I know it is wrong…

But man am I enjoying this NYT story about the sale of the Boston Globe and its implications. From their article (emphasis mine):

The New York Times Company, in its latest move to shed assets and focus more on its core brand, has agreed to sell The Boston Globe and its other New England media properties to John W. Henry, principal owner of the Boston Red Sox.

The sale, for $70 million, would return the paper to local ownership after two decades in which it struggled to stem the decline in circulation and revenue. The price would represent a staggering drop in value for The Globe, which The Times bought in 1993 for $1.1 billion, the highest price paid for an American newspaper.

HAH!

The stupid NYT spent 1.1 billion to buy the globe, pushed their progressive nonsense, or as they refer to it, their core brand, then end, up selling it for a measly $70 million, because most real people would prefer to avoid the left leaning fairy tales the NYT, and for that matter the Globe, passes off as news these days. Again, the leftists are reminded by the economics of the real world why their ideas suck ass.

I am enjoying this and I don’t care if you think that’s bad on my part. Nobody deserves the royal shafting they are getting as much as the NYT. Nothing pleases me more than to see dumb ideas and those that push them rewarded with pain. Fuck these sycophants and their progressive bullshit. It could not be happening to bigger idiots IMO. In an age where the media has abdicated their duty to tell the people about how bad their government is behaving, simply because said government is an ideological fellow traveler, and those that don’t toe the line risk retaliation, watching the NYT get it, pleases me to no end. Maybe they can line up with the many other progressive entities facing the economic reality of their stupid policies, like Detroit, for federal bail outs.

Comments are closed.

  1. Ed Kline

    The stupid NYT spent 1.1 billion to buy the globe, pushed their progressive nonsense, or as they refer to it, their core brand, then end, up selling it for a measly $70 million, because most real people would prefer to avoid the left leaning fairy tales the NYT, and for that matter the Globe, passes off as news these days. Again, the leftists are reminded by the economics of the real world why their ideas suck ass.

    Right….it dropped nearly 94% in value because of it’s political slant… In Boston Massachusetts… The same state that elected Teddy Kennedy till he died and would still be electing John Kerry if he weren’t busy with other things.
    They bought it in 1993. It wasn’t like the advent of the internet was a huge contributing factor to the devaluation of all major newspapers. . It’s not like all print media isn’t feeling the same pinch. It’s not like newspapers in general are going the way of the Dodo. Nope, it’s the politics.
    In your messianic mission to use any means possible to repudiate all things left of center, you manage to run face first into the elephant in the room, and not notice.
    Worst post ever!

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  2. AlexInCT *

    Right….it dropped nearly 94% in value because of it’s political slant… In Boston Massachusetts… The same state that elected Teddy Kennedy till he died and would still be electing John Kerry if he weren’t busy with other things.

    No Ed, it dropped because the average progressive don’t do news. They get their talking points from late night comedy shows. People that do news however, don’t want liberal drivel, and that is all you get from the progressive dominated printed media.

    They bought it in 1993. It wasn’t like the advent of the internet was a huge contributing factor to the devaluation of all major newspapers. . It’s not like all print media isn’t feeling the same pinch. It’s not like newspapers in general are going the way of the Dodo. Nope, it’s the politics.

    Seriously? Why do you think the internet made the printed news obsolete? Let me give you a hint dude: people got tired of the lack of real and serious news, the nonsense pushed by usual progressive dominated print outlets, and the internet, especially outlets like Drudge, provided them with a better place to get (or filter out the bullshit to find the rare story) real news. Same thing pushed the shift to radio: people wanted to hear something other than the usual progressive bullshit. And more importantly, people wanted to hear news the progressives constantly ignored because it hurt their agenda and narrative. If you do not see the role that politics had in this shit, then you are willfully missing it.

    BTW, the NYT has been on the internet forever, and they still lose money there. There is an obvious reason for that, and it is more than people not wanting to pay for news. I suspect you know the dynamic quite well but just wanted to do some of your usual bitching.

    Thumb up 13

  3. Seattle Outcast

    I pay for news online, but I get most of it for “free” when I have to wade through opinion pieces labeled as news on various websites. There’s a reason the Seattle PI, which is/was far mere of an extremist rag like The Village Voice, is an online-only “news” site after the Seattle Times was forced to print their daily run for a couple decades under a court enforced joint operating agreement that was abandoned a few years back. Now that the Times charges for online content it has become even less relevant for the vast majority of the Puget Sound residents. And that’s after two decades of rapidly declining readership. Hell, The Stranger is more relevant to most people, even if only for reading out loud the personal ads section for public amusement (actual ad: “My pole, your holes”).

    I don’t see anyone saying that the WSJ has any readership problems, and Fox News wouldn’t even exist if there had been any neutral competition when they began airing. Oddly enough, Fox News is routinely rated the most neutral of all the TV news broadcasts – it only seems “conservative” in comparison to the competition, which is routinely rated as being far left, and by their opinion shows, which aren’t included in the rating. Despite this, the Jarrett Obama WH continues to publicly not consider Fox to be a “real news outlet”, while their chosen boot-licker, MSNBC, continues to have increasingly worse viewership problems.

    Thumb up 11

  4. Ed Kline

    No Ed, it dropped because the average progressive don’t do news. They get their talking points from late night comedy shows. People that do news however, don’t want liberal drivel, and that is all you get from the progressive dominated printed media.

    Oh bullshit. You’re not going to convince me that liberals don’t read.

    Seriously? Why do you think the internet made the printed news obsolete? Let me give you a hint dude: people got tired of the lack of real and serious news, the nonsense pushed by usual progressive dominated print outlets…

    Seriously?! That’s the main reason? It has nothing to do with the fact that most people can get most of the days breaking news online for free on their Yahoo homepage? It’s solely or mainly political? Cause I read. I lean to the right on a lot of issues. I live in Indiana,( a fairly red State) and the idea of subscribing to either the Indianapolis Star or the Northwest Indiana Times ( which endorsed McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012) is about as appealing to me as updating my music collection with cassette tapes. Btw, not for nothing but both those rags have less circulation than they did in 93. The Star now has a Sunday circulation of 285,000ish, and peaked at 420,000ish in 91.

    I don’t see anyone saying that the WSJ has any readership problems

    Not exactly a fair comparison. The WSJ’s template is not successful because of it’s editorial slant. It’s a money mag, and is a relevant purchase for people across the country and even out of country. People in Tacoma Washington don’t read the Philadelphia Inquirer, nor do they read the San Antonio Express-News, but they do read the WSJ.
    I don’t know how you just decide that the narrative of a given thing is what you want it to be, as opposed to what it is. You must be a blast at dinner parties. The idea that print news is failing mostly due to politically motivated editorial content as opposed to having to compete with free media is ridiculous. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe have all had major drops in circulation in the last 20 years, and it isn’t because the imbeciles that get their news from Breitbart stopped reading those papers, because they never did.

    Hot! Thumb up 6

  5. Seattle Outcast

    You must be a blast at dinner parties

    Like you wouldn’t fucking believe – and you should try my prime rib.

    Also, don’t mix my shit in with someone else’s – topic focus is important, and you’re combining them.

    And saying that the WSJ isn’t successful due to it’s editorial slant is doing the WSJ a great disservice. Sure, it’s focus is money, but their coverage of events is decidedly at odds with the vast majority of other newspapers. So much so that you’d frequently think the events they cover are totally different ones. I liken it to comparing the old Soviet broadcasts with the BBC: they never matched up except for a very few details.

    Thumb up 6

  6. AlexInCT *

    Oh bullshit. You’re not going to convince me that liberals don’t read.

    Sure they read. They read People’s magazine, newsweek, and other such drivel. People’s magazine is thriving because they love hearing about the Kardasians. How’s newsweek doing these days?

    Seriously?! That’s the main reason? It has nothing to do with the fact that most people can get most of the days breaking news online for free on their Yahoo homepage?

    I don’t do Yahoo. If I wanted that slanted shit I would be reading the NYT in the first place.

    It’s solely or mainly political?

    For people less fascinated with pop culture and real news I guarantee you it is.

    Not exactly a fair comparison. The WSJ’s template is not successful because of it’s editorial slant. It’s a money mag, and is a relevant purchase for people across the country and even out of country.

    WSJ sells better because they do better at reporting facts not tainted by progressive ideology. It’s not just because they write about money. I certainly don’t worry with the WSJ for the financial stuff primarily.

    Yes Ed, technology has caused the printed media pain. The internet has seriously killed them. But the internet became successful because as a medium it allowed other outlets than the mass controlled drivel that the liberal press pretended was news to be made available to those that saw how terrible the printed press was at reporting instead of editorializing for the left. If you do not see that, you are the one being ignorant.

    Thumb up 9

  7. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  8. Iconoclast

    …people can make up any old shit to suit their political ideology and others will claim it as FACT and as ‘news’.

    Like Dan Rather’s infamous memos that turned out to be forgeries? Or the “fact” that George Zimmerman is a “white” Hispanic? Or that the Zimmerman verdict means it’s “open season on black people”? Yeah, the Left never “make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”, do they?

    Thumb up 13

  9. AlexInCT *

    Right, now that nobody has to even pretend that any standards apply people can make up any old shit to suit their political ideology and others will claim it as FACT and as ‘news’.

    That’s been the SOP in the left leaning media for over a decade. Remember all the fake stories about the evil Boosh administration? Now we have a real fucking bunch of criminals pissing all over the constitution and violating our rights left and right. And cynically, they are doing it in a way that one could find humorous if it wasn’t as scary as it is. That’s because they are really doing the nasty shit they accused the previous administration of doing, practically always falsely. And the LSM sits on the stories of abuse of power, propagandizes and makes excuses for them violating our rights, tries to give them a pass by pretending the culprit is the previous administration, or worse, resorts to the ludicrous argument, often based on absolute lies, that this is OK because others did it too.

    The left’s only standard has been to win at all costs. They will lie, cheat, steal, bully, and burn anyone in their way. For proof just take a look at AGW coverage.

    Thumb up 6

  10. Ed Kline

    Also, don’t mix my shit in with someone else’s – topic focus is important, and you’re combining them.

    Damnit you’re right. Sorry about that. I was scrolling up and down while I was replying, and , well, you get it.

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    Like Dan Rather’s infamous memos that turned out to be forgeries? Or the “fact” that George Zimmerman is a “white” Hispanic? Or that the Zimmerman verdict means it’s “open season on black people”? Yeah, the Left never “make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”, do they?

    Wow, more misleading nonsense. What a surprise. Not.

    I never claimed that the established media were perfect. I never would claim any such thing. And I certainly wasn’t talking about an entire political ideology.

    As I said, but you ignored because it didn’t fit your lecture:

    What you do on this blog keeps showing me of the importance of checking numerous sources and placing more credibility on reputable and experienced news organisations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts).

    You’re getting as bad Alex lately.

    Remember all the fake stories about the evil Boosh administration?

    Says the guy who blames every single little thing he doesn’t like on Obama, always treating it as FACT irrespective of where the story comes from. The students not getting into Obama’s speech being a recent example.

    For proof just take a look at AGW coverage.

    Still waiting for you to follow up on ANY of your accusations, allegations and insinuations you’ve made in the last few years. You’re batting about zero from eighty.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Iconoclast

    Wow, more misleading nonsense. What a surprise. Not.

    Wow, more pointless, indignant whining. What a surprise. Not.

    What, exactly, is so “misleading” about pointing out the fact that so-called “reputable and experienced news organisations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts)” are indeed guilty of “mak[ing] up any old shit to suit their political ideology”??

    It was the New York Times that used the phrase “White Hispanic”.

    It was NBC News that doctored the Zimmerman audio.

    It was Dan Rather who relied on forged documents to attack Bush.

    That you would attempt to dismiss this as “misleading nonsense” is utter nonsense in its own right.

    I never claimed that the established media were perfect. I never would claim any such thing

    Well good for you, CM. As thoroughly irrelevant as one can hope for, but good for you.

    As I said, but you ignored because it didn’t fit your lecture:

    Your premise is utterly bogus, given my explanation above, wherein I quoted part of what you claimed I ignored.

    Thumb up 12

  13. CM

    What, exactly, is so “misleading” about pointing out the fact that so-called “reputable and experienced news organisations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts)” are indeed guilty of “mak[ing] up any old shit to suit their political ideology”??

    The misleading aspect was cherry-picking something I wrote and responding to it in a way which suggests I said something quite different. Which means I have to call you on it, which leads to this pointless nonsense yet again.

    That you would attempt to dismiss this as “misleading nonsense” is utter nonsense in its own right.

    You’ve misunderstood what I was saying.

    Well good for you, CM. As thoroughly irrelevant as one can hope for, but good for you.

    Except it was relevant, you just misunderstood what I was talking about.

    Thumb up 1

  14. CM

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/07/online_news_hasn_t_killed_newspapers.html

    Hearing some coverage of the Washington Post’s sale on radio and television over the past couple of days, I heard a lot of clichés about newspaper struggling to adapt as readers moved online or newspapers losing audience to the Web. Obviously there is some of this going on. But it’s pretty badly overstated. The really good American newspapers tend to have more readers than ever before, because the Internet turns out to be a really great way to distribute newspaper articles globally at low cost.

    The problem isn’t that the Web has disrupted the news business, it’s that it’s disrupted the advertising business.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Iconoclast

    The misleading aspect was cherry-picking something I wrote and responding to it in a way which suggests I said something quite different.

    Nonsense, given that my explanation takes into account that which you erroneously claimed I ignored. Taken as a whole, your post appeared to be impugning the Internet, given that it was the Internet that was the subject of the posting to which you responded. My response, in turn, was to impugn in a similar fashion those “reputable and experienced news organizations (ones who don’t “print” stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts”, the ones you think we should “place more credibility on”.

    I’m not surprised that you would consider that “misleading”, but it does speak volumes that you do.

    Thumb up 8

  16. CM

    Nonsense, given that my explanation takes into account that which you erroneously claimed I ignored.

    Nonsense.
    “Checking numerous sources” would have likely picked up on:

    Like Dan Rather’s infamous memos that turned out to be forgeries? Or the “fact” that George Zimmerman is a “white” Hispanic? Or that the Zimmerman verdict means it’s “open season on black people”?

    There is also a difference between reading about these and putting 100% faith in them.
    And by the way ‘Numerous sources’ doesn’t include the same source just on different websites. I also didn’t limit the ‘sources’ to mainstream media (or “reputable and experienced news organisations” as I called them for want of a better description, perhaps “old media” might be another appropriate term). Alex appears to decide ‘credibility’ based on how consistent it is with his ideology, as opposed to the quality of the source.

    I said:

    Right, now that nobody has to even pretend that any standards apply people can make up any old shit to suit their political ideology and others will claim it as FACT and as ‘news’.

    Where did I say this applies only to the right? It certainly applies to how Alex operates, but on left wing blogs I’m sure there are people who do exactly the same thing.

    You said:

    It was the New York Times that used the phrase “White Hispanic”.

    It was NBC News that doctored the Zimmerman audio.

    It was Dan Rather who relied on forged documents to attack Bush.

    That you would attempt to dismiss this as “misleading nonsense” is utter nonsense in its own right.

    I dismissed NONE of those things. As usual, you’re reading things into what I posted that aren’t there.

    Taken as a whole, your post appeared to be impugning the Internet, given that it was the Internet that was the subject of the posting to which you responded.

    My problem with ‘news’ on the internet is that anyone can say anything and claim it’s news, and certain people will believe it because it suits them. Alex does it all the time. The only response he ever has when called on it is some variation of “you’ll see”. If we don’t in fact “see” he never mentions it again.

    Thumb up 2

  17. Iconoclast

    “Checking numerous sources” would have likely picked up on:

    Maybe. I wouldn’t necessarily say “likely”. When I Googled “open season on black people”, I got 127 million hits, and the first page, at least, seemed to list sources that agreed with the sentiment.

    Besides, the point, again, is that those “reputable and experienced news organizations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts”, the ones you think we should “place more credibility on”, are guilty of pushing agendas at the cost of truth in reporting. Maybe specifics could be neutralized, but the overall agenda is advanced all the same, whether it’s the “whitey can kill black children with impunity” or “George Bush is an absolutely worthless person” narrative, to paraphrase a couple.

    I dismissed NONE of those things.

    Iconoclast:

    Like Dan Rather’s infamous memos that turned out to be forgeries? Or the “fact” that George Zimmerman is a “white” Hispanic? Or that the Zimmerman verdict means it’s “open season on black people”? Yeah, the Left never “make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”, do they?

    CM:

    Wow, more misleading nonsense. What a surprise. Not.

    Certainly looks like dismissal to me, or at least an attempt to do so.

    Thumb up 7

  18. CM

    Your response to what I said was nonsense, for the reasons I’ve outlined. You read a lot more into it and responded based on that.
    BTW, for the avoidance of doubt I include ‘variety’ when I say check numerous sources. People on the right shouldn’t rely solely on right-leaning sources, and the same equivalent applies to people on the left. I’m sure you’ll manage to find a problem with that though, I’ll just need to wait and see what it is.

    Thumb up 1

  19. CM

    Besides, the point, again, is that those “reputable and experienced news organizations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts”, the ones you think we should “place more credibility on”, are guilty of pushing agendas at the cost of truth in reporting. Maybe specifics could be neutralized, but the overall agenda is advanced all the same,….

    Arguable. They delivered Bush his war in Iraq by avoiding any serious and obvious questioning all the way through. They just all waved a flag instead. That didn’t advance the agenda of the left, that is for sure.
    Anyway, I’ll generally continue to give greater credibility to an international media organisation than to, say, an online heavily slanted political blog. That doesn’t mean I won’t read both though, or immediatey dismiss either.

    Thumb up 1

  20. Iconoclast

    Your response to what I said was nonsense, for the reasons I’ve outlined. You read a lot more into it and responded based on that.

    You claimed that we should “place more credibility on” those “reputable and experienced news organizations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts”, whether you care to acknowledge that or not. I was simply challenging that claim. Those “reputable and experienced news organizations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts” do indeed push a liberal agenda, whether you care to acknowledge that or not. That they allegedly didn’t do so on the Iraq war is irrelevant, given that the one example doesn’t disprove the general rule. And even at that, the MSM did indeed advance an agenda on that war, namely, that it was an unwinnable quagmire, another Vietnam. We were told that the Surge wasn’t working, wouldn’t work, couldn’t work, and we were constantly bombarded with death tolls and reports of violence, all of which ended immediately upon Obama’s coronation. Violence has increased there, now that Obana has withdrawn the troops, but we don’t hear about that on the MSM. All is now quiet on the Iraqi front, now that Obama is in charge.

    Bottom line: I didn’t do anything that was “misleading”, your objections and complaints notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 6

  21. CM

    I was simply challenging that claim.

    Right by distorting what I said. Which is what I objected to.

    Yeah, the Left never “make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”, do they?

    Some totally do. No question. I’ve never claimed anything to the contrary.

    Thumb up 1

  22. Iconoclast

    Right by distorting what I said.

    You tend to criticize right-wing sources, which is fine. You also claimed that we should “give more credibility” to “established” sources, which generally means the MSM, which generally means left-leaning sources. That is the reality. Therefore, claims of “distortion” on my part ring hollow.

    I’ve never claimed anything to the contrary.

    Maybe not explicitly, but then you generally don’t explicitly claim what I was pointing out, either. At least not until called on it, which is essentially what I did.

    Thumb up 6

  23. CM

    You tend to criticize right-wing sources, which is fine.

    No, I tend to criticise a reliance on very biased right-wing sources. Rather than criticise a source, I’m much more liable to search out claims and details within the piece. There are others here (Seattle Outcast and Alex for example) who simply criticise the source (and won’t bother even looking at the contents) – these people are generally the same ones that use their own biased-sources without blinking.

    You also claimed that we should “give more credibility” to “established” sources, which generally means the MSM, which generally means left-leaning sources.

    Your multiple qualifiers indicate how far you’re having to stretch here to try and make me seem unreasonable. I’m talking about news from places which at least attempt to adhere to some sort of journalistic standard.

    Maybe not explicitly,

    More than maybe. Just ‘not’.

    but then you generally don’t explicitly claim what I was pointing out, either. At least not until called on it, which is essentially what I did.

    Called on it? Yeah well I certainly don’t agree that you’ve ‘called’ me on anything here (‘essentially’ or otherwise). You misinterpreted what I meant (yet again in a way that makes me look unreasonable).
    On the actual main points we seem to agree.

    I’ve read enough stories in the mainstream press (here in NZ) that I know aren’t entirely accurate because I’ve been involved in the subject matter. So I’m aware of how stories are often framed and skewed to suit the ‘angle’ that the journalist is seeking.

    Thumb up 1

  24. Iconoclast

    Your multiple qualifiers indicate…

    …that I am speaking in generalities, nothing more. If you want to claim that your response wasn’t a generality, that it was some kind of outlier, then you simply need to be more explicit in indicating such. By trying to simply dismiss my point — that “established” sources can be just as guilty and unreliable as those “very biased right-wing sources” — as “misleading nonsense”, you are coming across as unreasonable, no help from me needed.

    In addition, you seemed to be saying that we should rely more on biased left-wing sources, which was another facet of my point.

    But yes, I get your overall point, that we shouldn’t rely on any one source, regardless of whether it’s an established news source or a blog. It’s just an unfortunate circumstance that this wasn’t explicitly stated at the outset. And, after having just now re-read your initial response, I can still see it as having a left-leaning bias overall, for the reasons I have already stated.

    …placing more credibility on reputable and experienced news organisations (ones who don’t ‘print’ stories until they’re sure enough that they’ve got the necessary facts).

    Your point was built on this premise, and a weak or invalid premise simply weakens or invalidates the overall point or argument.

    Thumb up 6

  25. CM

    …that I am speaking in generalities, nothing more.

    That’s awesome how you’re allowed to claim ‘nothing more’ but everything I say you get to fillet with a knife in order to find wider meaning. How very convenient for you.

    By trying to simply dismiss my point — that “established” sources can be just as guilty and unreliable as those “very biased right-wing sources” — as “misleading nonsense”, you are coming across as unreasonable, no help from me needed.

    Where did I dismiss that? Of course it’s possible for them to be just as guilty and unreliable, you’d only need a single example to reach that threshold. That’s the whole point of going to a variety of sources.
    You still don’t seem to understand why I said “misleading nonsense”.

    In addition, you seemed to be saying that we should rely more on biased left-wing sources, which was another facet of my point.

    I would place more credibility on something I saw or read in the established media than I did on a seriously biased political blog, that’s for sure. If you want to dismiss the established media as unreliably left-wing, you are free to do so.

    It’s just an unfortunate circumstance that this wasn’t explicitly stated at the outset.

    Based on my experience I doubt it’s actually possible for me to explicitly state anything to your satisfaction.

    Your point was built on this premise, and a weak or invalid premise simply weakens or invalidates the overall point or argument.

    See above. I’m confident that anything I post can be construed as weak and invalid as far as you’re concerned. The benefit of the doubt on that disappeared a while ago.

    Thumb up 1

  26. Iconoclast

    That’s awesome how you’re allowed to claim ‘nothing more’ but everything I say you get to fillet with a knife in order to find wider meaning. How very convenient for you.

    Almost as convenient as how you’re allowed to accuse me of “reaching real hard” when all I’m doing is speaking in generalities, and showing how what you said fits the general case.

    Where did I dismiss that?

    Wow, more misleading nonsense. What a surprise. Not.

    CM, August 5, 2013 5:35 PM

    You still don’t seem to understand why I said “misleading nonsense”.

    And you still don’t seem to understand why it’s neither one.

    I’m confident that anything I post can be construed as weak and invalid as far as you’re concerned.

    If that were true, then it stands to reason that I would respond accordingly to everything you post. Which I obviously don’t do.

    Right, now that nobody has to even pretend that any standards apply people can make up any old shit to suit their political ideology and others will claim it as FACT and as ‘news’.

    What you do on this blog keeps showing me of the importance of checking numerous sources and not relying on one, single, obviously biased source.

    If that were your original posting, then I would obviously have had nothing to object to, but you went on to insinuate that we should rely more on sources that have a liberal bias, because they’re so honest about what they report.

    Thumb up 5

  27. CM

    Almost as convenient as how you’re allowed to accuse me of “reaching real hard” when all I’m doing is speaking in generalities, and showing how what you said fits the general case.

    Ah right yes, this is nothing to do with me, you’re only talking about the left in general again. Sure.

    And you still don’t seem to understand why it’s neither one.

    Suggesting that I claimed that the left never make up any old shit to suit their politicial ideology, and providing examples, was misleading nonsense. Knee-jerk deny it, or alternatively pretend I was referring to something else, until the cows come home if you like.

    If that were true, then it stands to reason that I would respond accordingly to everything you post. Which I obviously don’t do.

    No I’m sure you often construe what I post as weak and invalid but can’t be bothered posting anything. There are only so many hours in the day and I’m sure, like me, you have much better and more productive things to do.

    If that were your original posting, then I would obviously have had nothing to object to, but you went on to insinuate that we should rely more on sources that have a liberal bias, because they’re so honest about what they report.

    There are many established and reputable news organisations that even reasonable people on the right would say don’t have a liberal bias. How did you put it – ‘I am speaking in generalities, nothing more’.

    At least with a structured and established news organisation there are editors and processes to go through, and usually an overall required journalistic standard that might stop the worst nonsense from filtering through. As far as I can tell most of these online blogs purporting to be sources of ‘news’, which are often held up by some to be somehow superior in terms of accuracy, appear to have zero standards and zero processes to weed out the nonsense. Most of them don’t even seem to even try to be objective.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Iconoclast

    Ah right yes, this is nothing to do with me, you’re only talking about the left in general again. Sure.

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? I was discussing what you said in general.

    Suggesting that I claimed that the left never make up any old shit to suit their politicial ideology, and providing examples, was misleading nonsense.

    On the contrary, insinuating that the left never make up any old shit to suit their political ideology, which you did, like it or lump it, is itself misleading. I would never suggest that you outright claimed such, but the insinuation was there, whether you like it or not.

    Thumb up 4

  29. Iconoclast

    No I’m sure you often construe what I post as weak and invalid but can’t be bothered posting anything.

    And I’m sure you’re sure, reality be damned…

    …you interpret everything [your opponent] says through your little ideological lens, and conclude the most negative thing possible, often to fit some existing predetermined mindset…

    CM, August 6, 2013 11:29 PM — “This is nothing new people…”

    What’s hilarious is that you appear to be doing this to me based on what I don’t say. Talk about a no-win situation, even my silence damns me as far as you’re concerned…

    Thumb up 3

  30. CM

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? I was discussing what you said in general.

    Nonsense. You said:

    ….all I’m doing is speaking in generalities, and showing how what you said fits the general case.

    THE general case. But what I said specifically.

    On the contrary, insinuating that the left never make up any old shit to suit their political ideology, which you did, like it or lump it, is itself misleading. I would never suggest that you outright claimed such, but the insinuation was there, whether you like it or not.

    My point was that continually relying on ideological political blogs for your news keeps reminding me not to. You then made it clear with your sarcasm that you believed I was actually saying that “the Left never make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”.
    If you believe I was insinuating what you sarcastically asked me, that’s your problem. It’s not a problem with what I actually said though. What I said was entirely reasonable (amid a sea of constant unreasonable ideological nonsense being emitted from the person I was talking about, which really makes your response and ongoing silliness even more ridiculous).

    The same can be said about the MSM.

    Well I’d personally still put most of the ‘MSM’ higher up the credibility scale than a website created specifically to promote a certain ideogical political view, and which only publishes something if it conforms to that view, and which never (or seldomly) provides any balance whatsoever in a particular piece. Yes, I know that you could find examples of that in the ‘MSM’, but I’m talking about when investigating a particular example. And even then, as I say, I’m talking about assessing credibility here, not making a determination about whether you 100% believe a story because it’s from a source that you rate as credible. What I said incorporates and acknowledges that no source can be trusted 100%. So what I said doesn’t make sense as you have taken it.

    And I’m sure you’re sure, reality be damned…

    That’s the distinct impression you leave by what you respond to and how you respond. As I say, you seem to have a great ability to take things in a way they weren’t intended, and it’s always assuming the worst. But maybe once I’ll see you provide the benefit of the doubt. I won’t hold my breath though.

    What’s hilarious is that you appear to be doing this to me based on what I don’t say. Talk about a no-win situation, even my silence damns me as far as you’re concerned…

    Your initial knee-jerk sarcastic response to my post damned you. Since then you’ve been trying to explain it away, and revealing again that you didn’t understand what I was referring to.
    It was misleading nonsense to claim that I was suggesting/insinuating (so obviously as to deserve sarcasm) that “the Left never make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Iconoclast

    THE general case. But what I said specifically.

    Wow, talk about being tedious, and reaching so very hard…

    You are the one who claimed:

    Ah right yes, this is nothing to do with me, you’re only talking about the left in general again. Sure.

    I was setting the record straight, in that I was talking about what you said. So it had something to do with you, and I never claimed to be talking about the left in general. You are the one who claimed that my repeated use of “which generally means” was “multiple qualifiers” indicating ” how far [I’m} having to stretch here to try and make [you] seem unreasonable.” You’re just being paranoid. I wasn’t “trying to make you look unreasonable” at all — you do a bang up job of that yourself, without any help from me.

    “In general” means “in general”, and “which generally means” means “which generally means”. Has nothing to do with “reaching”, and everything to do with the general case. That you are having such agonizing trouble with this speaks volumes about how obtuse you can be.

    You then made it clear with your sarcasm that you believed I was actually saying that “the Left never make up any old shit to suit their political ideology”.

    What you wrote did indeed imply as much, regardless of what point you were actually making, that’s my point, no matter how “misleading” you pretend it to be.

    So what I said doesn’t make sense as you have taken it.

    After adding all of your multiple qualifiers, I guess not.

    Your initial knee-jerk sarcastic response to my post damned you.

    Well, hell, I can argue that any interaction with you damns me. What of it? The main point is that with you, I am damned if I respond but, and more importantly, I am damned even if I don’t respond.

    Thumb up 5