Letters to the Editor
allastair
Published Letters: 8
-
Stossel?!
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I get that you are pointing the article out because it makes some useful points, but Stossel is the worst. He is consistently guilty of some of the most deceitful and demagogic hackery I have ever seen. That is a bold claim in the context of our modern media. It is my experience with him that, even when he argues for principles I believe in, like say drug legalization, he does so from a place of profound dishonesty. I always assumed it was like a reflex with him. He can't help himself.
Nonetheless, the article you point out does seem to contain some important information. But his credibility with me is so low (into the negative numbers really) that I find it hard to accept it all without some credible corroboration.
-
No objection
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He didn't raise an objection David. He pointed out the article and made a relevant point about Alterman's writing on AIPAC. What exactly is your objection?
-
CNN
[Read the article: Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The worse part is not what the right wing is doing. Of course we expect them to continue acting like morons. It would be more surprising if they weren't affecting mock outrage over something in the stupidest possible way. No, its that they seem to have an ally in "your liberal media." For seven straight days CNN and particularly Malveaux have been regurgitating the White House and freeper spin on this with just about zero qualification or contextualization. Now, the thing is I don't know if Malveaux has ever won a Peabody so I have no way of knowing whether I should simply trust her unqualified assertions on this.
-
Moveon Ad
[Read the article: Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The MoveOn ad was terrible." What does that concluding sentence have to do with not only the paragraph, but the entire post?
I think Glenn is being ironic here. The point being that with all of the actual policy issues that need to be addressed in some reasonable way, the senate has chosen to focus a significant portion of its energies on an absurdly trivial ad in order to castigate a citizen's advocacy group.
-
satire indeed
[Read the article: Everything that is rancid and corrupt with modern journalism: The Nutshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah. I saw that somewhere else a little while ago and I actually refused to believe that it could be real. I just assumed that the blogger had it wrong. How could they possibly be so lacking in the basic self-consciousness it would require to see the incredible ridiculousness of their "correction." I want to laugh but I can no longer find any humor in this crap at all.
-
narcissist?
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow. He read your whole post and somehow came to the conclusion that its all about him and his credibility. Its really astonishing how obtuse these people are.
-
Serious Business
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know that Sam Graves ad is a serious issue at some level but I cannot get enough of it. I watch it over and over and laugh harder every time. I suspect that I would cry if I spent much time thinking about how this sort of thing plays as a real criticism in some precincts but I can't help it. It is about the goofiest bit of caricature and absurd rhetoric I have seen in my entire life. That is no exaggeration.
-
not exactly true
[Read the article: Time's Karen Tumulty: Unlike reporters, bloggers don't have to use proof]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They're actually the opposite of reality, because bloggers who repeatedly assert false claims will lose their credibility and readership, whereas.
I don't think that is exactly right. I am sure you would agree that there are many popular and widely read bloggers who routinely get the facts wrong and manage to maintain their vary large readerships. Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin are the two that come to mind.