Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The NBC News anchor is finally forced to address the NYT exposé -- on his blog. His self-defenses raise far more questions than they answer.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • My offering:

    Propaganda Pissoirs.

  • @ JackieBinAZ

    How do you come to the conclusion that because he's been writing specifically about the NYT story and media (non)reaction, Glenn opposes full disclosure for all commentators except military ones? --

    Because his posts on the subject of transparency in news analysts has only come up when conservatives are involved. How hard is it to advocate transparency for ALL the talking heads? Apparently too hard for Glenn.

  • Boy, that's a stumper

    Because his posts on the subject of transparency in news analysts has only come up when conservatives are involved.

    You got me there, scoot. I cain't figger that one out fer nuttin. It's a reel knundrum.

  • Shooter, provide an example or go away

    As someone may have told you once, you can't prove a negative. You want someone here to prove that Glenn would have a particular reaction is a particular thing took place, but since there are no examples of that thing taking place, this will be impossible to prove.

    And this apparently is your last remaining shred of an argument for today.

    Because his posts on the subject of transparency in news analysts has only come up when conservatives are involved.

    Please, provide an example of a leftie who misrepresented him/herself to conceal a conflict of interest, and then let's talk. Otherwise, I predict you've got 1 or 2 posts left in you for today before the embarrassment draws you offline once again.

  • various

    Anonymust and Quickstrategy:

    You could just as easily combine them? The Tarnished Brass of the Kool-Aid Brigade. Got a good ring to it.

    Pedinska:

    I've never seen him personally, only on t.v. and that horrid pic that gets put in the papers alongside his written trash, but it's always struck me as more of a frozen rictus.

    "Frozen rictus," very nice wordplay. Yes, he is a creepy goblin. I see a fair amount of these characters when I get around during lunch. Rick Santorum in a sandwich shop. He was very tall and had a big entourage. I resisted the urge to say, "Afternoon, Former Senator!"

  • On the other hand

    Glenn hasn't come out against leprechaun-jumping, either.

    Where do you stand on this issue, scoot?

  • A project for you, Pooty!

    How hard is it to advocate transparency for ALL the talking heads?

    -- shooter242

    Now go back to the golf course and work on your putz.

  • One minor alteration

    The Kool-Aid Brigade, featuring the Tarnished Brass

  • RMP:

    The Kool-Aid Brigade, featuring the Tarnished Brass

    Also could be a New Orleans-style jazz band comprised of heavy guys?

  • Going after my family?

    paulpsd7 - I think I hear your rock calling you.

    Why do you have to bring Shooter's wife into it?
    I thought the more common reference was "balls and chains". ;-}-- Pedinska

    I was refraining from opining, that your idea of walking around in your husbands jock strap must have been occasioned by his walking around in your thongs. But I can see that kind of respect is wasted here. Tsk.

  • Tarnished Brass

    is definitely a "brilliant" suggestion. ;~)

    And any of the combinations with kool-aid brigade is certainly nothing I would complain about...

  • DCLaw1 & RMP

    I see a fair amount of these characters when I get around during lunch.

    I'd have to eat at the office or I'd be in big trouble. ;-}

    The Kool-Aid Brigade, featuring the Tarnished Brass

    Sounds like a bad Herb Alpert cover band. :-D

  • Compare the various conflicts of interests.

    What does a person gain, financially, by advocating for peace? What does a person who WORKS for a defense contractor gain by advocating war?

    Righties must have to go through incredibly comedic distortions of reality to come up with their nonsense. I really don't see how they keep from imploding from all of the cognitive dissonance.

    On the Environment: Righties have some how convinced themselves that environmentalists actually gain something PERSONALLY through their advocacy of clean air, water, land, and the protection of nature. Whereas they seem completely blind to the Exxons and the various corporate polluters, pouring their money into junk science, attempting to derail commonsense measures to improve our environment.

    On stem cells: They convinced themselves that the Michael J. Foxes of this world had nefarious motives for trying to gain funding and support for potentially life saving and life enhancing research. Whereas they DIDN'T see any conflict of interest behind the attempts to derail that funding. As in, Big Pharm, which stands to lose billions if we ever can actually cure major diseases, permanently, eliminating the need for endless drugs.

    The list goes on and on and on. Not only are conflicts of interest massively apparent when it comes to the Establishment Right protecting their turf, and NOT apparent when it comes to the few lefties allowed ANY face time . . . anyone who doesn't see the who really gains from the realities of war and peace is just too dense for school.

  • What's it take to get a "tarnished reputation"?

    It would be easy and self-policing via the blogosphere research gnomes. Hand out a questionnaire to incoming analysts and if they fudge it, one side or the other will cry j'accuse, and tarnish that person's reputation forevermore.--Shooter242

    You mean like all of those people who were and are always, always, and always again wrong about Iraq for years now? You know, those ones who still blather away on every major network and cable news show and magazine and newspaper? The ones who are considered Serious Experts on subjects of war, even though they've been always, always and always again wrong? Do those people have "tarnished forevermore reputations"? If you get your "self-policing" policy in place will the reputations of those people finally be in danger of being tarnished?

  • How about

    Echo Chamberlains

    A chamberlain is, according to Wikipedia (I'm in a hurry here, okay?) "the officer in charge of managing the household of a sovereign or other noble figure".

    And of course, they are merely providing a chamber to echo the line from the Pentagon.

    This also will tweak the neocons who always try to cast us antiwar types as Neville Chamberlains.

    Bonus points: apparently there was an Operation Chamberlain in 2003 in Iraq.

  • OK DCLaw1

    The Kool-Aid Brigade, featuring the Pentagon's Tarnished Brass

  • About that rock

    Shooter lives under a rock. It's where his reality-free worldview is allowed to fester. Occasionally he emerges, expresses his conclusions based on life under the rock, is eventually ridiculed, and returns.

    I wasn't talking about his wife, or anything like that.

    As for respect, Shooter, maybe somebody's told you this before, but it's a 2-way street. You come on here putting up arguments that don't last as long as a snowflake in a hot tub before being shown as deeply lacking. You can never admit that you're wrong, and therefore need to leave each day with your tail between your legs. And, let's keep in mind, that you're not just lying about your golf score; no, you're lying about matters of life and death, and the lies you spread have created a disaster.

    Sorry, but where I come from, that kind of behavior deserves no respect.