January 27, 2005

• Williams understands "why some people think it's unethical"? How magnanimous. He 'understands' why some people view payola as unethical. Nice. But as for the old 'Liberal Media' label, I have a hard time seeing it. If the media were so Liberal as is constantly being suggested, the justifications for going into Iraq would have been challenged in a more substantive and honest way. But it's just the GOP's modus operandi, I suppose -- simply repeating something until it becomes true.
• I like the way they try to rationalize it. A few times, I even found myself thinking "well, maybe it's not quite so bad, after all". And then my "what the hell?!" when I realize what I just thought. Bottom line is that they both took money from the government in exchange for touting their controversial, and some may say, failed, un-needed and just plain bad programs. I don't know enough about political history to know if this is business as usual, or if this administration thinks it's invincible (which it pretty much is), but no matter what administration has done/is doing it, it's not good at all.
• Capt., does it ever seem to you that any time any reporter or station questions anything Bush does, they're labeled "liberal", or am I just being paranoid? And, doesn't it seem like the Bush administration is working very hard to make "liberal" a dirty word?
• joke floating around d.c.: Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
• Liberal has been a dirty word ever since Rush started shivering the word out of his lips.
• Side Dish: I laughed mightily, because that's one hell of a funny joke. Then, I cried a little, because it's true. *sniff* it's now a joke that's floating around California, New York, and Tennessee
• I remember it "becoming" a dirty word in the Bush/Dukakis election. One of the reasons I'm mad with Dukakis. . .
• This whole issue is so fucking wrong. The Gallagher one is insanely funny, in a oh-my-god-WTF way: she wasn't sure whether she had violated journalistic ethics and said that it "had never occurred to" her to disclose the contract when writing the columns. OMGWTFBBQ. There, I feel better now. Well, not really, especially after that first link (donations for wtf now?) but you get the point. I liked the joke too, thanks. Even if it was depressing, in its own way.
• OMGWTFBBQ i still miss kansas city bbq. sigh. sorry, carry on.
• livii, you reminded me that I'd wanted to quote this: Gallagher said she was "aware vaguely" that her work was federally funded. Nice. Real nice.
• This has always gone on. There's been political payola for years. The difference is that before, when caught, the parties in question at the very least were embarraseed that they'd been busted doing illegal shit. The current crop of assholes are so arrogant they don't care if they get caught because they know they can whine about bias now and your average buzzword-addled rube will buy it. And yeah, there's been a war on the word "liberal" since 88.
• There's been a war on the word 'Liberal' since the Magna Carta, perhaps even before that.
• I see... thanks to you who answered my questions about "liberal", and about the paying-the-press issue. Now I can debate with my conservative friend and not make a stupid mistake :o) Surlyboi, your mention of the "current crop of of assholes are so arrogant they don't care if they get caught because they know they can whine..." reminded me of this Bush quote: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Everything I find points to that being a true quote. Interestingly enough, no major media sources came up when I googled that quote. It really underlines what Capt. Renault said upthread.
• Odd that you don't get a whitehouse.gov hit for that. Wasn't that during a press conference?
• a google news search for even part of that phrase hits nothing.
• google news came up with this link: Freezerbox: Staying Angry, which is a bit of a rant that mentions the quote, in context, about 3/4 down the page: In a news conference in March of 2003, when CNN reporter Kelly Wallace asked Bush why he discussed bin laden so infrequently, the President rambled a bit and then had this to say: I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you... I truly am not that concerned about him. When I put "kelly wallace asked bush about osama" back into google, I found this jem from the Washington Post. The entire quote is in there; turns out the little "I don't care" snippet isn't the whole quote. Man, I really gotta get back to work.
• no no minda stay and play! WHEEEEEEE!!!!
• Right after the debates, there were a whole whack of sites that posted the clip of Bush saying he wasn't all that concerned about Osama -- I remember a link through dailykos -- but my google-fu is failing me now, and I can't find them back. Lurch dropped the quote without a reference, and Chimpy sputtered out that that didn't sound like something he would say, that it must be one of those 'exshaggerashuns'. A Liberal media would have presented a fact-check on all debate claims. Instead, it was left to the internets.
• I love the National Review's attitude on the Gallager issue.

  National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."

  Short answer: we aren't bothered by her taking payola. Notice these conservative pundits (not sure about Gallager's background) didn't come up as reporters. They came through the GOP ranks. In Armstrong's case, as an aide to Clarence Thomas. Thoughts, SideDish?
• But, yeah, "liberal" has long been a dirty word down there (while up here, it only implies lazy, apathetic, caretaker governance). In terms of political insults, it's right up there with 'tax and spend'. Put them together, add that they're from New England, then nothing your sullied opponent says need be taken seriously. And another thing -- I've never understood the insult behind 'tax and spend'. Don't you have to tax before you can spend? Wasn't that supposed to be a good thing? I mean, back in the days when Republicans stood for fiscal restraint? (Aah, that takes me back...)
• From in full context: Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of -- THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money. And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
• well, sullivan, as maureen dowd wrote today, "I'm joining up with the conservative media elite. They get paid better."
• Check it out. The National Review took Maggie Gallager off their listing of autors. You can still find articles she wrote about gay marriage. Her bio and archive are gone.
• My question to you Dishy is why do conservative publications go out of their way not to hire people that came up as reporters?
• seriously, this media payola shit just breaks my heart. it's a basic, basic, BASIC ethical tenant of journalism that you don't take ANYTHING for a story. period. and it's so sad that there are "journalists" (i use the term loosely) who choose to ignore that rule. *sigh* i hope the public realizes that the vast majority of reporters are highly ethical and won't even take a cookie from a source. literally. many news organizations have strict ethics policies that forbid, say, accepting anything with a value over $10 -- so sources can't even buy them dinner. that's how strict it is out here, as it should be.
• sullivan: i really think it's because they truly buy into the whole idea that real reporters are somehow evil.
• Examples here and here SideDish.

  Kate O

• and i have a gut feeling this payola is just the tip of the iceberg... from USAT WASHINGTON
• sullivan: i really think it's because they truly buy into the whole idea that real reporters are somehow evil. Agreed Sidedish. I threw it out to you because your a D.C. reporter. Yes, I know you do fluff stuff these days. I think they really want to control the spin. They even have bloggers they send talking points to. Speaking of reporters --- Dish, ever hear of Clifford Agocs. He wants to interview me. I already agreed. Waiting to hear back from him. Liberal media is keeping me waiting.
• I know you do fluff stuff these days *cough* just because i don't cover policy and CapHill don't make me a fluffy reporter! now then. nope, never heard of Clifford Agocs, and his byline has never appeared in anything in nexis. ever. hmm.
• SideDish, I read anti-adoption articles for entertainment.

  "I've been in children's welfare a long time and I've never seen this level of volatility in other issues. Feelings run very high," said Madelyn Freundlich, attorney and author of the book "The Impact of Adoption on Members of the Triad" (triad being mother, baby and adoptive couple).

  Now this is cruel.
• I googled Clifford Agocs. He told me he was freelance and writing a piece on me for Sync Magazine. As you know Dishy, freelance is another way to say unemployed. Quite a few political bloggers (Matt Welch, Ken Layne) were freelancers. Josh Marshall can barely scrap a living in D.C. Needless to say, as far as journalist bloggers --- the cream has not rised to the top. Those guys are fine writers, but they aren't making it as journalists. I wonder why.
• gotta love the MY SERVER IS DOWN t-shirt on the sync link. heh.
• Mickey Kaus

  The main problem with what Gallagher did is non-disclosure--she got paid for some PR work on behalf of the Bush "marriage initiative," which arguably could have favorably disposed her toward those policies in her columns, but probably had no effect.

  Kaus is a Democrat (served in the Carter administration) and has hinted in interviews that he really doesn't believe the shit he writes. His friends say his Slate blog is bs. My question is isn't it dishonest journalism for a liberal posing to be posing as a conservative?
• Of course it's dishonest, Sullivan. But the corporate exec/pol mindset (they're basically the same thing, I'd argue, at least when we're talking about pols in the center or to the right) doesn't look down on dishonesty, as long as the dishonesty helps the bottom line (i.e. wins more $$ or more votes). And due to the victory of the corporate mindset in our society, the wall between the corporate and creative/journalistic sides of media organizations is weaker than it's ever been. So, more whorish journalists.
• In other words, the corporate right is changing the definition of the word "journalism" right before our very eyes.
• Why do you hate Uhmurkah, Sully?
• /me paid surlyboi $20,000 to say that.
• Why do you hate Uhmurkah, Sully? WTF are you talking about?
• He's kidding, Sullivan. :o) I have a question for you guys. I was thinking out loud the other day, wondering if our vice-president, should something happen to the president, would even be eligible for the presidency because of his heart condition & history of heart-attacks. I was told that he indeed isn't eligible. (in case you're wondering, we were talking about smart presidents like George #1, and George #2 taking on vice-presidents that nobody wants to see become president). Anyhoo, my question: should our president's next pretzel-choking episode prove fatal, who would be our president then?
• The answer is Cheney. Hell, we've had Supreme Court Justices croak while they were still on the bench. When Bush had his operations Cheney WAS temporarily declared the president.
• Thanks, Sullivan.
• McManus. that's 3 that we know about. I'm sure there won't be any more. I mean, hell they have FOX, why are they paying my tax money for this anyway?
• Czarnecki Priceless. Oh, sorry, no that's actually $2,100 plus transportation.