November 03, 2005
Over at Townhall,
Malkin shows the New York Times "dowdifying" a
letter from a dead Marine in order to make him sound grimly resigned to his death, rather than willing to give his life to combat terrorism.
When the reporter was called on it by a reader, he resorted to the "chickenhawk" meme, asking the reader if he'd ever been to Iraq! Amazing.
Via Dean's World.
Posted by: Attila at
04:18 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Companies that take this kind of tone with their customers (and subscribers and other readers are indeed customers, even if the majority of revenue comes indirectly via advertisers) don't tend to have terribly bright financial futures.
Posted by: David Foster at November 03, 2005 07:07 AM (7TmYw)
2
Yes. Did I mention that this is the New York Times?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2005 07:54 AM (x3SIT)
3
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=5y
Posted by: David Foster at November 03, 2005 08:06 AM (7TmYw)
4
Exactly. Unfortunately, the lefty media types of my acquaintance simply chalk this general trend up to the fact that people are getting a lot more news over the internet these days.
We are. But why, specifically, are people shying away from most heritage media news sources, rather than switching and reading them online?
They have not addressed the issue of mistrust, because to do so would require that they cop to the general leftist bias. And of course, in these people's minds the only bias is one AGAINST their views, due to the effect of the Rovian mind rays that keep us all from being OUTRAGED that there's a WAR going on.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2005 08:20 AM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 23, 2005
Larry and Me (Liberty Film Festival, 4)
Larry Elder spoke today at the
Liberty Film Festival, and afterward I decided I was going to pin him down for another of my signature "mini-interviews." He had just agreed to let me walk him to his car when he got shanghaid into signing a bunch of his DVDs. As one might expect, that kept him there long enough for more and more people to arrive—most of whom needed to at least shake his hand, and maybe get a picture (and possibly have a small exchange with him regarding politics, race, economics, or affirmative action).
After a few hours my resolved calcified: as long as he'd agreed in principle to my getting a few minutes with him, I was going to wait until he was away from the madding crowds, and could focus on what we were saying.
I'll summarize our discussion in another post, but he is an amazing man. No matter how many hands he had to shake, he never seemed to get tired of his fans, supporters, and colleagues. His ethical system is clearly as demanding as his work life: I'd never seen that level of focus in someone surrounded by an ever-changing crowd of 5-10 fans who all clearly want to talk to him as well. When Larry turned to me I indicated that he'd promised I could walk him out, and that was what I intended to do. He appeared to respect that. Meanwhile, I reminded myself that people call in to his show all the time and wait for hours to speak with him in the least private of settings. I was waiting a bit, but would get a one-on-one chat with him. A bargain, if you want to know the truth.
And sure enough: a friend of his who works for the L.A. Times ran into us as we approached the back doors of the Beverly Center, and they had a very cute exchange regarding their differences of opinion. (Larry pointed to me and threatened, after the other man had made a tacit admission of media bias, that I was going to expose this shameful moment in my blog. We all had a good laugh, though I'm afraid my readers might not be any more impressed with that than they would be with "a Times writer admitted that it gets hot in the summer in L.A.")
But Larry really is the all-time gentleman: he listened to my questions, gave me thoughtful answers, and stood there by his black Thunderbird asking me what I thought about various issues, as if he had all the time in the world. (At first, my mouth dropped open, and I may have looked like a fish for a moment there, till I rallied and remembered that I definitely Have Opinions.)
Truly a great experience. I've met Larry before, but not since 1998 or so, and we'd never had this long a chat. And, you know: I love being treated like a Real Media person, when in fact I'm just bloggy little me: a girl with a keyboard.
Posted by: Attila at
12:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Well, if he doesn't like attention he's in the wrong line of work. So I rather hope so.

Nice to meet you, and I will be checking out the latest Wallace & Gromit.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 23, 2005 11:57 AM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 05, 2005
Glenn Floats the Idea
. . . that journalists be
held to the same standards as car manufacturers.
The spreading of lies about Hurricane Katrina constitute one more nail in the coffin of the heritage media.
Posted by: Attila at
01:45 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"The television stations were reporting that people were literally stepping over bodies and violence was out of control," said Blanco press secretary Denise Bottcher... "But the National Guardsmen were saying that what we were seeing on CNN was contradictory to what they were seeing. It didn't match up."
So, why didn't Blanco call the CEO of CNN and warn him that, based on her data, mis-reporting was going on? I'm the last person on earth to defend the media, but this "Governor" seems to believe that everyone on earth had responsibilities except for her.
Posted by: David Foster at October 05, 2005 03:29 PM (7TmYw)
2
She acted very responsibly. She cried. That was supposed to galvanize the men around her into taking action--particularly the President.
I guess chivalry
is dead.
[Can you imagine what an embarrassment this woman is to those of us who believe one can have two X chromosomes and still take action when it's necessary? Sheesh.]
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 05, 2005 09:44 PM (Kti1Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 22, 2005
A Spy in the House of the Mainstream Media
I fear the world is about to end: Patterico just got published in the
L.A. Times.
And I have to give them a little grudging respect for it, too: he's no more soft-spoken in this op-ed piece than he is in his own blog.
UPDATE: Turns out this is the second time Patterico's been invited to contribute to this "Outside the Tent" series. Kudos to the editor who makes this decision.
Posted by: Attila at
02:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I do give the editors credit. The "Outside the Tent" column was Michael Kinsley's idea. Luckily, it has survived Kinsley's ouster, and has been embraced by Bob Sipchen.
Posted by: Patterico at August 23, 2005 05:03 PM (qm0bN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 20, 2005
Nice Little Interview with Mark Steyn
. . . by
Hugh Hewitt.
Posted by: Attila at
01:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
Evan Coyne Maloney
. . .
might become, for the
New York Times, what
Patterico is to the
Los Angeles Times. (Though perhaps not as intensely: it would be difficult to match Patterico's frequency of slapdowns.)
And this could be lovely to watch. (Not to mention the fun I'll have forwarding these tidbits to my father, who maintains that I'm not "literate" because I don't read the NYT. I'm afraid his years on the East Coast warped his brain.)
At any rate, it's Maloney's takedown is sweet; check it out.
(Via Goldstein.)
Posted by: Attila at
12:08 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I get the sense that the NYT is every bit as bad as the LAT, if not worse. I just don't read it consistently every single day the way I do the LAT, otherwise I'd probably go nuts over the NYT in the same way.
FWIW, Mickey Kaus says Krugman didn't get it wrong.
Posted by: Patterico at August 20, 2005 02:01 PM (qm0bN)
2
Interesting. I'll have to go back to the original and take a look.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 20, 2005 02:55 PM (Ud5Hh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 30, 2005
I Always Assume
That when my media-industry acquaintances ask me if I'm getting paid to blog, they're just being a bit snide because they caught a glimpse of the pro-Schwarzenegger bumper sticker on my car. After all, when someone mentions working on a novel or a screenplay, no one asks if he/she is getting paid: it's understood that such projects are labors of love and hope.
But perhaps there's something deeper about the question of payment for journalism. Something at the very heart of the MSM-blogosphere conflict. Perhaps there is fear in the issue as well.
Posted by: Attila at
02:12 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
July 23, 2005
Nice Summary
of Nadagate (the Plame affair) by John Hinderaker
here, couched in terms of the
New York Times hypocrisy in outing real CIA covert operators, while pretending outrage that well-known Langley desk jockeys are discussed by media types with White House officials.
Posted by: Attila at
11:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
July 16, 2005
So . . .
anyone know what John Dean's
smoking?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Posted by: Attila at
12:18 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Apparently he's still "smoking" from Watergate--three decades ago.
Ancient Vietnam protesters see every conflict through the lens of Vietnam. Apparently something similar is true of ancient Watergate conspirators.
Posted by: Desert Cat at July 16, 2005 08:51 AM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 29, 2005
As I Grow Older
. . . I'm more and more in awe of Mark Steyn. How can one man stay right on top of politics in the U.S., Canada, England, and Europe in general all at the same time?
I had a boyfriend who used to refer to Isaac Asimov as "the Asimov brothers." That's how I feel about Steyn, who is always just brilliant—whether I agree with him or not. He's a top-notch writer and a top-notch thinker.
In his latest Right Wing News Interview with John Hawkins, Steyn discusses his favorite—excuse me, favourite—bloggers, reserving his highest accolades for Canada's Kate McMillan, who is indeed one of the very best out there.
Needless to say, we were all button-busting proud at the Cotillion.
Posted by: Attila at
11:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
Hope for the New York Times?
Holy fucking
shit.
I'll believe it when they ditch the airhead for a chick sporting a brain. (See post below.)
Posted by: Attila at
12:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
June 05, 2005
"Thanks for the Money. Here's Some Nice Propaganda for You."
Kate of Small Dead Animals
discusses an article about the BBC in the U.K. that she feels could just as easily have been written about Canada's CBC. The extreme leftist bias in both cases is not a conspiracy at all; it simply reflects the world view of those who work there.
These news agencies are only a few degrees further left than our own heritage media, though in the U.S. the anti-American bias has to be muted somewhat, made palatable to the masses (who aren't as stupid as the media elites imagine, and are simply voting with their remote controls).
The difference, of course, is that in Canada and the UK these agencies are state-run, supported by tax dollars. Here in the U.S. we only have to put up with National Public Radio, which appeals to a niche market, and (despite its being far-left) I rather like. Still, there is something maddening about the idea of the person who works at 7-11 having to pay taxes to support media organs that present only a tiny piece of the spectrum of political thought. Especially when these news agencies do not acknowledge this bias in the least, or even really see it.
Posted by: Attila at
10:59 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.
1
thats right though isn't it?
The right wing people own everything and the lefties make the media.
Posted by: dave bones at June 05, 2005 06:42 PM (PFuWA)
2
funny, I actually just watched the
Mc Libel film on BBC2
Posted by: dave bones at June 05, 2005 06:45 PM (PFuWA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 18, 2005
Someone Was Up Late Last Night
Jeff of BA (Beautiful Atrocities, and the Bay Area) has some
suggestions for those of us who just
haven't been able to figure out the question of our day—that is, how to flush the Quran down a toilet:
• Flush Cliff's Notes on Quran instead. (This is cheating)
• Place Quran in toilet bowl. Add 1 quart of lye. Let stew for several days. Try to avoid using toilet during this period, or you will have disgusting mess on your hands. (If smell unbearable, add a little Old Spice or Brut.)
• Eat entire Quran page by page. Defecate. If necessary, use Milk of Magnesia
I always want to give up blogging when I stop by Jeff's place. Now read the whole thing.
Posted by: Attila at
12:27 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Qu'ran toilet paper: "carress your ass with holiness!"
I plan to market this in Mecca. Wish me luck.
Posted by: Ciggy at May 19, 2005 08:19 AM (Sy2Fl)
2
For all your quran/koran/scribbly book flushing needs:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020301/wd3.jpg
Posted by: Don at May 19, 2005 08:50 AM (FsGoB)
Posted by: ilar at June 03, 2005 11:43 AM (Y7dVX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 16, 2005
Frank J. on the Newsweaklings
You know, I haven't helped to get someone fired since Mary Mapes, and I've got that itchy feeling again. And I'm not the only one.
Apparently, W. got so mad, he started his own blog:
"So it's rioting in the Middle East and guess who has to deal with it," Condoleezza Rice complained, "Me, that's who. Why couldn't I be Secretary of Defense?"
"Because diplomacy is for women and kill'n is for men," Rumsfeld answered.
"I'll show you killing!" Condi shouted and approached Rumsfeld.
"Let's save our violence for Newsweek," Bush said, "Now hand me my fact-checker."
"The 12-gauge?" Condi asked.
"That'll do."
Laura walked into the room. "Are you going to use violence to solve a problem again?"
"No, dear," Bush answered, stuffing his pockets with shotguns shells.
"You know, when someone in the media writes something that isn't true," Laura told him, "the popular and effective way to combat it is to blog about it."
"Blog!" Rumsfeld yelled, "Sounds like something for homosexuals."
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila at
02:18 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
1
No, shiett? The Puppy Blender actually linked to his archnemesis Frank J??
My world is all topsy-turvy...
Seriously, Frank J's "In My World" series is priceless, and is the one good reason to check in to IMAO on a regular basis to see if there are more episodes.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 16, 2005 10:01 PM (xdX36)
2
I love it that Glenn was on television recently, and mentioned slander in general--puppy-blending in particular.
(And I'm sure most of my readers know that Glenn is considered Frank's "blogfather.")
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 16, 2005 10:39 PM (x/EKm)
3
Harrrrrrrrrr harrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Ciggy at May 18, 2005 07:45 AM (0B3lJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Newsweek
explains that it's sorry it reported that the Koran was being desecrated at Guantanamo, but it's
not that sorry, even though people died because of it. And—hey!—look over there! Something shiny!
Posted by: Attila at
12:10 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm waiting for Newsweek to explain (Rather-style) that although the actual event of flushing a Koran down a toilet at Gitmo didn't actually occur, someone at Gitmo once *thought* about doing that - and in fact, it may have happened at some other place and time - which makes the story fake but accurate. Sort of.
Posted by: Greg at May 16, 2005 07:22 AM (d8pUH)
2
Newsweek lied.
People died.
That's my protest chant going forward.
Posted by: Ciggy at May 16, 2005 08:30 AM (Ru8KL)
3
Well, that's one of the most fascinating things about this: all those people who pounce on any perceived inaccuracy in a Bush Administration statement are largely silent on this. Why? Because the Koran-flushing story made the military and intel people look bad.
Which must be good. Therefore we'll run with the story. Even though it's patently absurd: since when would it be possible to flush all the pages of nearly any book down a toilet?--much less a big religious tome?
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 16, 2005 12:10 PM (x/EKm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 18, 2005
Bush's Press Conference Yesterday
Trey Jackson has the video of both those moments people were talking about: Bush discussing his legacy, and his reaction to the question about Wolfowitz being the architect of "one of the most unpopular wars in history."
Posted by: Attila at
11:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
March 01, 2005
And Now for Something Completely Different
An
interview with Jeff Gannon's penis, courtesy of Protein Wisdom.
PW: “What do you hope to accomplish now that you have re-entered the public domain? Obviously, a book deal is in the future. What message are you hoping to send by telling your story?”
COCK: “I suppose what I really want to say is that I’m really just like any other GAY PORN COCK. Prick me, do I not bleed? Stroke me long enough, do I not, y’know --”
PW: “Gotcha. Sure. But let me ask you directly, for the record. Are you gay?”
COCK: “I go where I’m told, to be honest with you. And from my perspective? There’s not a whole lot of difference from one cave to the next.”
Read the whole thing. Now.
UPDATE: I hadn't realized some of you out there hadn't seen the original interview with Jeff Gannon himself. Here you go.
Posted by: Attila at
07:26 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
February 19, 2005
Bloggers as Legit Journalists?
Very
Interesting:
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation on Wednesday to achieve meaningful reforms to federal government information laws, most notably the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (FOIA). The Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005 (OPEN Government Act) is aimed at substantially enhancing and expanding the accessibility, accountability, and openness of the federal government. U.S. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the committeeÂ’s senior Democrat, is the billÂ’s co-sponsor.
Importantly for bloggers, the Cornyn-Leahy legislation grants privileged FOIA fees for bloggers and writers for Internet outlets, providing the same status as old media and will protect access to FOIA fee waivers for legitimate journalists, regardless of institutional association - including bloggers and other Internet-based journalists.
If this passes, will bloggers be spine biters to the MSM, instead of ankle biters?
Posted by: William Teach at
10:07 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's a tremendous step forward, in any case.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 20, 2005 05:57 AM (IU3og)
2
I certainly hope it passes, just so that big media gets a shot in the behind. Look at someone like John Henke: no one can say he isn't a legit journalist.
Posted by: William Teach at February 20, 2005 06:20 AM (HxpPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 15, 2005
What Happens in Davos, Stays in Davos
Iowahawk scored the
transcript of Eason Jordan's remarks! Now there's some CITIZEN JOURNALISM! As
Goldstein would say, GIVE THE MAN SOME PIE!
Posted by: Attila at
02:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Now THIS
. . . is
sexual McCarthyism.
Do the lefties really want to be the party of gay-bashing? Do they really want White House reporters to clear some kind of "morals" background check before being admitted to the West Wing?
They need to get out of people's bedrooms, and out of the witch-hunt business. This whole Jeff Gannon affair is just nauseating. Let people's pasts remain so.
Posted by: Attila at
02:34 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.
1
YOu know what is really making me sick? Is how now on the leftie blogs they are just referring to Gannon as a "gay hooker" and Scott McClellan as "gay." Like it has been proven and done.
These are people's lives! I haven't seen a shred of evidence that either is true and I don't know why they are even talking about their sex lives! It makes me want to puke.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 15, 2005 06:25 AM (18nhC)
2
Damn. I have to uncritically agree with Right Wing Sparkle.
"Like it has been proven and done." Exactly.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 15, 2005 08:19 AM (yZMsp)
3
Sparkle, like I told Bill, this along with a number of other things has driven me over the edge away from the left... it's an insane witch-hunt and those who have participated should be ashamed of themselves - not to mention sued.
But that said, you personally have very little to say about anyone else's "meanness" or evidence-free assertions. Your semi-literate commentary consists of little more than impossibly broad generalizations based on some caricature that you apparently believe applies to all liberals everywhere. Grow up. Take some English classes. Read a book.
Posted by: Mike C at February 15, 2005 09:42 AM (63JS9)
4
A bunch of bloggers made themselves feel like big men by beating up on the retarded kid at recess.
(I now retreat back to bed.)
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at February 15, 2005 09:53 AM (UAuME)
5
Mike, I assume your talking about Jeff's site because I haven't seen any meaness on the sites I frequent. Jeff G is mean to Willis but Jeff's site is all about parody and I know that if I got on to him about it he would just laugh at me. The sites I referred to above were commentary, not parody.
Btw, I have an english degree and read about 3 books a week.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 15, 2005 10:21 AM (18nhC)
6
I'm not talk about any site, just the comments I've seen you leave in various places. They come off as spiteful and mean-spirited. But whatever... sorry about the English crack. That was probably a little too harsh.
Posted by: Mike C at February 15, 2005 10:34 AM (63JS9)
7
Mike, here's the deal. This is my site, and personal attacks on my commenters are over-the-line.
For the time being, I'll let the above remark stand, since you apologized, RWS didn't take it too personally, and the thread doesn't make sense if I edit them now. But in the future, please know that you debate
ideas on this site. Or, if my posts are harsh, you can call
me names. You may not call anyone else names here, and you're subject to editing if you do it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 15, 2005 11:45 AM (RjyQ5)
Posted by: Mike C at February 15, 2005 12:10 PM (63JS9)
9
Mike, could you please point out to me one or two examples of me being spiteful or meanspirited? I honestly don't think I ever do that. (except in the case of a argument I had with one blogger and even that wasn't that mean)
Seriously, I want to know if it seems that way.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 15, 2005 12:27 PM (18nhC)
10
Okay, then. She wants to know. Go ahead and lay out your best case, in a civil fashion, if you like.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 15, 2005 01:33 PM (RjyQ5)
11
Honestly Sparkle, my biggest impression of you came from the time you called me a bigot because I brought up the possibility that Christian end-times prophecies might have a significant influence on the religious right's view of the Middle East. It's possible that impression is wrong, and really, even if true, it doesn't make you any worse than a large percentage of blog commenters. Mostly, I guess I'm just irritated with both the left and right (the left because of the absolute inanity of going after Gannon like this, and the right for reacting with the online equivalent of a fainting spell over the meanness of liberals while utterly ignoring its own history of the same type of behavior), and maybe I directed a little too much of that at you.
Joy's right, though - I much prefer civil discussion as well, and I really had no call to single you out like that anyway.
Posted by: Mike C at February 15, 2005 04:16 PM (qe2rW)
12
Mike, when did I do that??? I honestly don't remember that discussion at all. I don't even have much of an opinion on evangelical Christians end-times prophecies.
I don't remember ever calling anyone a bigot ever actually. Which blog was it?
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 15, 2005 07:50 PM (18nhC)
13
Just to throw a different POV into the mix, it looks to me like the Left wing bloggers have a profound case of "penis envy" towards the RW bloggers. Look what has happened. RWers took down Jordan and Rather, and, I dare say, were particularly instrumental in Kerry's loss. Furthermore, RW bloggers have made some inroads in containing the rampant liberal partisanship of the MSM's. Accountability. Facts. LW blogs have little of that.
Posted by: William Teach at February 16, 2005 07:39 PM (HxpPK)
14
Hm. There is a strange disconnect between "Dan Rather used obviously bogus memos on 60 minutes" and "some guy you never heard of working for an obscure news site was once an online gold-digger."
Hence, the tendency to emphasize his "fake name," and imply that security checks were not done under his real name, and that the President was somehow put at risk ("gay hookers were roaming the White House"). Or make it sound like he was involved in the nonexistent "outing" of Valerie Plame.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 16, 2005 11:39 PM (RjyQ5)
15
Exectamundo. I have asked multiple lefties on their blogs, as well as forums, what is the big deal? I have yet to be given an answer, other then, "if the situation was reversed, the RWers would be going crazy." Huh? So, no real answer.
Sure, it's an issue, but a minor one. My personal conspiracy theory is that this came out now to distract the lefties from SS and tax reform. And they took the cheese in teh trap.
Posted by: William Teach at February 17, 2005 05:21 AM (HxpPK)
16
Well, if you parse it out, there are five issues:
1) journalist who had a pen name. Our friends in the leftosphere would
like that to mean that his security clearence wasn't done under his real, legal name--but of course that's not so. Both names were provided for the check.
2) Journalist worked for a small website. The leftosphere might want to think about this for a moment: if the rule becomes "big-name news agencies only," all bloggers will be excluded from getting day passes, because even the biggest names in blogging don't get the traffic TV and newspapers do.
3) Journalist offered his services online as an "escort." Again, this appears to imply that anyone with a checkered past shouldn't be allowed to ask the President questions. So, no Hunter S. Thompson types. (For that matter, P.J. O'Rourke would fail the morals test, too, on the basis of his past drug use.)
4) Valerie Plame blah blah blah. Give me a break.
5) Bill Clinton's impeachment was about blow jobs. No, it wasn't: it was about denying Paula Jones her day in court, and relates to the rather exotic, American notion that in this country the President is not supposed to be legally above someone like Jones that he regards as trailer trash. In this country, she is supposed to be allowed to establish her case that Clinton had a pattern of hitting on his subordinates.
If it weren't for the sexual harrassment issue, I wouldn't have cared who gave him a blow job and when--though I would have preferred that it not happen in the Oval office, and the idea that he was discussing troop deployment while getting sucked off is profoundly offensive.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 17, 2005 11:58 AM (RjyQ5)
17
I think the serious objection to Mr Gannon was the possibility that he was a paid to shill for the administration (ala Mr Williams) and that Talon News was a front for GOPUSA. His function (as the logic goes) was to provide user-friendly questions for the Prez or press sec'y to deflect attention from more unpleasant or unfriendly questions. Hardly earthshaking, but at least a little tacky.
Posted by: Fog at February 18, 2005 10:51 AM (s9Fr0)
18
Well, the payola issue is problematic. But more Presidents have made a point of having at least one person in the room who was very friendly to them, and on whom they could call if things got rough. This tradition goes back at least to the Kennedy administration.
But I also get the impression that if that were the strategy, Mr. Gannon took it too far, and was so clumsy in his "friendly" questions that he just came off as fawning. That is, the entire attempt was unsuccessful, if it existed.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 18, 2005 02:17 PM (RjyQ5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
72kb generated in CPU 0.2813, elapsed 0.3961 seconds.
219 queries taking 0.3667 seconds, 514 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.