We desperately need to find more new and novel ways to simultaneously decentralize news media and boost the public perception of the legitimacy of those decentralized organizations.

Now you see the absolute brilliance of Rove, eh?

About time.

Too late to change the perception now.

And Obama WAS making a reference to Palin, not McCain and the audience GOT IT.

It was a set up. He took the bait.

I'm not suggesting Raum or, really, anyone who works in our current ADD media world has actually read Schopenhauer... but theoldies never go out of style, do they?

Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words...

Linky at sig. Good morning folks!

Didn't someone from The New Republic get fired for making stuff up like this?

Didn't it used to be 'journalists' would get fired if it was found they were manufacturing their stories or sources?

Didn't facts used to matter?

Are you going to post that email? ... We'd love to see it .. just to see Raum's stupidity

That is undoubtedly an offensive, inappropriate and sexist objection based on Palin's child-rearing duties. The only problem? It came from CNN's John Roberts, not a "liberal."

But Glen, John Roberts works in the media and he objected to McCain's choice for VP. So it's obvious that he's a sexist liberal.

I'm sure he hates the troops, too.

He went to the Jason Blair school of journalism. This sounds like The Wire...pretty soon we are gonna have bodies with pink ribbons.

This is the mirror image of Fox News' little trick of mentioning a right-wing talking point and, in lieu of any actual attribution, saying, "Some say......" There's a great montage of this in Robert Greenwald's "Outfoxed."

I guess the next logical step, which Bush has used with numbing frequency throughout his disastrous tenure, is to set up a straw-man argument, once again attributed to the pithy and loquacious Mr. Some, to shoot it down. "Some people think we should surrender....." Clearly, this trick has rubbed off on reporters. And it's certainly easier, too. Just call one righty blabbermouth, get their quote, and then ask for a "liberal" quote, too, all in one phone call, and head for the barbeque.

Kudos to Atrios for pointing this out.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/12/895/20646/79/594884

or click on signature.

"In the past few days, a series of blistering articles and op-eds about McCain/Palin have been crossing the AP wires, culminating in today's take down of Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson.

(display of headline - AP Slams McCain-Palin)

"

Even though Raum's article is built around a total falsehood regarding manufactured views of liberals, one actual quote he gets from a Republican is quite interesting:

"Welcome to the brave new world," said GOP consultant Rich Galen.

He said the selection of Palin challenges the common notion that "that conservatives think women should stay at home and tend to babies and make sure dinner is on time."

Maybe Galen should think a little more about the phrases he is throwing around.

From www.huxley.net:

Brave New World is an unsettling, loveless and even sinister place. This is because Huxley endows his "ideal" society with features calculated to alienate his audience. Typically, reading BNW elicits the very same disturbing feelings in the reader which the society it depicts has notionally vanquished - not a sense of joyful anticipation.

Yes, Mr. Galen, McCain and Palin would indeed have us enter a Brave New World. That world would have no joyful anticipation but instead would be unsettling, loveless and sinister. I can think of no better description of the world views I see from McCain and Palin.

the fake movie review lawsuit that Sony settled in which Sony employees invented a movie reviewer. The "reviewer's" quotes were published in newspapers for films like "Hollow Man" and created a narrative- that Sony likely knew the movies wouldn't create on their own- that it was "one hell of a scary ride."

The difference is that Sony had to invent the fake reviewer as it likely knew that no respectable film critic would risk career suicide by attaching their name to such an obvious manipulation.

But the McCain encountered no similar obstacles in putting this narrative out there as apparently it's more difficult to find a willing political reporter than a film critic.

As depressing as that is it's very heartening to witness the difference Glenn and others are making. I laughed when I heard the word "Greenwaldian" and thought of Gandi's quote about "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." When they invent terms that contain your name, you've entered phase three.

Glenn and other "Greenwaldian" bloggers may even elevate the standards of political reporters to the level of film critics in the near future. And that's progress!

... apparently it's "more difficult to find a willing film critic than a political reporter," which is the point.

This week I found my trash can outside turned over and trash dug all over the yard.

I think it's safe to categorize the culprit as "liberals", and I'll submit this scurrilous attack forthwith to the AP.

Is I a reporter naw?

And UPI is owned by the Reverend Moon.

In my experience, the only/best way to get the Associated Press to run a correction is to go via a news outlet that published the story and ask them to correct. At least that's the only way that has worked for me. Be polite and be persistent. Keep following up. It can't hurt to send an email to Raum and his editor (anyone know who that is) too?

Considering it is usually [arch-]conservatives holding up the family, wanting to leave all the education to the parents, denigrading liberals for their anti-family values and behaviour - like both parents working as if that is a choice for most - it seems to be a very valid question towards Mrs Palin: What comes first, the country you want to secede from or your family?

Shouldn't people at least try to live by their own standards? Or is it now a given that self-proclaimed Christian conservatives live by hated liberal standards while liberals have to conform to what the same hyocrites proclaim?

It seems values and ethics are all very well - as long as they do not hurt oneself. A quick glance through the 10 Commandments show me that

- you are not allowed to have any God but *the* God [does money count as a god?]

- you are not allowed to kill other people [well unless a war is Godwill]

- you are not allowed to lie [campaigning is exempt obviously]

- you are not allowed idols [not money, not people, not images of how you presume God to look like]

- no false testimony or slander [campaigning and governMENTAL officials exempted]

- no stealing, no adultery, no lusting after other people's possessions

- no work on the Sabbath [this includes taxi cabs, all-day shopping, gambling ...]

Now what, the people upholding God the most have just convinced me: It's all good for the goose but not for the gander. One should try it.