Maybe one of them should consider just putting me on the payroll?
From Salon:
Let’s call them all lunatics: Fearful “balanced” “journalists” let wingnuts run wild
The Freedom Caucus has co-conspirator: A compliant media that prints what it's told, no matter how wrong or insaneHonestly, I do not understand what the holdup is (h/t Alert Reader "il" for the tip).
SATURDAY, OCT 24, 2015 08:30 AM CDT
10 comments:
To be fair, Drifty, Paul Rosenberg has been arguing this point for years.
No ding against Mr. Rosenberg, but if this is a skill set for which there is a market...
There is! Just use a spell checker and the job is yours!
They'll never hire you, DG. You would be a constant reminder of the years and years of pitiful failure on their part.
Maybe if your target audience included more filthy-rich white guys...
-Doug in Oakland
Before you get too excited about this, let me tell you what I have observed the last several Presidential electoral cycles: Around a year or 14 months before the election, a bunch of mainstream press outlets publish stories that seem to verge on actually telling the truth about what is going on. They know that everyone except people who follow politics closely (who already know the truth) will have long forgotten about these stories by the general election, and are just providing themselves an opportunity to say, "why look what we said last year," if they are called on the fact that their behavior in the months before the election is grossly slanted toward the Republicans.
Remember, no matter how cynical you are, it isn't enough.
I love DGriftglas but there are others who have ben making this arguments at least as DG. DG's value added is his incredibly insightful and entertaining writing style.
But one other site who I recommend--though I don't always agree with him and he's often too tough on Rachael Maddow-- is The Daily Howler. They've been at this game since the 90s!
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com
Slightly OT - Chuck Todd referred to Jeb Bush's outburst as a "moment of unusual honesty". I wonder what Chuckles would have said about a similar outburst by a Democratic candidate? Hmmm. Bueller? Anyone?
Also said Hilary's donors more confident because of debate prep. Not one word about Benghazi hearings. Curious as to what he will say on MTP.
God I hate these people.
MTP Update - Chuckles said Hilary was good in hearings but not great. She won politically but not substantively (yes, he's respectfully treating hearings as substantive because, well, new talking point at NBC is "without Benghazi hearings we never would have known about emails". Indeed, he even mentioned that while Hilary was testifying hearings about emails (dramatic squirrel) were being conducted. So while her optics are good she's still liar. He also asked Elijah Cummings why Democrats on the committee seemed to be protecting Hilary.Then,a panel discussion supposedly devoted to the Democratic race quickly devolved into a plug for Mitt Romney.
Ufotofu9—Yeah, but no one does it like Drift. Don't take this tireless site for granted.
Post a Comment