Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Crust1
Published Letters: 78
Digby had a nice post on this. See
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/incompetence-dodge-by-digby-josh.html
This is at best only vaguely on topic, but I can't resist. In Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly writes that:
"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias
So even Fox is liberally biased since it does feature the odd liberal (e.g. Colmes). The only way to be "unbiased" is to exclude liberals altogether. It's really very telling of how these people think.
Source:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=90876#_note-8
This sentence in Savage's reply caught my eye:
No one else had access to my database, and it was understandable that others would be reluctant to invest the same amount of time and effort in catching up, when the end product would simply be to recreate a story the Globe had already published.
Would he consider making that database public? Obviously it's Savage's / the Globe's proprietary database that is the fruit of his work so he has every right now to, but we he consider doing so in the public interest?
It looks like you had an extra character at the end. The correct link should be:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/28/anonymous-dem-politician-netroots-can-be-mean-and-irrational/
Slight hyperbole, of course. Headline "GLENN GREENWALD, REPORT TO SWEDEN! We nominate him for a Nobel Prize"
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050307.shtml
I posted the following comment there which appears to have been deleted. It is aggressive in tone, but I think still within the bounds of civil discourse (slightly edited to handle links):
Glenn Greenwald puts his finger on the true meaning of this silly controversy in his post http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/03/politico/index.html The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press.
This is your eighth article on the matter. You disingenuously use an article linked to by Drudge to pretend that this is a big issue with ordinary Iowans. You quote the fact that Limbaugh's mild mannered fan Brian Williams asked a question about it in the debate as if that somehow proved something. What next? Are you going to tell us about the deep meaning of Williams' first question (see http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh043007.shtml ) which featured General Patton wiping Senator Reid off his boot? No, I am not making this up. Follow the link, read and weep for the state of our public discourse courtesy of Simon, Williams and their cohort.
I can see my old comment at Politico again. So it's presumably just my mistake.
See http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/a_question_for_glenn_greenwald.html#comments
He asks the strangely confused question, Is [Greenwald] saying that people like Broder and Ron Brownstein and me shouldn't talk to people outside the Beltway?
My replies to Klein:
Joe, Greenwald is not criticizing Broder for trying to learn what ordinary people think. Greenwald thinks this would be a good thing to do. Rightly or wrongly, what Greenwald is criticizing is your view (and that of Edsall and others) that Broder has been effective in this and really is qualified to represent what ordinary Americans think.That's why Greenwald writes:
"I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of Beltway journalists agree with Edsall -- that Broder is a real, true, salt-of-the-earth representative "of the people."
In other words, Greenwald thinks that Broder is not "a real, true, salt-of-the-earth representative". Somehow, you've conflated this with thinking that Greenwald thinks that being "a real, true, salt-of-the-earth representative" is a bad idea.
Now Greenwald may be right or wrong. You're perfectly entitled to say that his column is outrageous bunk and you know Broder and he does not think of ordinary Americans as "farm animals". Feel free to make that case if that's what you believe.
But for now, you're attacking a straw man. Greenwald is in favor of real reporting, he just doesn't agree that's what Broder does.
and
Joe, have a look at the context of your original comments. It's pretty clear that the only people Broder spoke to -- if anyone -- to inform that particular piece were Republican oppo researchers. He managed to find a creative angle to bash Clinton and boost McCain without himself endorsing the unpopular Iraq War. To do so, he blasted Clinton for doing something that every Senator does from time to time (using her time to make statements rather than asking questions) without addressing any of the substance of the matter.
He's one of the Republican frontrunners, but he hasn't received much scrutiny because he hasn't formally declared yet. And the hypocrisy of invocations of the "rule of law" by the part of contemporary American "conservatives" never ceases to amaze.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
