2006
also gets paid to ride his bike under yet another pseudonym: Lance Armstrong
And paid by the US government no less!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:08 PM on December 8, 2006
And paid by the US government no less!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:08 PM on December 8, 2006
And paid by the US government no less!
Yes, but at least not using my tax money.
posted by tkolar at 7:22 PM on December 8, 2006
Yes, but at least not using my tax money.
posted by tkolar at 7:22 PM on December 8, 2006
This is the reason I'm voting for Senator John Iselin. If there's one guy who wouldn't pull something like this it's Senator John Iselin. C'mon fellas, you know if there's one guy who wouldn't use bloggers or use govt. money to promote himself, it's Senator John Iselin.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:32 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 7:32 PM on December 8, 2006
You expect "bloggers" to be more trustworthy, honest and accountable than the average dick who rings up talk radio or writes a letter to the editor?
Joke's on you.
posted by Jimbob at 7:47 PM on December 8, 2006
Joke's on you.
posted by Jimbob at 7:47 PM on December 8, 2006
You mean the govt used the tax money I sent them to fund that turd Armstrong...no wonder my refund was so little. I would never trust anyone who had a blog. If they were really honest, they would either have a radio show or be a lobbyist.
posted by Postroad at 7:56 PM on December 8, 2006
posted by Postroad at 7:56 PM on December 8, 2006
People were upset about bush using government money to pay consultants. Duh.
Also, the bloggers were also being paid for web design services.
posted by delmoi at 8:04 PM on December 8, 2006
Also, the bloggers were also being paid for web design services.
posted by delmoi at 8:04 PM on December 8, 2006
1) Liberal Bloggers [LIBS] criticized the Bush Administration for paying biased bloggers.
2) LIBS have also been paid to work as biased bloggers.
T) Paying for biased blogging should therefore be a wash (or punished equally, or whatever)
"LIBS"? What, are you reading the Yahoo! message boards?
Anyway. Half, or perhaps the majority, of the outrage at the Armstrong Williams episode was not just his lack of disclosure, but that of the Bush administration, our elected officials.
The majority of the bloggers who took money did not do it under the table. Many of the bloggers on Glover's list did it with full disclosure and while on hiatus. (Whether they also positively blogged about the candidate before or after is another matter.) There may be bloggers who did not disclose things they should have, but putting them in the same list as bloggers who disclosed and/or took sabbaticals from their blogs is a real dodge, not up to what we normally expect from National Journal.
In any event, NJ presented very little in the way of evidence that there were improper payments or anything at all in the way of documenting who had or had not disclosed or quit or whatever. They just listed bloggers + money.
Here's Steve Gilliard (I had to crank up the ol' Wayback Machine -- and I don't mean the Internet Archive -- back to the Jurassic to look these up, because it was all discussed to death last week):
What these assclowns don't get is not every blogger has the same rules. I don't work with, consult with or ccoperate with campaigns on any level beyond what any reporter would do....
But to go after Tim Tagaris, who is a political consultant, as some kind of fence sitter is insane. You have far bigger conflicts in the MSM, but the Times wouldn't run that article. Tim has worked for campaigns as long as I known him, except for a stint at the DNC. The idea that he isn't a political operative, or that there's some hypocrisy involved is insane.
Just to end this confusing meme, Scott Shields with Barack Obama; and this is Jerome.
posted by dhartung at 8:16 PM on December 8, 2006
2) LIBS have also been paid to work as biased bloggers.
T) Paying for biased blogging should therefore be a wash (or punished equally, or whatever)
"LIBS"? What, are you reading the Yahoo! message boards?
Anyway. Half, or perhaps the majority, of the outrage at the Armstrong Williams episode was not just his lack of disclosure, but that of the Bush administration, our elected officials.
The majority of the bloggers who took money did not do it under the table. Many of the bloggers on Glover's list did it with full disclosure and while on hiatus. (Whether they also positively blogged about the candidate before or after is another matter.) There may be bloggers who did not disclose things they should have, but putting them in the same list as bloggers who disclosed and/or took sabbaticals from their blogs is a real dodge, not up to what we normally expect from National Journal.
In any event, NJ presented very little in the way of evidence that there were improper payments or anything at all in the way of documenting who had or had not disclosed or quit or whatever. They just listed bloggers + money.
Here's Steve Gilliard (I had to crank up the ol' Wayback Machine -- and I don't mean the Internet Archive -- back to the Jurassic to look these up, because it was all discussed to death last week):
What these assclowns don't get is not every blogger has the same rules. I don't work with, consult with or ccoperate with campaigns on any level beyond what any reporter would do....
But to go after Tim Tagaris, who is a political consultant, as some kind of fence sitter is insane. You have far bigger conflicts in the MSM, but the Times wouldn't run that article. Tim has worked for campaigns as long as I known him, except for a stint at the DNC. The idea that he isn't a political operative, or that there's some hypocrisy involved is insane.
Just to end this confusing meme, Scott Shields with Barack Obama; and this is Jerome.
posted by dhartung at 8:16 PM on December 8, 2006
Yes ... to echo dhartung, from the Times article:
"... most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs ..."
So, what is the scandal here? Why should I object to a blogger who isn't hiding their financial ties, unlike Armstrong Williams, who was?
Seriously ... how are these two issues even remotely equivalent? Because I don't get it.
posted by kyrademon at 8:35 PM on December 8, 2006
"... most disclosed their campaign ties on their blogs ..."
So, what is the scandal here? Why should I object to a blogger who isn't hiding their financial ties, unlike Armstrong Williams, who was?
Seriously ... how are these two issues even remotely equivalent? Because I don't get it.
posted by kyrademon at 8:35 PM on December 8, 2006
This is utter bullshit.
Liberal bloggers might make living doing liberal political things?
OH MY GOD!
Give me a fucking break.
A disclosed financial arrangement between a blogger and a politician is not even worth thinking about.
And it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with Armstrong, which was something else altogether.
posted by teece at 9:00 PM on December 8, 2006
Liberal bloggers might make living doing liberal political things?
OH MY GOD!
Give me a fucking break.
A disclosed financial arrangement between a blogger and a politician is not even worth thinking about.
And it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with Armstrong, which was something else altogether.
posted by teece at 9:00 PM on December 8, 2006
dharthung wrote...
"LIBS"? What, are you reading the Yahoo! message boards?
Fark actually. I figured if I was going to get through to the OP, I'd best speak in a language they could understand.
posted by tkolar at 9:28 PM on December 8, 2006
"LIBS"? What, are you reading the Yahoo! message boards?
Fark actually. I figured if I was going to get through to the OP, I'd best speak in a language they could understand.
posted by tkolar at 9:28 PM on December 8, 2006
personally, i disagree with 99% of the post and comment deletions around here. but in metafilter-space, this is an eminently deletable post. axgrindfilter, talkingpointsfilter, falsebalancefilter, leftbashingfilter.
posted by facetious at 1:18 AM on December 9, 2006
posted by facetious at 1:18 AM on December 9, 2006
Try disinfofilter. It's despicable, as are the OP's disingenuous attempts to restate it in a way that preserves the thrust of its insinuation.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:18 AM on December 9, 2006
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:18 AM on December 9, 2006
On Pandagon they pointed out last week that several of the bloggers on the NYT list, including their own Jesse Taylor, stopped blogging before starting their campaign jobs. So they are guilty of nothing more than being recognized for their talents because they used to have blogs.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:19 AM on December 9, 2006
posted by hydropsyche at 10:19 AM on December 9, 2006
Online video of WGBH (PBS-TV)'s "Greater Boston/Beat the Press" December 8th. segment ("Bloggers on the Payrolls of Political Campaigns - Who Knew?") in which the program (mistakenly) reports that Armstrong "admits" to writing on MyDD under various aliases is available here.
The segment is worth watching -- as four journalists commment on the New York Times December 3rd. Op-Ed piece: "New on the Web: Politics As Usual." Do you agree or disagree with their assessment(s)?
posted by ericb at 5:55 PM on December 9, 2006
The segment is worth watching -- as four journalists commment on the New York Times December 3rd. Op-Ed piece: "New on the Web: Politics As Usual." Do you agree or disagree with their assessment(s)?
posted by ericb at 5:55 PM on December 9, 2006
So I guess neither moderator thought it was important to fix an unproven accusation on the front page? Huh.
posted by mediareport at 7:12 PM on December 9, 2006
posted by mediareport at 7:12 PM on December 9, 2006
I am so sick of these bizarre false equivalencies. I seem to be seeing them all over the place now. Someone will say, "So, Mr. Smith ... you accuse your opponent of 'lying' ... but, I cannot help but note that you have sometimes run a 'corrections' column in regard to your own words, meaning that you yourself have printed incorrect facts!" And then the media will dutifully report, "... but both sides have been accused of manipulating the truth." It's insane.
posted by kyrademon at 7:44 PM on December 9, 2006
posted by kyrademon at 7:44 PM on December 9, 2006
Promoting a political candidate with your weblog as a paid consultant is a little different than promoting government policy through a consultant like Armstrong Williams. One is using taxpayer money, and the other is using campaign and personal (I'm assuming) funds.
Both may sound somewhat shady, but one of them is more so than the other.
posted by Master Baiter at 7:46 PM on December 9, 2006
Both may sound somewhat shady, but one of them is more so than the other.
posted by Master Baiter at 7:46 PM on December 9, 2006
So I guess neither moderator thought it was important to fix an unproven accusation on the front page? Huh.
You could always yell theater in a crowded fire.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 AM on December 10, 2006
You could always yell theater in a crowded fire.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 AM on December 10, 2006
You'd care if it was about you.
posted by mediareport at 8:31 AM on December 10, 2006
posted by mediareport at 8:31 AM on December 10, 2006
mediareport, I was merely making a grim joke about free speech. Note my call-out above for my position.
I think I meant something about how when the house is burning down it doesn't matter what you yell.
A MyDD diarist has responded, or rather, David Kravitz of Blue Mass Group, who was interviewed on the WGBH show but not present when the panel discussed the story and the false accusations were made, has lambasted the misunderstanding.
posted by dhartung at 9:17 AM on December 10, 2006
I think I meant something about how when the house is burning down it doesn't matter what you yell.
A MyDD diarist has responded, or rather, David Kravitz of Blue Mass Group, who was interviewed on the WGBH show but not present when the panel discussed the story and the false accusations were made, has lambasted the misunderstanding.
posted by dhartung at 9:17 AM on December 10, 2006
Ok, then.
*still confused but somehow relieved*
posted by mediareport at 11:40 AM on December 10, 2006
*still confused but somehow relieved*
posted by mediareport at 11:40 AM on December 10, 2006
we'll see if they present a retraction next week.
On this evening's broadcast of WGBH's Greater Boston, they had a segment ('Media Culpa') in which they admitted the error of their ways. "It turns out that the post (on MyDD) was satire -- something we should have caught....At any rate our report was wrong."
John Carroll [Assistant Professor of Mass Communications at Boston University]: "I botched the story...I am embarrassed...I apologize" ...I have a greater appreciation for political bloggers, etc. [paraphrasing here]
You should be able to watch this evening's (12/15) segment online tomorrow (12/16) here.
posted by ericb at 9:26 PM on December 15, 2006
On this evening's broadcast of WGBH's Greater Boston, they had a segment ('Media Culpa') in which they admitted the error of their ways. "It turns out that the post (on MyDD) was satire -- something we should have caught....At any rate our report was wrong."
John Carroll [Assistant Professor of Mass Communications at Boston University]: "I botched the story...I am embarrassed...I apologize" ...I have a greater appreciation for political bloggers, etc. [paraphrasing here]
You should be able to watch this evening's (12/15) segment online tomorrow (12/16) here.
posted by ericb at 9:26 PM on December 15, 2006
Thanks for updating, ericb.
DailyKos analysis.
Here's what the show didn't have:
1. Any transparency about the motives of the hit piece
2. Any criticism of either the NY Times piece or themselves for amplifying the NY Times piece
3. Any criticism of themselves for buying into the "gist" of the NY Times piece without including the caveats that the NY Times piece itself included.
posted by dhartung at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2006
DailyKos analysis.
Here's what the show didn't have:
1. Any transparency about the motives of the hit piece
2. Any criticism of either the NY Times piece or themselves for amplifying the NY Times piece
3. Any criticism of themselves for buying into the "gist" of the NY Times piece without including the caveats that the NY Times piece itself included.
posted by dhartung at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2006
dhartung -- following your DailyKos link I find other links at DailyKos and elsewhere which shed light on the entire affair. Interesting discussions, etc.
posted by ericb at 2:18 PM on December 16, 2006
posted by ericb at 2:18 PM on December 16, 2006
« Older Say Hello to the Goodbye Effect | Does your band suck? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ericb at 5:41 PM on December 8, 2006