- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The Daily Caller said:Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
...
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people ... We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
...
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
...
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list ... “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
...
Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
The Daily Caller said:But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”
Im sorry, do you have any more solid sources than "The Daily Caller"?
The only part that really surprised me was the part where the guy said to call people racist. That's a jackass statement.
Other than that it seems to be just a few liberal journalists writing a statement and talking to eachother about how por the mainstream media is about covering parts of the election. To try to paint this into some vast left wing conspiracy is nuts.
If I were to get a conversation involving Bill Krystol, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck etc.. about how unfair the media is treating conservatives and what their gameplan was to change it, would you take me serious when I act as if the New York Times and Fox News are part of a major conspiracy?
These were journalists, not entire publications. Just cause you have a liberal from the politico talking like a liberal doesn't mean the whole website is liberal leaning. They are actually a pretty fair website from what I've seen. They go after everyone pretty equally.
It's an online newspaper with no established credibility. You need to provide a reason for me to trust this.Only if you have solid sources that convincingly discredit "The Daily Caller".
It's an online newspaper with no established credibility. You need to provide a reason for me to trust this.
WOW! The conspiracy to end all conspiracies. Gee, the Rev. Wright story was nowhere to be had. Such gullible people - conservatives. :mrgreen:
Thank's for the laugh.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your source is trustworthy, one doesn't prove a negative for that is an argument from ignorance.I don't have to provide you anything. You're the person complaining it has no credibility - so prove it. Otherwise, until it's discredited - it stands.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your source is trustworthy,
Be as childish as you want, it doesnt change the fact that you need to give us a reason to take this source seriously.Wrong.....
Did this conspiracy work? - still laughing.Ignorance laughing... that's typical. Would you have read the link - we've exited conspiracies and entered fact, sorry to say.
Be as childish as you want, it doesnt change the fact that you need to give us a reason to take this source seriously.
Did this conspiracy work? - still laughing.
gullible is the word for the day. :mrgreen:
It's not a diversion attempt. I want to know that this story is coming from a reputable source.I'm not taking your attempt of diversion in this thread seriously.
Calling yourself gullible is commendable. At least you know it.
I don't have to provide you anything. You're the person complaining it has no credibility - so prove it. Otherwise, until it's discredited - it stands.
Instead of playing partisan, you could, y'know, do something to make the story more credible. I realize thats sort of par for the course as far as a lot of Conservatives go, but there's no dictum that says you HAVE to follow that path.So far, we have one liberal refusing to believe the story and one saying its no big deal.
If it were the other way around, they would be leading the charge.
:roll:
So far, we have one liberal refusing to believe the story and one saying its no big deal.
If it were the other way around, they would be leading the charge.
:roll:
I dont have any reason to think it isn't credible, and as such, I dont have any responsibilty to do anything.Instead of playing partisan, you could, y'know, do something to make the story more credible.
I dont have any reason to think it isn't credible, and as such, I dont have any responsibilty to do anything.
You, however, rather than address the message, are simply attacking the source and offering no support for that attack. This -is- the typical course of the liberal who reads news he doesn't like.
Of course not, it agrees with your point of view.I dont have any reason to think it isn't credible
No, not strictly. But it'd be a nice change.and as such, I dont have any responsibilty to do anything.
Questioning a source is perfectly valid.You, however, rather than address the message, are simply attacking the source and offering no support for that attack. This -is- the typical course of the liberal who reads news he doesn't like.
Not any more than your refusing to accept iits credibility is based on the fact that it doesnt agree with yours.Of course not, it agrees with your point of view.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?