After not hearing from New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt for nearly a week — during which I’d sent him more and more indisputable evidence that Andrew Breitbart employee James O’Keefe never played his infamous “pimp” character in the offices of ACORN — he responded with a couple of blistering charges. The email was sent several hours after we’d published our article yesterday, detailing his various untenable justifications for not recommending retractions by the “paper of record” for multiple undeniably fallacious articles on O’Keefe and Breitbart’s discredited hoax ACORN “pimp” videos.
Hoyt equated our use of offering independently verifiable and incontrovertible hard evidence, demonstrating the Times, their Senior Editor for Standards Greg Brock, and Hoyt himself were simply wrong, time and again, in falling for the rightwing hoax, and my attempt at seeing accountability for it, with a “political agenda” on par with the Rightwing propagandists who ran the dishonest partisan smear campaign to destroy ACORN.
The fall-out in the blogosphere has been quickly broadening since The BRAD BLOG’s exclusive yesterday. Responses from a number of influential blogs and bloggers include a call for Hoyt to step down as the paper’s ombudsman, a blistering description of this particular rationalization of his [emphasis Hoyt’s]…
…as “unforgivable,” and the charge that “the paper allowed its desire to seem ‘fair’ to the right trump its commitment to being fair to the facts.” Also, an online petition calling for NYTimes retractions was just launched. (More details and fall-out below.)
Hoyt wrote back in response to the “Last Chance” note I’d sent him on Monday, offering a final opportunity to re-consider his previous assessments, in which he’d found that no correction was in order for the paper, “because that would require conclusive evidence that The Times was wrong, which I haven’t seen”…
The “Last Chance” note (posted in full below along with his response) followed on a number of others I’d sent that had, indeed, offered “conclusive evidence that The Times was wrong,” and included a link to pretend “prostitute” Hannah Giles’ second on-the-record confirmation of the weekend (this one on video) that O’Keefe never wore his pimp costume into ACORN offices as both he and Breitbart (and the Times) had previously represented, and a link to Breitbart’s most recent manic confirmation of same.
In response, Hoyt charged that I have “a political agenda” on par with the GOP hucksters who released their misleading, highly-edited, heavily-doctored, secretly taped videos which they still describe insidiously and deceptively as an “ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation.”
He also disputes my argument (independently verifiable by simply reading the text transcripts released with the videos, if not from the doctored videos themselves) “that O’Keefe never wore his pimp costume into ACORN offices, where he instead represented himself as a conservatively dressed college student trying to save her from an evil pimp.” Hoyt feels my characterization of O’Keefe is “not credible.”
“I must say, as someone who watched the videos,” (but apparently didn’t bother to look at the transcripts?) Hoyt wrote, “your characterization of the way O’Keefe and Giles presented themselves to the Acorn employees — as opposed to what he wore — is not credible.”
His full note, and my response to it, can be read at the bottom of this article.
Noteworthy related fall-out in the blogosphere since yesterday’s report…
Popular blogger and well-respected economist Brad DeLong wrote:
…
Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps?
The very popular centrist blog Ballon Juice noted:
…
Read the whole thing. It’s unbelievable.
Over at Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias wrote in “Ombudsmanfail”:
…
When it was pointed out to Hoyt that [O’Keefe having dressed as a pimp in ACORN offices] is false, he replied—with emphasis in the original— that “The story says O’Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera on Acorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time.â€
Look. The New York Times is a great newspaper. Its writers and editors are familiar with communication in the English language. So is Hoyt. The writers and editors who worked on that story screwed up. It’s bad to screw up. But it’s not the worst thing in the world. To have the error pointed out to you and somehow pretend that the error wasn’t made is, however, unforgivable. Nobody can seriously maintain that the sentence as written doesn’t convey simultaneity.
At the American Prospect’s “Tapped” blog, Adam Serwer wrote in “That Non-Existent ACORN Correction”:
…
Shortly after the ACORN story broke, Hoyt wrote a sort of mea culpa suggesting that the paper’s “slow reflexes [in covering the ACORN videos] suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. The aftermath of the ACORN story was an opportunity for a paper with a liberal reputation to show that it felt conservatives’ pain, that the liberal media had internalized conservative criticism about their coverage.
Correcting the story would be like admitting they felt conservatives’ pain too much — and that, shortly after the “realization” that conservative conspiracy theories needed to be given more credence, the paper allowed its desire to seem “fair” to the right trump its commitment to being fair to the facts. Ultimately, a public editor position is more about making the paper’s critics feel as though they are being heard than it is about actually improving the paper’s coverage. And in this context, refusing to correct a story in which the larger objective is to placate conservative critics makes total sense, and I suspect that’s what this is really about.
Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert, who has been doing a tremendous job in actually advancing details of this story since we first started covering it here after O’Keefe’s preposterous explanation for his late January felony arrest for allegedly attempting to “malicously interfere” with Sen. Mary Landreu’s (D-LA) phone system, has again helped to move the ball forward.
Boehlert’s latest column yesterday, among other things, calls Hannah Giles out for for her recent statement that “We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume.”
Boehlert, as usual, goes to the video tape and written record to show that yes, O’Keefe, Breitbart, and even Giles herself, if not directly, then indirectly and willingly, “wanted the falsehood to flourish” and “helped plant it in the first place.”
As Boehler writes after offering the evidence:
It wasn’t enough to uncover dubious practices inside the offices. Breitbart and his colleagues, consumed by hatred for an underfunded and somewhat adrift nonprofit, were determined to demonize ACORN (a “thug organization,” as Giles put it) and paint its workers as immoral fools for not being able to spot the spoof a mile away. (In truth, O’Keefe was dressed rather conservatively — slacks and dress shirt — when he talked to ACORN staffers, and he often presented himself as an aspiring politician.)
In what should be an object lesson for the Times, Boehlert’s column originally featured an error which I pointed out to him, and which he transparently corrected today. I explained that he too had fallen for the O’Keefe/Breitbart con job, as revealed in his description of “ACORN employees who were caught on tape giving Giles and her undercover partner, James O’Keefe, all kinds of misguided advice on how a prostitute could avoid paying taxes on her late-night income.”
In fact, in every ACORN office seen in the Breitbart/O’Keefe vidoes — as understood only by reviewing the text transcripts, since the videos are so purposely misleading on this point — ACORN employees advised that Giles must pay taxes, even if the income was gained through illegal prostitution. No ACORN employee ever advised the pair to “avoid paying taxes” as so many who fell for the hoax have described.
Boehlert changed the phrase correctly to “…all kinds of misguided advice on how a prostitute could pay* taxes on her late-night income,” and added a transparent update at the bottom which reads: “*Correction: I originally wrote that ACORN workers provided advice on how a prostitute could avoid paying her taxes. That’s incorrect, and I regret the error.”
There. That wasn’t so hard was it, New York Times?
Boehlert has also been keeping up with the latest beats in the story, on the Media Matters blog. Yesterday, in “The NYT really, really doesn’t want to run an ACORN pimp correction,” following our publication of Hoyt’s emails, which he describes as “a true eye-opener,” he observed:
…
Bottom line: Hoyt now agrees that, contrary to the Times’ earlier reporting, there’s no proof O’Keefe ever wore the pimp getup while meeting with ACORN employees. But — and boy, this is a big “but” — Hoyt doesn’t think the Times needs to post corrections.
…
Please recall that this is same Clark Hoyt who devoted an entire column last year in order to scold the Times news team for not reacting fast enough to the all-important ACORN story. The failure was so severe that the Times assigned a staffer to monitor opinion media so the daily would never again be caught so flat footed when a hugely important story broke from the right-wing blogosphere.
But now, when we discover that ACORN story wasn’t entirely what it appeared, Hoyt begs off.
And then again today, Boehlert followed up again with: “Faced with ACORN pimp hoax, right-wing blogosphere falls silent.”
Perhaps this entire sorry affair to date is best summed up for the moment by a commenter at Balloon Juice this morning, who calls him/herself “bayville”:
“Okay, stories we have written about this incident were incorrect although some parts of those stories were probably accurate.
And sure we changed our editorial policy based solely on this story, like assigning reporters to specifically cover conservative media.
And I know the filmmaker is now under a felony indictment for allegedly trying to tamper with the phones of a U.S. Senator.
Of course Brad, the videotape of O’Keefe and Giles has been doctored and I know the duo won’t release the uncut, uncensored version of it. And I know Miss Giles recently admitted (twice) that the video of them in full Pimp & Ho attire was “B-roll.â€
And Brad, I’ll give you that the U.S. Congress (attempted) to cut off funding for ACORN based entirely on these stories. And I know that ACORN, in effect, has been forced to disband as a result…
…But really, I fail to see what you are complaining about?’‘
Just as I was about to hit publish, a reader sent me a link to a just-created petition, calling on the Times to retract its inaccurate ACORN reportage. Please sign it!
Hoyt’s latest email response to all of this follows below. First, here’s the note I had written the day before, which Hoyt was responding to (the entire extraordinary series of prior notes to and from Hoyt can be read here in full)…
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:52 PM
To: ‘Public/NYT/NYTIMES’
Subject: Last Chance for Reconsider: Breitbart & Giles (Again) Confrim Pimp Scam
Clark –
Have been holding off posting your emails, still, in hopes that you’d re-consider your previous positions, particularly in light of the Breitbart — and now Hannah Giles confirmation (this time on video) — that O’Keefe never wore his pimp costume into ACORN offices, where he instead represented himself as a conservatively dressed college student trying to save her from an evil pimp. All in direct contradiction to multiple reporting by the NYTimes.
Here are two more confirmation stories since I last contacted you:
Will be running your emails on Wednesday, unless I otherwise hear from you that you plan to change what has become an untenable position for the paper and for its Public Editor, in my opinion.
Best,
Brad
Hoyt responded the following day, after we went ahead and published his previous email…
To: Brad.Friedman@cville.com
Subject: Re: Last Chance for Reconsider: Breitbart & Giles (Again) Confrim Pimp Scam
Brad,
Thank you for your courtesy. My position is that I would recommend a correction if one were warranted after The Times re-reported the question of O’Keefe’s costume to determine the facts independently. Every person in this argument is pushing a political agenda, and The Times would need to find out for itself what actually happened at those Acorn offices. It is up to the paper to decide whether the investment of effort is worthwhile.
I could see a story about the fascinating effort to use the question of what O’Keefe wore to try to discredit everything about his sting videos. But that is a decision for The Times to make.
I must say, as someone who watched the videos, that your characterization of the way O’Keefe and Giles presented themselves to the Acorn employees — as opposed to what he wore — is not credible.
Best,
Clark
Note: The public editor’s opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times.
Perhaps Hoyt has confused “political agenda” with “partisan agenda”? Or “political agenda” with pressing for truth and accuracy in the media? In any case, here is how I responded in kind:
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:32 AM
To: ‘Public/NYT/NYTIMES’
Subject: RE: Last Chance for Reconsider: Breitbart & Giles (Again) Confrim Pimp Scam
You should have read the text transcripts, rather than rely on the deceptive videos before deciding who and what is “not credible”.
My “political agenda”, as you infer that I have one, is to fight to ensure that mainstream media tells the truth, reports on real issues that effect this nation and this world, and that when doing so, they independently verify information to assure it’s accurate, and issue transparent correction when they’ve screwed up.
The other part of my “political agenda”, the most important one, is to ensure that every legal voter who wishes to vote in their own democracy in this country is allowed to do so, and that their vote is counted accurately and transparently.
If that’s what is now considered a “political agenda”, then yeah, I guess I have one.
Your response has been incredible, revealing, and exceedingly disheartening.
Brad
I’ve not heard back since. Clark Hoyt can be reached at Public@NYTimes.com. And again, the just-posted online petition calling for retractions from the New York Times for their inaccurate ACORN reportage, can be signed here.
UPDATE 2/26/10: More devastating critiques of Hoyt’s position comes in from around the blogosphere, as well as interesting information on NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller’s ironic 2005 position on accountability and corrections at the paper. Full details…
UPDATE 3/1/10: Exclusive Video: Breitbart offers manic admissions about O’Keefe ACORN hoax, says he “had no idea” O’Keefe not dressed as pimp, compares it to Borat. Details…
UPDATE 3/1/10: Brooklyn D.A. ends 5-month ACORN probe, finds “no criminality” in tapes, calls them “highly edited splice job”. Full details…
UPDATE 3/2/10: NYT Public Editor Hoyt depicted “as weasel” in political cartoon for comments made to The BRAD BLOG. Details…
UPDATE 3/10/10: Another legal victory for ACORN. Federal judge rules Congressional funding ban ‘unconstitutional’. Details…
UPDATE 3/11/10: Media watchdog FAIR slams ‘wildly misleading’ coverage by NYT. Details…
UPDATE 3/12/10: ‘The Times Botched Story’ says author, President of National Housing Inst. on Democracy Now!. Details, video…
UPDATE 3/20/10: NYT PUBLIC EDITOR FINALLY ADMITS ACORN ‘PIMP’ HOAX REPORTING FAILURE: ‘TIMES WAS WRONG, I HAVE BEEN WRONG DEFENDING PAPER’ … Clark Hoyt says in Sunday column ‘editors considering correction’. Full details here…
Great job Brad. Hoyt is toast thanks to you.
Now can we go after the big fish? Who paid the NOLA buggers. Why is Howard Baker defending them with another uber RNC lawyer Madigan?
CamusRebel asked:
That’s kinda the point of this series. If the NYT was so easily conned by these same guys — on a story that was easily verifiable *before* they misreported it — how can we count on them to investigate the important points you mention above?
If they remain in the pockets of these con-men, the stuff that actually matters will never get covered. And, unfortunately, The BRAD BLOG World News Headquarters doesn’t have quite the same resources and access to dig into every one of the stories that they need to be doing for the American people!
(But don’t let that stop you from dropping a few dollars in the tip jar so we can keep trying!)
Dear Brad,
I’m so proud of you. And I’m so happy for us as maybe, just maybe some movement will occur over this.
Listen, if this continues to explode and you finally begin to get the notice you have been so richly deserving for some years now, remember all of us elves, and gnomes,(and even trolls)back here. We’ll still be mining, searching the forests and mountains, exploring the ocean depths, pursuing truth in our own, individual, goofy, relentless, beautiful ways.
You’re an American hero in the mold of George Seldes and I.F. Stone. I am most pleased to have made your acquaintance.
Gotta go sign the petition.
Awesomer and awesomer. BF for president. The truth will prevail….eventually.
B, that looks an awful lot like the guy in the “like Judith Miller?” video that ran back inside the building, plus a few pounds. I’m not kidding.
Brad,
They’re right, you know, but truth is a good ‘political agenda’ to have. In fact, the New York Times used to have a very similar ‘political agenda.’
I found the following Hoyt statement nothing short of fascinating:
Odd, Mr. Hoyt. I thought real journalists were supposed to make an “investment of effort” in order to determine “what actually happened” before they run a story.
But then maybe I’m just old school. I always thought that in real journalism, truth and accuracy actually mattered. I see that I must be out of date; that like “new math” we are now in the 21st Century era of “new journalism” or what George Orwell referred to as “newsspeak.”
The old saying, “facts have a liberal bias” seems to apply here. I’m sure that’s what’s chapping Hoyt’s ass and informing his opinion on your political agenda.
Keep up the great work – I, too, want to know who’s the financier behind Pimpy McStooge’s continued exploits vis Landreiu. It’s not Breitbart. He’s just the bagman, and we all know it.
Brad, The link you provided for Hoyt’s response to “this article” simply comes back to “this article.”
Ernie
re my own comment 3
Was I being overly dramatic?
The way this story is taking off seems like a big deal to me. It’s thrilling to see Brad’s efforts finally getting what I hope is significant traction. I had visions of him getting on Maddow regularly and that he’d then be off to the races and stars.
Whatever happens I’d like to amend my fantasy for us the supporting cast here. My elves, gnomes, trolls bit of whimsy had some nice elements but I felt afterwards a little dismissive of the power of the intelligence, persistence, and creativity of the impressive cast of characters here.
So rather than a picture of us being left behind while our hero is out in New York after the show having dinner with Rachel Maddow, I want to wish us all possible starring roles in our own adventure after adventure, lighting fire after fire under the monster’s toes. Relentless and wild. There are a bunch of good-hearted, tough, smart people here.
I think it’s important what you imagine.
(Okay, I’m laughing out loud. This is cyberspace and I’m trying to expand the boundaries and having fun in the attempt. And I’ve had a couple of weird days and I’m releasing here. But I fear I may be sounding like a complete lunatic. So let me just say that I don’t think I’m complete. Yet. But I’m working on it.)
love,
Dave
Dave, lunacy gets a bad rap. Speaking of this motley crew of commenters, did we ever get to learn the identity of the one who started this particular ball rolling w/the NYT?
If it was revealed earlier I apologize.
Brad, this is a great and wonderful endeavor. The two representatives of the NYT who you have been dealing with have shown themselves to be really pathetic.
I’ve spent a good deal of time studying the Baltimore transcript.
I wanted to check for myself how the transcript compared with the videos in terms of the tax advice given. Did the tax advisor really advise Giles to pay her taxes, or did she advise Giles to hide her income?
With the very important caveat that we don’t know how accurate the transcript is without the unedited video, I believe the answer is a little of both.
Consider the following exchanges (emphasis added):
[Note: I typed this from the PDF. My apologies for any typos.]
(p. 8)
Tonja: well there is a difference between having a job and having your own business okay so tell me
Kenya [Giles]: Well I guess before it was a job. There was this guy that people would give me money and I would give money to him….
[Here Tonja is trying to establishing whether “Kenya†has her own business or works for someone else.]
(p.9)
Tonja: right so you wanna get a house so you do need a tax return so what you do is. For ’08 how much did you make do you know…guesstimate.
James: Is that by herself or is that gross with the money she gave to that guy…this guy who has been harassing her
Tonja: that guy..don’t worry about that guy because if he doesn’t do a quarterly report
James: & Kenya [Giles]: uh huh
Tonja: he is not reporting that money
James: well it’s all off the books
Kenya: right
Tonja: so he is not reporting that money so don’t use that money just the money you made
[Here Tonja is advising Giles not to report income from the “job,†just from her own “business.” The “job†money is classic “under-the-table†money. Legally it should be reported, just as all income should be reported. So should babysitting money, all tip money and all money made on the side that most people don’t report, probably on the advice of their tax professionals too. But, technically, here Tonja is advising her not to report certain income on her tax return.]
p. 16
Tonja: In order for you to file a return for business
Kenya: what’s a return
Tonja: a tax return. In order for you to file a return for business you have to
Kenya: so I am returning taxes to the government
Tonja: no you have to pay taxes on the money you makeJames: is there any way around that though
Tonja: yeah don’t file them and you continue doing cash
James: okay okay
[Tonja is explaining that Hannah must claim income and pay taxes on it.]
In other exchanges, Tonja questions Hannah as to why they want to file a return at all. It comes back to needing a tax return for a mortgage on a house. Also, when gathering information for a Schedule C for Hannah’s business, Tonja is looking for appropriate business deductions (clothing, grooming, etc) that will offset the income and reduce it below where she will have to pay self-employment tax. This is not hiding income but rather looking for “legitimate” business expenses (if you can have legitimate expenses for an illegitimate business, that is!)
In conclusion and based only on this transcript which has not been vetted for accuracy, I would say that Tonja questioned why Hannah would want to file tax returns on an illegal, cash-only business, advised Hannah NOT to report the “job” income from her association with the pimp, but made a bona fide effort at getting information for a business tax return that would be fairly accurate and reflective of both income and expenses.
No, my Lasagna. Not overly dramatic. It would be jism-inducing to finally see Brad finally get some substantial play (and PAY) for any of his numerous, outstanding contributions to journalism over the years. If what we imagine is important, then I’ll imagine it as inevitable.
NEW YORK TIMES: ALL THE NEWS THAT’s FIT TO FISH WRAP! Call on Editor to Retract Erroneous Reports #NYTIMES FAIL http://is.gd/91Zff
less than 5 seconds ago
And the crazy thing about all of this is that it absolutely drives the focus away from where it really needs to go…
CamusRebel @ 11
The reader asked not to have his full identity disclosed, so he has been known only as Bob F.
It’s up to him if he wishes to further identify himself.
BTW, the great Tom Tomorrow suggests tonight all of this will play some role in his toon next week! Kewl!
Here’s a recent cursorily-related toon of his that we ran a week or two ago. Anybody want to guess whether “Conservative Jones” will be making another appearance next week? (I have no inside track on this, just tossing it out there.)
Go easy Brad!
Good journalism is a powerful thing. You don’t want them to feel sorry for Goliath.
Nah! Go for it!
Ernie Canning @ 9:
Whoops! Thanks! Meant to add that update to *yesterday’s* article, not this one! 🙂
Have fixed it.
Just tweeted: The (once liberal, now pathetic) New York Times has lost all credibility. The Old Gray Lady is dead. #NYTimesFAIL http://is.gd/91Zff
Bottom line: Sure, those misguided dolts on the right wing who still believe that they are liberal will be glad to see the NYT go down, but so will I, and I’m as far from the right as you can get.
The New York Times will go down because they have demonstrated that they are so stuck in their own bloated egos that they can’t even do “journalism” any more. They DESERVE to stop being. They no longer deliver on their promise.
Oh, and P.S. Did the venerable and great New York Times EVER do a well-researched and balanced story on the total destruction of our electoral system? No.
It was Rolling Stone who had to do that story, and even THEN, the Times could have picked up the story (they way they picked up the stories of the Washington Post when they wanted to take down Nixon) and run with it, but NO, they did not.
The single most important story of our country’s history — that our electoral process has been stolen — and the “paper of record” has missed it completely.
F&%# THE NEW YORK TIMES, MAY THEY REST IN PEACE, and may arrogant jerks like Hoyt never work again.
Lora: Thanks for the link to the Baltimore transcript. I had watched the video previously–can’t quite remember where someone else posted it.
The transcript underscores O’Keefe and Giles deception. It is a far cry from the edited video.
It begins by revealing that O’Keefe and Giles (who went by the name Kenya) advised the ACORN workers at the outset that O’Keefe was a 22 year old college student hoping to one day run for Congress.
They are half way to the end of the transcript before the word “prostitution” is mentioned. The word “pimp” is later mentioned but only in the sense that they were seeking to protect Giles from the guy.
It is obvious from the content that the ACORN “tax employee” is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Giles tells her she’s making $8 grand/month and the tax employee concludes that Giles is making $9,600/year.
Through much of the conversation both Giles and O’Keefe are quite evasive, dropping hints but never coming out until the very end stating that Giles works as a prostitute. That said, some of the conversation towards the end suggests that the light went on for the tax employee and the “advice” she gave them was, in my opinion, quite inappropriate.
What also comes through is that Giles and O’Keefe never once said that the girls coming from El Salvador would be working as prostitutes. To the contrary, O’Keefe says that they’re going to put a roof over their heads and that’s how the conversation turns to whether they can claim them as dependents.
Keep in mind that per Harshbarger, no ACORN supervisory personnel were present during the entire interaction and that both of these employees were fired the moment their conduct came to light.
Ernest @ 20 noted:
“Not the sharpest tool in the shed” may be a bit unfair there. At least from the evidence you proffer. Obviously, she heard $800/month, not $8 grand ($800 x 12 months = $9,600) FWIW. 🙂
And yes, the low-level employees didn’t follow ACORN’s written protocols, etc. and so were let go. But the difference between that, and criminal wrong doing is, apparently, too fine a nuance for wingnuts to actually understand. So the fact that they were fired is evidence that ACORN is a “criminal organization”. Sigh…
I also took notice of that Ernest
You want a story Mr. Hoyt? worth your investment? I have doozie for you.
It’s all about this community organization, ACORN
They have been attacked relentlessly for years over a supposed role they played in Voter Fraud. You’ve heard of Voter Fraud I’m sure Mr. Hoyt and when you do, do you think of ACORN? Most People do. They have been brainwashed again and again to equate Voter Fraud with, you got it, ACORN.
Then comes along this “Amateur Sting Journalism”
with its out of context video that captures a few employees out of 10’s of 1000’s giving very bad advice, which, cost them their jobs, but also sparked such a furor that Congress cut off all federal funding to it, over a video we now know was bullshit!
The Story Mr. Hoyt is to look at who wants ACORN destroyed and why?
Why not do a story and right the wrongs done to this Community organization?
Their only crime Mr Hoyt, is registering Minority Voters who mostly Vote towards Democrats.
So when your paper continues the lies(so ever small in your eye’s) to me, it’s a big deal
“Freedom of the Press, is only free, if you own it”
thanks brad!!! you think maybe they’ll cover ohio 2004 yet?
What I wrote Mr Hoyt:
Mr Hoyt:
I find your inability to review the ACORN issue very revealing. It confirms for me that people in the mainstream news media are more comfortable with telling the stories that conform to the accepted mindset of the “in” crowd, and not to newly developing facts as they are revealed. This is the same mind set of a religious zealot. A zealot is so sure of his/her position that even in the face of damning facts they are unwilling to admit that there was a wrong interpretation. Mr. Hoyt, you seem to be unwilling to consider any possibility of inaccurate reporting. The scientific approach would be to make a hypothesis, and if facts come to light that challenge the initial hypothesis then you should be willing to entertain and even change your hypothesis to fit the new evidence. You, on the other hand, disregard the new evidence because it does not conform to your beliefs.
Either you are a media zealot who is unwilling to consider other views, or you and your paper have other agendas (or people with agendas that have to be placated). Neither is good for the reputation of the “paper of record”. This is why I have not subscribed to the NY TImes and I only read it through internet sites or when I visit my parents. When I visit my parents and read the paper I am reminded by the narrowness of coverage why I am glad I am not a subscriber.
Considering the disappointment I feel in regard to Barack Obama, The only hope for change is the truth. If The New York Times doesn’t tell the truth what hope is there?
Great back-to-back comments @ DeLong’s site:
micah said…
Reply February 23, 2010 at 05:23 PM
NYT said…
Brill-yant.
…comments @ Balloon Juice:
D. Aristophanes
Citizen_X
The NYTimes uses their own archives to fact check. They are a joke.Their balance sheet is an indication.All they have left is their name.When you think of the Times, Judy Miller comes to mind. Racist elitist mouth piece for the banksters and Wall Street.Rupert Murdoch should put in a bid.
The mental gymnastics required of Hoyt to avoid saying/looking at something he just can’t bring himself to honestly examine is beyond Olympian.
But I’m telling you this goes way beyond this guy. From where I’m sitting, standing, trying to engage people, it’s a cultural thing. I don’t know to what extent it’s true in other countries, but we’ve got an epidemic of magic thinking in the U.S.
I’ve seen it again and again in my personal life. It happens in personal matters when there is conflict. It can happen when you bring up some uncomfortable political matter. Can be election integrity, our endangered food supply, the reality behind the ongoing Acorn attacks, Israel, any number of things. And it happens across the political spectrum. It’s what WE do.
Time and again I have witnessed people just refuse to look at what is right in front of them. They jump and weave and dance and dodge and go silent.
This is what Hoyt is doing, but he’s just picked up on an MO that’s going on all around him. And for the most part we let each other get away with this. Particularly unfortunate in his case because this is exactly what his job requires him NOT doing. But he is not really behaving much outside the lines. Just seems that way if you’re a freak who still wants the words to mean what the words mean.
It’s gonna be a long haul getting the meaning of words back, chillun’.
So roll up your sleeves. Make sure you got on some shoes with good traction. And push that windmill.
Just for context.
Jeannie Dean @27
Hilarious and perfect.
Also, I must say these recent days here in Bradblophilia I am particularly loving us. So much intelligence, effort, hunmor, and support. So love to you all my fellow commenters in ethereal arms. And to Brad, our fearless leader.(last line to be read as Natasha would say it)
(commentER or commentOR?)
As I noted in #20, When Giles and O’Keefe came into the Baltimore ACORN office they represented to the temporary employees that O’Keefe was a college student hoping to one day run for Congress–a far cry from the pimp & prostitute canard which emerged in the right-wing echo chamber and which then was repeated by the unthinkingly stenographers of the corporate-owned media who mistakenly describe themselves as “journalists.”
Forget the fact that O’Keefe never posed as a pimp. The transcript reveals the extraordinary deception employed by Giles & O’Keefe to secure what they hoped would be damning words from the unsuspecting ACORN employees without actually divulging that Giles was posing as a “prostitute.”
I’ve used “ACORN tax lady,” Giles & O’Keefe rather than the pseudonyms used in the transcript and edited for punctuation.
ACORN tax lady: They pay you with cash. And they are reporting this to the government?
Giles: No who?
O’Keefe: The clients.
Giles: My clients.
Tax lady: No the person that’s paying you.
James: The clients.
Tax lady: The job that’s paying you.
Giles: Well people pay me different things every day.
Tax lady: Well there’s a difference between having a job and having your own business. Okay, so tell me.
Giles: Well before I guess it was a job. There was this guy that people would give me money and I would give money to him. But now…I am trying to get away from that guy.
O’Keefe: I am trying to help her out; maybe give her a place to go where she can perform her work, maybe a house where she doesn’t have to get targeted by this other guy. You know what I am saying?
Tax lady: …Does the business have an ID number?
O’Keefe: No.
Tax lady: Okay. So there is no taxes and nothing being put to government so the government really knows nothing about this business?
Giles: No. They don’t know about me—hopefully.
Tax lady: So you are just starting the business.
Note how slickly Giles and O’Keefe moved from taxes to a house where Giles can work without ever divulging that the “work” would entail prostitution? Note also that the ACORN tax lady does not have the slightest inkling that Giles is a prostitute. If she did, she would not be asking about tax ID numbers.
__________________
Responding to Brad @21:
Tax lady: About $800 a month.
Giles: 8 grand a month.
Tax lady: 8 grand a month. Okay. So that’s going to put you at 8,000, 9,600 a year.
Clearly the tax lady didn’t know that 8 grand is $8,000. This and the inability to recognize the ruse are the reasons why I don’t think she’s one of the “sharpest tools in the shed.” I state that not in a derogatory sense, but actually because it underscores the extent to which O’Keefe & Giles manipulated her, for Giles & O’Keefe, too, understood that they were not dealing with one of the sharpest tools in the shed; sought to exploit that to their advantage.
Camusrebel #1
As to who funded okeefe, think “blowjob” and who funded that… olbermann made the connection a couple of weeks back.
“Politico.com today reports all four men, quote, “had been groomed for years to be part of a new wave of activist conservative journalists by a series of influential and often deep-pocketed benefactors, not as you might imagine friends of health care reform. O‘Keefe, Basel and Stan Dai all received grants to start their right-wing college newspapers from the Leadership Institute, right-wing training ground for alumni like Karl Rove and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. They got more funding from the right-wing Collegiate Network funded by Richard Mellon Scaife among others. And O‘Keefe‘s legal bills for the ACORN lawsuit against him are being paid for by a legal group affiliated with James Dobson‘s Focus on the Family.”
And don’t forget this component:
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/men-charged-attempting-bug-landrieus-office-intelligence-links/
Hoyt is probably a friend of scaife.
Is the NYT in the running to be a replacement for Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times?
…I can’t believe that nobody else has picked up on the hypocrisy of Andrew Breitbart slamming ACORN in the pages of Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times …
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az…all... – Cached
I was unaware that Breitbart did a column for Moon’s paper.
The link above provides a very interesting chart,defintely worth a look.
The Real Sun Myung Moon: Andrew Breitbart Throws Stones At ACORN …Sep 29, 2009 … The operatives are now in the employ of Andrew Breitbart, a commentator for Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times. Breitbart was so outraged by …
realsunmyungmoon.blogspot.com/…/andrew-breitbart-throws-stones-at-acorn.html – Cached – Similar
According to Media Matters Mr Hoyt “devoted an entire column last year in order to scold the Times news team for not reacting fast enough to the all-important ACORN story.” So when Mr Hoyt says that everyone in this story has a political agenda he really means it. Thing is, the Public Editor of the “paper of record” shouldn’t be one of them. Hoyt should be fired immediately.
And the punch-line is that ACORN has folded, in large part because of media coverage by the NYTimes. I heard the head of the Working Families Party of NYS, which has been affiliated with ACORN in the past, say that ACORN has ended. There’s a new group formed in NYS to continue some of the work. One more success story for big lies. I heard the Working Family Party head on the radio several days ago, on Mark Riley’s show, “Early Drive Time” on WWRL AM 1600. I was so shocked, I called in to the show.
Sanda
PS (Forgot to say) I cited Brad Blog in my on-air call, which I refer to in my previous comment.
As I have often thought for over a decade, there is no “liberal” media. I think the breakdown has happened and news is divided between between big-business media, and bloggers from the liberal and conservative.
Brad and Ernest,
How about we say that the ACORN tax adviser was confused. With all the innuendo the two imposters were throwing around, it would have been hard to figure out just what was going on. She may have heard $8 grand but it may not have registered. What would anyone making $96,000 a year be doing in ACORN’s offices anyway? She may have simply been confused enough to have assumed $800 a month, which would have been exactly what she said: $9600 a year.
I think she had this confusion during the entire interview. In part I think she heard what she expected to hear, but checked out most of her assumptions with questions. I think the same thing happened with the El Salvadorean (later inexplicably turned into Guatemalan) girls. I’m speculating here that the tax adviser did not want to think that O’Keefe and Giles were planning to pimp out a bunch of underage girls. The situation was getting more and more bizarre and she just wanted to focus on what she knew: taxes.
Consider p. 18 of the transcript:
James: well I want to ask you a question there is another variable here that Kenya should we talk to you about which may complicate our taxes is that we have a couple of girls overseas who are coming over and they are very young you know, what I mean. We don’t wanna put them on the books.
Kenya: they are kind of dependent
James: they are from El Salvador
Tonja: okay
James: there is like 13 of them and they are probably going to move into the house that we get
Kenya: just for a year while they get on their feet
James: just to get them on their feet so they can do this type of thing
Tonja: so do you want to….so why you all even wanna do taxes oh cause of the house
The tax adviser then focuses on the tax implications of young dependents in a household and seems oblivious or ignores what type of work if any the girls might potentially be doing, seeming to assume that the girls will be somehow coming over legally, unitl p. 20:
Tonja: They under 16 so you don’t worry about that, but on the other part of the form you can use them as a dependents because they live in your house they are under 16 and they are living in your house. Well you live in a boat but because you are taking care of them you can use them as a dependent.
James: what if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too
Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway
O’Keefe slipped in the zinger about performing tricks and Tonja ignored that part totally. I expect she was overwhelmed and not quite processing everything she was hearing. She stuck to the part relating to employment and employment taxes.
I also found it interesting that O’Keefe was the one who supplied the zingers about prostitution and Hannah seemed to present herself more as someone who was just watching out for the girls’ interests. And the tax advisor I believe was focused on Hannah.
Irony of the Day:
At the top of the Brad Blog page there is an ad:
Get the Times delivered to your home for 50% off. Click to order. The New York Times
HEE hee hee hah hee hee haH!
At least Hoyt admits the NYTimes views the “truth” as a “political agenda”. What he’s saying is that when someone points out to the NYTimes that they printed a FALSE story and would like the NYTimes to retract it…that’s a political agenda, NOT someone who wants the NYTimes to retract a false story.
WOW! The NYTimes!
The media was liberal at one time. It did hold the powerful accountable. What better plan was there than for the powerful to usurp the liberal media and keep calling it liberal? The reason they call it liberal is because it was liberal before they usurped it. So, it follows, that those who keep calling it liberal, like Rush Limbaugh, work for the powerful. Do you like his cigar? Did you know cigars are a symbol of the rich and powerful?
“It is known among political scientists that powerful forces always seek to gain control of pre-existing social and political institutions so they can usurp their powers.”
Part V: Overcoming the Divide and Conquer Strategy — The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the USA (BD: the media isn’t “liberal”)
http://ampedstatus.com/part-v-overcoming-the-divide-and-conquer-strategy-the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-usa
Big Dan @42
Outstanding point…great link too…
When an editor at a paper such as the NYTimes cannot admit when he is wrong, and then attacks the person who is telling him about being wrong as having a political agenda, then:
1. He needs to step down
2. He should be fired
3. If neither of the above is done, then there’s something really funny going on that needs even FURTHER investigation!
The NYTimes has been told before they were wrong, I’ve seen it many times, including the Judith Miller reporting, and they’ve retracted the stories and apologized. Why not this time? THAT is a good question, isn’t it?
I actually got that link from 99. But that’s my comment about it.
Remember I asked why they want us to keep thinking it’s “liberal”? The “liberal media”? And I think Karen said that was a good but unanswered question? Well, I think the answer is because when the liberal media was usurped, the powerful who usurped it had to keep calling it liberal so you’d think they didn’t usurp it! That’s actually a pretty simple answer, but it was very difficult to figure out.
Ron Paul’s Tea Party was usurped the same way, and guess what? They kept calling it the Tea Party! LOL! It all makes sense!
“Thou dost protest too loudly”. When they usurp an existing entity, like the media, they also overcompensate by saying “liberal media” a million times a day. The ones saying it are the ones who usurped it, like Rush Limbaugh, which is an accurate indicator of who is usurping it. Breitbart, too, he always says “liberal media”. Notice, though, with this NYTimes thing, Breitbart isn’t calling the NYTimes the “liberal media”!
I think Brad Blog and others should “dig deep” into the background of Clark Hoyt. Maybe you’ll be surprised at what you find.
In my business I work with many artists. They trust me to help sell their work. It is a small, tightly knit community, where news travels fast. If I cheat one of them for any reason, I lose their trust, and I would quickly be out of business.
The Times became what it is because readers trusted it to tell the truth. When they stop doing that, as in this case, they lose the trust of their readers. What else do they lie about? How do I know that they are telling me the truth? I have lost confidence in them, and no matter what they do, I treat it with suspicion and distrust.
Big Dan @45
I cruise 99’s site regularly…it’s a treasure trove.
I stole the link from 99’s site. HA HA! At least I gave her credit.
Wikipedia:
Clark Hoyt is an American journalist who is currently the public editor of the New York Times, serving as the ‘readers representative’. He is the newspaper’s third public editor, or ombudsman, after Daniel Okrent and Byron Calame. His initial two-year term began on May 14, 2007, and was later extended for another two years.
Hoyt is a member of the The Hill School class of 1960 and a 1964 graduate of Columbia University. He served previously as the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Knight Ridder newspapers.
On Sept. 27, Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt published a column in which the paper’s managing editor acknowledged having been “slow off the mark” but denied that political bias played any role.[1] An October 16, 2009, Wall Street Journal interview with Andrew Breitbar[2] revealed his intention to use the Acorn scandal as an opportunity to expose a liberal media bias.
In November 2009, Hoyt publicly responded to an allegation by Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, that the New York Times was displaying a systematic anti-Catholic bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Hoyt
Hey, how about the part that says: “An October 16, 2009, Wall Street Journal interview with Andrew Breitbar[2] revealed his intention to use the Acorn scandal as an opportunity to expose a liberal media bias.”
If the NYTimes doesn’t publish a retraction, it’s “Mission: Accomplished” for rightwingers who can make shit up and the NYTimes will act as a stenographer for them instead of a world class newspaper. So, that’s what they NYTimes wants to be known as, fine. That’s what I thought is was, anyway, since the Judith Miller propaganda and then getting William Kristol as a columnist. Liberal??? They’re becoming a joke, at least to those who actually check up on things. Maybe they cut too many people to save money and they’re just stenographers who are really appreciative when someone like Breitbart does the “work” for them and they just transcribe it and say he was their source.
I have an idea: Hoyt should fire himself and just let Breitbart be the ombudsman!
… Big Dan wrote…
There we officially have it. Clark Hoyt is a fascist with no desire to report facts if they in any way contradict extreme rightist propaganda. Surprise, surprise. Brad Friedman has singlehandedly dismantled the lie that the New York Times has any regards for the truth, and exposed Clark Hoyt to be a barefaced liar.
How about this:
The NYTimes publishes an article recently skewering another paper retracting a story, and the NYTimes says:
“We hope that The Lancet’s belated retraction will finally lay this damaging myth about autism and vaccines to rest. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06sat3.html
SO…it’s “OK” for the NYTimes not to retract a damaging myth to ACORN! Is it because ACORN is considered a “black” organization? Is there some RACISM involved here? A bunch of rich WHITE conservatives did the myth so they’re not retracting it?
Tweeting anew:
NEW YORK TIMES Public Editor #CLARK HOYT slips the Gray Lady a ROOFIE and now she OPENLY FELLATES FOX NEWS #NYTIMESFAIL http://tr.im/PFEY
less than 20 seconds ago via web
re: my comment #12:
A smiley face snuck in while I was trying to type an 8. It should read “page 8.”
(Maybe 8 with a colon after it equals a smiley face? Lemme try…. 8: )
eight-parenthesis I bet… 8)
A couple of studies released last year produced surprising results about the average consumers of right-wing media. “The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 [so now 68] and rising … [The] Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s.†In addition, a Pew study in February 2009 found that 72 percent of Rush Limbaugh’s grizzled Dittoheads are men and so have a life expectancy of 75.6 years, which means this cohort will expire by 2017. Limbaugh will be 60 next January, which means he will be 67 when his average-aged listeners die off…….
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/02/25/declining-conservativism-among-millenials-signals-bad-news-for-fox-news-limbaugh/
Maybe that explains the NYTimes unpopularity with their obvious “swing to the right”! Maybe the NYTimes readers (left remaining) will die out the same way.
Our problem is we’re not stupid. We don’t believe any SHIT we read, even in the NYTimes.
The Times doesn’t even work for house-breaking puppies, for Heaven’s sake. My baby Lab turns his nose up at it and stands by the door and yaps. Apparently he doesn’t want to defile his poop with the lies of Hoyt et al….
From some of the articles I have read at Editors and Publisher’s website, it would appear that Bill Keller and Hoyt have some SERIOUS differences themselves regarding Hoyt’s stance on OTHER recent stories and strategy.
I was recently reviewing the online edition of the NYT fourth quarter report.
According to my recollection, their costs have been cut,resulting in over $400 million savings, their advertising revenues are up, they intend to begin the pay for play online in 2011.
They expect increasing revnue based on their “Quality reporting”.
We’ll see,Mrs. Robinson.
Thank you much again Brad and all. Glad to read more comments digging deeper and less self congratulating. Please consider my “few dollars in the tip jar” a retainer to dig deeper. I will gladly continue to spend money here that I previously would have spent on the NYT.
Anyone find anything definitive on connecting Scaife, Breitbart, Hoyt, OKeefe and the Congresscreeps who stuffed ACORN?
Is anyone else forwarding this to Maddow, Olberman, Hartmann, Rhodes, Schultz, Miller….?
MCM December 24, 2009 Report Uncovers No Voting Fraud by Acorn By JOHN SCHWARTZ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/us/24acorn.html?scp=1&sq=ACORN+voter+fraud …
http://www.mail-archive.com/…com/msg02451.html – Cached
The NYT, on Christmas Eve, published a story -not on the front page- about ACORN’S vindication. It is worth reading, in juxtaposition of present positions being taken.
An excellent piece by Mark Crispin Miller.
The words ‘liberal’ and ‘New York Times’ do not belong in the same lexicon, let alone the same sentence.
Does everyone forget that when Molly Ivins died their go-to columnist was William friggin’ Kristol?
The NYT has never met a war it wasn’t ready to cheerlead and can’t see it’s way clear to publish Sibel Edmond’s name or story, couldn’t manage to publish the Downing Street Minutes, didn’t publish the story on NSA wiretaps until it was about to get scooped by it’s own reporters, and, oh yeah: Judith Miller.
Why are there any liberals who even bother reading it?
Sure they retain a few liberal columnists and Paul Krugman, but it’s just for cover.. sorta like the way NPR does gardening shows to run in between their guests from the Heritage Foundation.
@#61
I would suggest the Council for National Policy as an excellent point of refernce to begin connecting the dots. However, to be clear, I have NOT seen evidence of Mr. Hoyt being associated with CNP,whatsoever.
The CNP was founded in 1981,just two years after Morton Blackwell founded the Leadersip Institute, whose alumnae including the Pimpostor and his telephoneys.
(BTW, Blackwell was raised in Louisiana, and has longstanding ties to Abramoff,as they were both active in College Republicans activites.
Blackwell was Rove’s mentor.And is not coincidental, that Tony Perkins of FRC is a member,nor the David Vitter is on the LI board-they are both from Louisiana.
And ACORN’s national headquarters is in New Orleans.)
The list of Congresscritters is quite revealing,in the wonderful seek god links to the roster of Council for National Policy hard right members,downthread:
Council for National Policy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Council for National Policy (CNP), is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.htm – Cached – Similar
Seek God.ca – Council For National Policy (CNP)Introduction to The Council for National Policy (CNP) -What It Is, Jun 27, … CNP Name List By Alphabetical Listing (By Page-click Letter), Jun 1, 2001 …
http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm – Cached – Similar
Dear Renzo @ 61,
You said,
Glad to read more comments digging deeper and less self congratulating.
My dear dude/dudette,
We are for the most part toiling way in obscurity in a little closet far, far away in a forgotten corner of cyberspace in a time long, long ago. At least that’s what it often feels like. When our leader gets a little long overdue recognition please allow us a little room to celebrate. I don’t think anyone here would be anywhere near to thinking our work is done or that resting on our, Brad’s, or anyone else’s laurels is the order of the day.
To paraphrase Emma Goldman–If there isn’t dancing in you revolution, count me out.
Joy my dude, dudette. Gots to have it! Long live Bradophilia!!!
You know TRO, I think the network of groups spawned/involved with the federalist society members wound be a great place to start dot connection. (not just in this case but many of Democracy’s horrendous problems)Big players…big picture. Their greed and ambition is unbound under a veneer of polite society.
Oops, That should be; Their greed, ambition, and VIOLENCE is unbound under a veneer of polite society.
I just want to know, when will Americans wake up to the fact the above are running the theater that keeps people distracted from the fact that clean hand counted paper ballots is the quickest way to cleaning up their mess and restoring dignity to America? I mean really, why do ya think they attack Acorn and Brad?
OT
Hmmmm…. and just how did mike connel die Senator Leahey?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/26/yoo-email-deletion/
@#66 and #67
I absolutely agree about the Federalist group.
Another group that has gotten very little coverage,is the Pioneer Fund. There is a real thread of continuity between the racial animus of many far right groups-including the antics of Pimpostor and his mentors at the Leadership Institute- with the eugenics of the Pioneer Group.
Jesse Helms,one of LI’s staunchest allies was a big proponent of the Pioneer Fund’s theories.
Here is a link to MUCH information on the Pioeer Fund,deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Sarah Palin, Eugenics, the CNP and The Pioneer Fund – The … title=”The Seduction of Sarah Palin: Eugenics, CNP, and the Pioneer Fund… In a September 1, 2008 article for The Nation, Max Blumenthal reported that the …
educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14320&mode…
Ok so using Mr. Hoyt’s criteria to qualify for a retraction a Times reporter would have had to have accompanied O’Keefe!
Earth to Hoyt, Earth to Hoyt we sent you the transcript, we sent you videotaped testimony of one of the principles and we sent you reports from the other principle all three of which do not support your published position that you admit was NOT independently verified.
Turn the small Blue valve on your space suit and let a little more oxygen into to your Helmut because you mental capacities are obviously impaired
I bet the NYTimes hates the internet. The internet provided an alternative place to verify the NYTimes’ “reporting” (stenography of rightwingers).
Bottom line: the NYTimes won’t retract a false story that they have been notified is false. Instead, they attack and try and discredit the person notifying them and don’t hold the liars accountable.
Here is an important article ,posted yesterday over at Media Matters re: New York Times “Credibility Group”:
A newspaper worth paying for? | Media Matters for AmericaFeb 25, 2010 … If newspapers like The New York Times want people to pay for … In 2005, a New York Times “Credibility Group” prepared a report (PDF) for executive editor Bill Keller on steps the paper … When it comes to actually fact-checking and posting corrections …. That is an absolutely amazing statement. …
mediamatters.org/columns/201002250056
(Apologies if this has been previously linked.)
F—in lasagna’s crazy.
dude. that was me dancin. guess my dance is a tad traction oriented is all.
always lookin for another laugh. that’s the beauty of folk like brad, max blumenthal, al franken, dmitry orlov, thom hartmann,…. the more pointed the fact uncovered, the better the laugh.
speakin of traction. anyone ever consider poolin more serious funds and gettin bradblog periodically published? like FAIR.org and EXTRA? or perhaps WITH FAIR.org?
something to keep in mind for when the congresscritters, hoyt corporati and the internet fascists decide to limit and/or eliminate our access to each other.
sooner or later, we’re gonna come to terms with the fact that the only reason they haven’t come after brad and all more aggressively (and nastily) is because they don’t feel the need. yet.
Dear Renzo @ haiku 73–
That’s a capital “L” to you, Bub.
Please don’t talk about me being crazy in the third person. I’m right behind you. It feels weird. Especially when I’m feeling a little crazy.
And no thank you on the implication that my dance isn’t traction oriented. Avert.(from the Wizard of Earthsea)
sincerely,
scherzo
p.s. (I don’t mind if you write “fuckin'” out loud.)
OT: Please check it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=vOhf3OvRXKg
I have nothing to add to that…
After noodling around federalist society web site this caught my eye:
https://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.1168/pub_detail.asp
With the second round of snow my download time is slow so haven’t watched it, but the names and synopsis are quite revealing. They also have a section on voting legislation.
You like the word blistering.
You, Brad, are a liar. As is your president.
Nick Danger –
Ouch! You shore skeweled me with that one! A very well supported argument.
As to “my” President, well, yeah, I do live in the United States, and this one, unlike the previous, does appear to have actually been elected. So yeah, he is my President. Whose yours?
http://www.sangambayard-c-m.com