Yeah, I ain't gonna hold my breath.
Given the facts about human physiology that we have learned in our investigation, we believe the claims in comment 2 likely to be true in the medium term.
it's been a few weeks. i haven't heard any distinct change.
they still do the he-said / she-said every chance they get.
I know, I know, I should always play posts like this uber-cynical, so that all the contrarians here tell me what I secretly want to hear. Mea culpa.
||
http://yes.thatcan.be/my/next/tweet/ has me down cold:
OED indicates almost dead by things other drugs of entitlement about multiple ethnic groups or art?
|>
How long until someone takes this seriously, then gets complaints, then resigns under duress, then someone says "maybe we were too hasty"?
Is the story 4 posts down an example of this? If that's the extent of it, pointing out that totally bullshit claims like you need two American parents to be President, I guess that's better than not pointing out the bullshit. But I won't be impressed until they address some lies about current policy issues, like calling out false numbers about things like ARRA or PPACA or pointing out that gas prices are rising despite increased domestic production. I just don't think they're committed enough to understanding the issues to see the bullshit.
I'm still reeling from the fact that Diane Rehm put Phyllis Schlafly on the air the other day to talk about the contraception hoohaw.
No. That's why Stanley's still reeling.
She's only 77 (according to wikipedia).
She just seems like she belongs to an earlier era.
In other words, a perfect choice to talk about the issues important to Republicans today. Maybe a bit too modern, actually. She is, after all, a woman in public.
Alton, Illinois. Hometown of:
-Phyllis Schlafly
-Christina Romer
-James Earl Ray
-Miles Davis
-History's tallest man
Also the site of the 110-foot-tall Elijah P. Lovejoy monument. For more on the story of Elijah Lovejoy, featuring characters with such names as "Royal Weller", "Francis Butter Murdoch", "Judge Luke E. Lawfull", and of course "Elijah Parish Lovejoy", consult your local library.
Also the site of that weird Native American giant cliff painting of a giant bird-monster, or what we would now call a dinosaur.
Also the site of that weird Native American giant cliff painting of a giant bird-monster, or what we would now call a dinosaur.
Huh, I had not heard of that before. It appears the current cliff painting is a modern reproduction (and a rather, uh, "imaginative" one from the looks of it).
I have seen the petroglyphs at Washington State Park (also mentioned in that article). They're quite impressive, in their way.
It still kind of amazes me that they had to change their handbook to say this and that it's a big deal. I mean, it's called doing journalism.
21:now we see what the key distinction is between "journalist" and "reporter".
This is really important. You can't imagine how hard it can be by the traditional rules of engagement for american journalism, to convince editors that it is not appropriate to give voice to powerful players wielding junk science.
But,
1) I doubt NPR will really lead the way in APPLYING this rule. Too concerned with public financing and good graces with politicians.
2) It seems unlikely to me that the institution of journalism in the US is going to change by refining the "objective" portion of the objective observer role in American journalism when the business model is collapsing under journalism. I still think we're looking at a future of advocacy journalism with much stronger points of view.
3) It's amazing just how annoying Jay Rosen manages to be while being right. That guy is like fingers on a chalkboard for me.
You have to admire NPR's Thompson for at least trying. From a purely bureaucratic point of view, there's no up-side to this. NPR is effectively handing everyone - especially liberals - a club to beat them with, and is more-or-less asking that people do so. They're going to catch a lot of flak that they otherwise would not have, all in the service of journalism. And who the fuck in journalism cares about journalism?
Also: Jay Rosen is right about everything, all the time. He's the Glenn Greenwald of media criticism (except to the extent that Glenn Greenwald is the Glenn Greenwald of media criticism). People talk about how annoying guys like this are - guys like Krugman - but I just can't get past the fact that pretty much everything they say is smart, includes the appropriate context, and is correct.
Yeah, I'm a big Rosen fan on the whole.
British journalism has many many deep-rooted problems, but this has actually never been one of them. Alexander Cockburn also has many deep-rooted problems, but I think he's right when he argues that British journalists were and are quite proud of their gadfly unrespectability and "outsiderness", and rarely inclined to see their ethos as needing to be seen to be fair and disinterested and far above the fray. Even The (London) Times -- back in the day the most augustly establishment-reflecting of the British newspapers -- was always pretty openly a crusading and even a muckraking organ, on behalf of its owners and its readers' perspective and interests.
(And actually come to think Murdoch's rather brilliant effective project has been to corrupt the institutionalisation of the outsider-gadfly concept...)
What's annoying about Rosen? Or Krugman?
Is 24 arguing that Glenn Greenwald "is right about everything, all the time"?
27: I have no idea, but I'm not the best judge of these things. I have been known to say that Hillary Clinton strikes me as likable, and that Al Gore is the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with.
28: "Positing" would probably be a more precise verb, but yeah. I haven't yet seen anyone - even some very sharp folks - take on Greenwald without looking like a dope. (Witness Kevin Drum, most recently.)
I don't find Krugman the least bit annoying. I can see the comparison with Rosen.
I'm trying to remember why Rosen drives me a little nuts. I think it's some of his late night repetitive twitter campaigns calling out journalists in a particularly whiny fashion. Maybe it's just his picture that makes me think he's whiny. I'm reviewing his twitter and reconsidering the error of my ways now.
I'm trying to remember why Rosen drives me a little nuts. I think it's some of his late night repetitive twitter campaigns calling out journalists in a particularly whiny fashion.
If you replace "twitter campaigns" with "drunken rants", you're basically describing me. Which may be why I like him.
Even The (London) Times -- back in the day the most augustly establishment-reflecting of the British newspapers -- was always pretty openly a crusading and even a muckraking organ
Indeed. The world's first war correspondent was a Times man, Billy Russell (inventor of the phrase "The Thin Red Line"), and he would have broken Judith Miller like a dry twig. I think the quote "my lord, if you don't like what I'm writing about what you're doing, then I suggest you stop doing it!" is authentic, but I am not sure. It rings true anyway.
15-16: It is only recently that I became aware of how long ago she started in the game. From Wikipedia: In 1946, Schlafly became a researcher for the American Enterprise Institute.
FWIW, I was surprised/grossed out at Phyllis' appearance on DR show, but glad she was there spouting her nonsense with Diane Rehm to moderate it. And really, she was the perfect "spokesperson" for the right's position on that issue, in that she exposed the crazy.
I would like to take this opportunity to fantasize about a trend where the media outlets try to one-up each other by how well they research the reality of a story and claims made by people involved.
Costs money; won't happen.
I never even noticed this thread.
11: I'm still reeling from the fact that Diane Rehm put Phyllis Schlafly on the air the other day to talk about the contraception hoohaw.
It was entertaining! Schlafly's performance became cringe-worthy -- to the point of embarrassing -- and I had to wonder yet again just what Diane Rehm's game is. I'm imagining a thought process something like: "Okay, Phyllis, you are an old warhorse of the conservative anti-feminist brigade, and you can go ahead and have your say, and if you embarrass the hell out of yourself, well, that's on you."
Agreed with 36, in other words.
The most remarkable moment (to me) was when Phyllis said that we really can't ignore the growing war on men that the use of contraception represents. This is apparently a new theme for a certain brand of conservative; at least it's new to me.