|
God, if only they’d let Black be the Media Czar for the whole country, then he’d fix all those ugly problems of free speech and opposing views and such. He’s a legend in his own mind. |
| |
Written By:
JorgXMcKie
URL:
http://
|
And your point is?
The MSM don’t give Atrios a platform. If they did, you could say he is a hypocrite. Atrios hates the MSM, and he especially hates the fact that they get used by the very people who have contempt for them. What he is really saying, of course, is that the media gives a platform to its right wing critics, i.e., those who claim that there is a liberal bias in the media.
If you really wanted to make a point, you would point out that the Bernie Goldbergs and Ann Coulters of the world, those who make money criticizing the MSM, are more than happy to appear on the MSM and hawk their books. That would be a good point. But, of course, making that point wouldn’t allow you to rip on Atrios, whom you seem to have some kind of weird obssession with, much like McQ’s obsession with Cindy Sheehan.
And where is your authority for the notion that Media Matters expects to be taken seriously by the MSM? After all, would you expect to be respected by someone who you criticized on a daily basis? I wouldn’t. In fact, I don’t think Media Matters gives a rats a** about what the MSM think of them. Can you really see them sitting around and thinking "Gosh, I hope Bill O’Reilly respects my work" or "What if John Gibson’s expectations aren’t met"? I can’t.
You’re reaching.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
OT
mkultra:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3948 |
| |
Written By:
Anonymous
URL:
http://
|
OT
mkultra:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3948 Just read the post by Jon where he takes issue with my characterization of his post.
I was gone for the weekend. Went to SF. Sat three rows up in section 332 during the Giants/Rockies game. Nosebleed seats. But I saw Bonds hit number 715. A beautiful sunny day at the park. Gorgeous views of the Bay. Massive home run, too.
I suppose I could address Jon’s comments seriattim. Since they were made many days ago, I would imgagine few would care, however. The gist of them seem to be that I did not address his main point. No, I didn’t. I merely took issue with one of the premises of his argument.
Of course, the typical response from the contributors to this blog when a reader takes issues with the premise of an argument, rather than the argument itself, is that the critic is not addressing the point of the argument.
To which the only logical response is: You are correct. Duh.
That is not to imply, logically, that the critic "misses the point." Rather, the critcism is directed at the premise. If your argument is that Jesus was a great guy, I would agree. If the premise for the argument is that Jesus was a great guy because he was a good writer, I would disagree. Why? Becausse Jeses never wrote a thing, as far as we know.
I guess Jon doesn’t get that.
Jon’s other criticisms, briefly, was that I misled the readers when I called Mayor Bloomberg a Republican. Yes, I misled you dear reader when I called Michael Bllomberg a Republican. No, I am not making this up. And you heard it here. If you call Michael Bloomberg a Republican, you are being misleading.
Wow. I guess if I had called Ronald Reagan a Republican I would have misled you too. After all, he wasn’t always a Republican.
Oh - and not that it matters - if you call Bloomberg a Republican, you are a "fool or a liar," at least according to Jon.
Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
"much like McQ’s obsession with Cindy Sheehan."
Yes, it is so tiresome reading McQ’s constant complaining about her. His unnatural preoccupation with and unceasing comments about her causes me to wonder about his state of mind.
." Can you really see them sitting around and thinking "Gosh, I hope Bill O’Reilly respects my work" or "What if John Gibson’s expectations aren’t met"? I can’t."
So now Fox is MSM? I was under the impression that Fox was some extremist tool of right-wing republithugs.
"I would imgagine few would care, however"
Bingo.
|
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
The MSM don’t give Atrios a platform. No? Seems to me they’re not entirely unfamiliar with him. In any event...What he is really saying, of course, is that the media gives a platform to its right wing critics, i.e., those who claim that there is a liberal bias in the media. ...he works for a left wing critic organization, i.e., which claims there is conservative bias in the media. And yes...And where is your authority for the notion that Media Matters expects to be taken seriously by the MSM? They have a special contact for the press. They issue press releases. They "[work] daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits" about their work. Presumably, they expect the people they notify to take them seriously. But if you’d like to argue that Media Matters doesn’t think the media should take their criticism seriously, go for it!
|
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
The gist of them seem to be that I did not address his main point. No, that wasn’t really the gist at all. The gist was that you completely misunderstood the point of the post. There’s a difference. Since I’m a helpful fellow, I’ll demonstrate.
Suppose I said that "a white hawk swooped down from the sky and killed a rabbit". If you responded by arguing that the hawk was not white, but was instead a sort of off-white or gray color, then you would be kinda missing the point, but still making a logically legitimate point. If, however, you responded by arguing that "a rabbit could not kill a hawk", then you would have completely misunderstood the point. There is, again, a difference.Jon’s other criticisms, briefly, was that I misled the readers when I called Mayor Bloomberg a Republican. I noted that Bloomberg "was a lifelong Democrat, who only ran as a Republican because the field was thinner", so it’s somewhat difficult to portray his problem policies as a specifically Republican problem. You know full well that he’s a republican of convenience, not of ideology.
In any event, the accusations you’d made were addressed in much more detail. You are as single-mindedly partisan as anybody on the Right. You’d have much more credibility if you didn’t write things like "Jon, ever the closeted rightwing partisan" in response to a post in which I criticized the Right. Or that I "cannot help but imply that the GOP stood by while MF passed", which is, simply, a lie. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
McQ’s obsession with Cindy Sheehan. Obsession? Good grief, I haven’t mentioned her in months. You’d think someone obsessed with another would mention that person more often than that.
You know, like MK’s obsession with me. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
It’s the McQ Code - you’ve got ’Cindy Sheehan’ in there somewhere, if one combines the letters from various words in the right sequence.
It’s so insidious you don’t even realize it!Obsession? Good grief, I haven’t mentioned her in months. You’d think someone obsessed with another would mention that person more often than that. Like your last post - course I had to use the ’ss’ from obsession to emulate the C sound from Cindy, but it’s in there, I’m tellin ya, even if I have to invent more sound-alikes to make it show up! |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
