Even if they don't retract this I'm sure they're now going to think twice before writing a negative report on Romney. Sad thing is they won't be called out on this.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The Washington Post’s top editors just wrapped up a meeting with Romney officials to discuss the campaign’s request for a retraction of the paper’s story on Bain Capital’s outsourcing.
“We are very confident in our reporting,” Washington Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti told TPM after the meeting, adding that appointments with people concerned about coverage are common.
The Washington Post’s top editors just wrapped up a meeting with Romney officials to discuss the campaign’s request for a retraction of the paper’s story on Bain Capital’s outsourcing.
“We are very confident in our reporting,” Washington Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti told TPM after the meeting, adding that appointments with people concerned about coverage are common.
I wonder what the point of this meeting was.
"our polling has gone down since that paper and thats not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah"
The Washington Post’s top editors just wrapped up a meeting with Romney officials to discuss the campaign’s request for a retraction of the paper’s story on Bain Capital’s outsourcing.
“We are very confident in our reporting,” Washington Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti told TPM after the meeting, adding that appointments with people concerned about coverage are common.
I wonder what the point of this meeting was.
How many people are able to brag that they offered Mitt Romney an irish coffee?
Every writer I've worked with, every writer I've spoken to, every journalism student I've known have all basically agreed that plagiarism is worse than outright making shit up and adequate grounds to have your entire career destroyed.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If you're making shit up at least you're engaging your brain. Being a thief is just being a lazy little shit and the fact that Fareed "Everyone's Favorite Psuedo Intellectual" Zakaria got caught doing it is completely unsurprising and the fact that he still has a job proves that CNN is the beached whale of news.
It'd be better for everyone if they'd just stick the dynamite down the blowhole and clear the shore already.
I missing the part where they're forced. The editor seems to want them to stop because he wants the organization to look classier than, well, let's say us.
Zakaria has been a tool for pretty much ever. The fact that he's also a thief doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Really the only thing he's said...recently....that wasn't pants-on-head obvious and actual grounded in reality was his analysis of playing the blame game of Russia on Syria.
Of course, he also claimed that the same Russian leadership has "literally" absolutely no interests but "raping and pillaging the country". In a time period where Russian wages have actually risen by a factor of 7 to 8 (when adjusted for the hyperinflation of the 1990s), and fought its first successful war since America was in Vietnam.
So yeah, not grounded in reality sometimes. The stuff he made up? Not so great either.
If you're making shit up at least you're engaging your brain. Being a thief is just being a lazy little shit and the fact that Fareed "Everyone's Favorite Psuedo Intellectual" Zakaria got caught doing it is completely unsurprising and the fact that he still has a job proves that CNN is the beached whale of news.
It'd be better for everyone if they'd just stick the dynamite down the blowhole and clear the shore already.
I'd bet even money that the real story isn't that Zararia plagiarized anything, but that his entire column is actually researched and ghost written by his assistants, who themselves are merely regurgitating quickly researched material they slapped together on deadline. One of the recurring themes to a lot of these plagiarism scandals at the higher levels is that really successful "journalists" and "historians" are basically middle managers who edit and shape copy written by their assistants.
She's saying that if you think someone is correct, it's ok to think they should just shut the fuck up?
Or is she saying that because she is correct, but she disagrees with the facts, that they should lose their right to free speech?
Or is it that it's better to have a bad opinion, but on the correct narrative than it is to represent..I-I-I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FLUX?
Mah brain, it hurtz.
She's saying they violate the holy church of journalistic objectivity. In that worldview, it's not important to be accurate, honest or even fair. You must instead strive for balance.
She's saying that if you think someone is correct, it's ok to think they should just shut the fuck up?
Or is she saying that because she is correct, but she disagrees with the facts, that they should lose their right to free speech?
Or is it that it's better to have a bad opinion, but on the correct narrative than it is to represent..I-I-I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FLUX?
Mah brain, it hurtz.
She's saying they violate the holy church of journalistic objectivity. In that worldview, it's not important to be accurate, honest or even fair. You must instead strive for balance.
Not all things should be balanced. Should voter ID be argued for both sides? Should we see the benefits of racism? Do they advocate on the side of a convicted child killer, because they ran an earlier article damning him?
How do you (gonna Godwin here) fair and balance the Nazi's? Did Hitler have some fair and valid points? Should they point out the highlights of the aftermath of Timothy McVeigh and Osama?
Some things are not balanced, they are bullshit. And you can put bread on it and call it a sandwich in the name of fairness, but it still tastes like shit.
Edit: sorry it this came off as an attack in you. It's not. I just don't think that advocating lies as a form of balance, just because there are two political parties. Lies are lies, no matter who says them or how many times.
Mild Confusion on
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I have to say, though, it takes some serious conviction to say, "You know, even though the fact I agree with you personally just makes you this harder, I don't think you have a right to say that."
I mean, unless that person was advocating violence on someone you hate or some situation. Usually the sanctimony inherent in our species takes over in a situation where you actually don't have the right to say something because of the rule of law or other censorship.
How do you (gonna Godwin here) fair and balance the Nazi's? Did Hitler have some fair and valid points? Should they point out the highlights of the aftermath of Timothy McVeigh and Osama?
If you placed the modern American media into Germany circa-1932, they'd be all about trying to balance the sins of the Nazis with the those of the Christian Democrats. The way the media practice objectivity these days is already a form of protective crouch - trying as hard as possible not to offend powerful sources and an aging conservative readership. In the face of an actual fascist movement, they'd probably just start printing press releases from both parties.
Hell, my local paper just announced that it would no longer endorse candidates for office. I have no doubt that this came from a desire not to piss off the remaining few readers by taking an actual stand on an issue.
NPR's Morning Edition coverage of the GOP convention followed a specific format. Dividing a 9-10 minute spot into three equal blocks, they did:
1) Coverage of the speech highlights, using no more than a few seconds of speech.
2) Coverage of Obama campaign stops at college campuses.
3) Wrap up referencing the keynote speech, sometimes with criticism from the reporter.
Got my first taste of their coverage of the DNC this morning. It followed this convention:
1) Nine minute block including extended playback of speeches by various speakers and glowing commentary regarding their skill and effectiveness.
2) Teaser of who's speaking this evening
3) Transition jingle and segue into story about football
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Ahh yes, I remember this one. It did break the structure while holding to pattern of the reporter staying negative throughout.
Yes, coverage of compulsive liars tends to be negative.
Only if they're Republicans.
Then I'm sure you can show me a democratic compulsive liar receiving positive treatment, then.
He'll be nominating Obama at the convention this evening, and will receive copious amounts of positive treatment.
I think you missed something. Let me help with a little bolding. At this point, you're whining that the media uses a different tone when talking about Osama bin Laden and Ryan Gosling.
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Ahh yes, I remember this one. It did break the structure while holding to pattern of the reporter staying negative throughout.
Yes, coverage of compulsive liars tends to be negative.
Only if they're Republicans.
Then I'm sure you can show me a democratic compulsive liar receiving positive treatment, then.
He'll be nominating Obama at the convention this evening, and will receive copious amounts of positive treatment.
I think you missed something. Let me help with a little bolding. At this point, you're whining that the media uses a different tone when talking about Osama bin Laden and Ryan Gosling.
Hey, I guess I'll give you points for that. Clinton isn't compulsive about his frequent and voluminous lying, he's entirely calculated and intentional. You win this round!
Stephanie Meyer, watch out! We have a new contender for single dumbest sentence in the history of the English language. From the New York Times:
You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
Ahh yes, I remember this one. It did break the structure while holding to pattern of the reporter staying negative throughout.
Yes, coverage of compulsive liars tends to be negative.
Only if they're Republicans.
Then I'm sure you can show me a democratic compulsive liar receiving positive treatment, then.
He'll be nominating Obama at the convention this evening, and will receive copious amounts of positive treatment.
I think you missed something. Let me help with a little bolding. At this point, you're whining that the media uses a different tone when talking about Osama bin Laden and Ryan Gosling.
Hey, I guess I'll give you points for that. Clinton isn't compulsive about his frequent and voluminous lying, he's entirely calculated and intentional. You win this round!
Okay, let's see you back your bullshit up. When has Clinton been lying? Remember, saying things you wish weren't true isn't the same as lying.
Posts
He tied the bowtie too tight too often.
I tend to think it's too much sun at baseball games.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/wapo-confirms-meeting-with-romney-camp-to-discuss?ref=fpblg
I wonder what the point of this meeting was.
"our polling has gone down since that paper and thats not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
How many people are able to brag that they offered Mitt Romney an irish coffee?
I love it.
"Stop beating on CNN. It's already dead."
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
It'd be better for everyone if they'd just stick the dynamite down the blowhole and clear the shore already.
I missing the part where they're forced. The editor seems to want them to stop because he wants the organization to look classier than, well, let's say us.
Really the only thing he's said...recently....that wasn't pants-on-head obvious and actual grounded in reality was his analysis of playing the blame game of Russia on Syria.
Of course, he also claimed that the same Russian leadership has "literally" absolutely no interests but "raping and pillaging the country". In a time period where Russian wages have actually risen by a factor of 7 to 8 (when adjusted for the hyperinflation of the 1990s), and fought its first successful war since America was in Vietnam.
So yeah, not grounded in reality sometimes. The stuff he made up? Not so great either.
I'd bet even money that the real story isn't that Zararia plagiarized anything, but that his entire column is actually researched and ghost written by his assistants, who themselves are merely regurgitating quickly researched material they slapped together on deadline. One of the recurring themes to a lot of these plagiarism scandals at the higher levels is that really successful "journalists" and "historians" are basically middle managers who edit and shape copy written by their assistants.
Ah, the new incarnation of BSATS.
She's saying that if you think someone is correct, it's ok to think they should just shut the fuck up?
Or is she saying that because she is correct, but she disagrees with the facts, that they should lose their right to free speech?
Or is it that it's better to have a bad opinion, but on the correct narrative than it is to represent..I-I-I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FLUX?
Mah brain, it hurtz.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
She's saying they violate the holy church of journalistic objectivity. In that worldview, it's not important to be accurate, honest or even fair. You must instead strive for balance.
Not all things should be balanced. Should voter ID be argued for both sides? Should we see the benefits of racism? Do they advocate on the side of a convicted child killer, because they ran an earlier article damning him?
How do you (gonna Godwin here) fair and balance the Nazi's? Did Hitler have some fair and valid points? Should they point out the highlights of the aftermath of Timothy McVeigh and Osama?
Some things are not balanced, they are bullshit. And you can put bread on it and call it a sandwich in the name of fairness, but it still tastes like shit.
Edit: sorry it this came off as an attack in you. It's not. I just don't think that advocating lies as a form of balance, just because there are two political parties. Lies are lies, no matter who says them or how many times.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I mean, unless that person was advocating violence on someone you hate or some situation. Usually the sanctimony inherent in our species takes over in a situation where you actually don't have the right to say something because of the rule of law or other censorship.
If you placed the modern American media into Germany circa-1932, they'd be all about trying to balance the sins of the Nazis with the those of the Christian Democrats. The way the media practice objectivity these days is already a form of protective crouch - trying as hard as possible not to offend powerful sources and an aging conservative readership. In the face of an actual fascist movement, they'd probably just start printing press releases from both parties.
Hell, my local paper just announced that it would no longer endorse candidates for office. I have no doubt that this came from a desire not to piss off the remaining few readers by taking an actual stand on an issue.
NPR's Morning Edition coverage of the GOP convention followed a specific format. Dividing a 9-10 minute spot into three equal blocks, they did:
1) Coverage of the speech highlights, using no more than a few seconds of speech.
2) Coverage of Obama campaign stops at college campuses.
3) Wrap up referencing the keynote speech, sometimes with criticism from the reporter.
Got my first taste of their coverage of the DNC this morning. It followed this convention:
1) Nine minute block including extended playback of speeches by various speakers and glowing commentary regarding their skill and effectiveness.
2) Teaser of who's speaking this evening
3) Transition jingle and segue into story about football
Agreed, that made my brain hurt. It's the exact polar opposite of Voltaire's famous "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (the symmetry is so perfect that one cannot help but think that this is not a coincidence).
You may just as well voice the opinion that that whole "liberty" schtick is overrated...
EDIT: @spool32 http://www.npr.org/2012/08/29/160227265/mitt-romney-wins-gop-presidential-nomination
This (coverage of the first day of the GOP Convention) seems to directly contradict your characterization.
That's quite clearly a reference to Voltaire. It's a stupid reference, but it isn't coincidence.
Ahh yes, I remember this one. It did break the structure while holding to pattern of the reporter staying negative throughout.
Yes, coverage of compulsive liars tends to be negative.
Only if they're Republicans.
Then I'm sure you can show me a democratic compulsive liar receiving positive treatment, then.
He'll be nominating Obama at the convention this evening, and will receive copious amounts of positive treatment.
I think you missed something. Let me help with a little bolding. At this point, you're whining that the media uses a different tone when talking about Osama bin Laden and Ryan Gosling.
Hey, I guess I'll give you points for that. Clinton isn't compulsive about his frequent and voluminous lying, he's entirely calculated and intentional. You win this round!
Okay, let's see you back your bullshit up. When has Clinton been lying? Remember, saying things you wish weren't true isn't the same as lying.