I’m Confused By Jonathan Weisman
In my experience, nobody in journalism responds well to outraged email. In fact, journalists typically take hostile reader mail as a sign that they’re doing their job well. Why that is and what it says about the profession I’ll leave for another day. But on the theory that you catch more flies with honey, or something, I sent the following email to Jonathan Weisman earlier today:
I read your article about how “Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign launched a broadside against Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, accusing him of a sexist smear, comparing his campaign to a pack of wolves on the prowl against the GOP vice presidential pick, charging that the Democratic nominee favored sex education for kindergartners, and resurrecting the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.”
This left me a bit confused. I wouldn’t want to vote for a candidate who’s sexist or who favors sex education for such young children. But I also wouldn’t want to vote for a candidate who would level those charges against an opponent in a dishonest matter. So which was it? Were McCain’s charges accurate? I was expecting your second paragraph to assess the charges you were reporting on, but which was it? Could you clarify for me?
You can email Weisman, too, through this form and his co-author on the piece Peter Slevin through this form. I have no idea if it’ll make any difference, but I think that if hundreds (thousands, even) of people were to write similar messages to Weisman and Slevin that it might prompt some kind of reaction.
114 Responses to “I’m Confused By Jonathan Weisman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Oh, your naivete is so darn cute, Matt. As if this tool cares about anything other than keeping the status quo & drawing his fat paycheck.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Email sent. Naivete intact.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
> I think that if hundreds (thousands, even) of people were to write similar messages to Weisman and Slevin that it might prompt some kind of reaction.
Yes, and that reaction will be: “Responding to calls from the blogosphere, thousands of blog-readers blog blog blog, blogging blog blog and bloggity blog blog blog.”
Haven’t you heard? The blogosphere isn’t a public square where thoughtful citizens air and test their views, seeking truth and understanding in informed, civil discussions. It’s a barren waste where justice finds no safe harbor and flocks of cawing ravens take wing and attack at the behest of their soulless masters.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
The reason they fear the Right is because they are organized. A serious letter writing campaign would matter, if only a little. But it would have to be serious. What if we sent actual letters instead of email?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Email sent. Afterward I got the following message from the Post:
Because we’re in the tank for John McCain, Washington Post staffers are not always able to reply to every message.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Sending thirty lawyers and opposition researchers to Alaska to dig up dirt on the Palin family is akin to releasing a pack of wolves, though the analogy is unfair to wolves.
Obama did support sex education for kindergartners — I’ve seen the video clip. The materials approved for five year-olds included discussions of body parts and homosexuality.
Obama and his family attended Wright’s racist, anti-American church for twenty years. Explain why this isn’t revealing of his beliefs and attitudes?
The Messiah can sneer and taunt, but he can’t take a punch. Like all the other ‘rat losers.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The 30 lawyer charge is another lie by the dishonorable J. Sidney McCain III.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Here what I sent:
Please check for what I believe is an error in the final paragraph of “As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They’re Undone”:
“A McCain quote Obama has often used — that the economy is fundamentally sound — is months old. Since he said that, McCain has said almost daily that the economy is struggling.”
I haven’t heard McCain say that the economy is struggling. I hear him say that he feels for people and communities that are struggling. This is not inconsistent with his belief that the economy is sound. I think you have detected a flip-flop where the candidate is actually trying to have it both ways.
Obama’s statement is accurate since McCain has repeated the economy is sound assertion just weeks ago and has not stated that the economy is NOT fundamentally sound.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I think that if hundreds (thousands, even) of people were to write similar messages to Weisman and Slevin that it might prompt some kind of reaction.
Oh it sure will–they’ll be permanently pissed off at Matthew Yglesias.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Email sent. Hope this has some small effect at least.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Who the hell is this E. O’Neal, and can we send him back to his rock? I want Al back; he provides entertainment value and knows his ball.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Pragmatic idealist (and others)
McCain most recently said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” on August 20th, Matt just recently wrote a post about it
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/weisman_gets_on_the_tire_swing.php
And the story about Obama sending staffers up to Alaska has been debunked.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I sent one to him the other day as well after Atrios named him wanker of the day. He is probably disconnecting his computer and pulling a typewriter out of storage as we speak. The internets are mean!
September 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Link?
To dig up dirt? Is there a way for me to explain to you that that is how you SEE what’s happening rather than the most likely explanation for why 30 lawyers may have flown to Alaska after McCain announced a previously unknown governor of Alaska as his running mate? Is there a reason I should try?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
nolaboyd, don’t worry, I’m getting bored. Posting here is like debating third-graders. Slow third-graders.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Nobody in journalism responds well to outraged e-mail from the left. Outraged e-mail, calls, and letters from the right, however, have kept journalists writing their “Shape of the Earth: Views Differ” stories for years out of fear of being labeled liberal.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Here’s mine:
Hello Mr. Weisman,
Your article today was very good. You did a good job of articulating each side’s attempts to spin the day-to-day election issues. It seems like your article could have been great if you’d provided some truth behind the spin. For example, the McCain campaign claims Obama sent 30 lawyers to Alaska to dig up dirt on Ms. Palin. The Obama camp says they didn’t. Surely there’s a verifiable truth to the story. Either he did or he didn’t. Why keep us in suspense? Why not tell us what the truth is?
Thank you!
September 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Indeed, heaven forbid we should tell five-year-olds about body parts. Surely, if we never mention the subject, children will simply assume people have the anatomy of a Ken doll.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
jg, I found the link you requested on YouTube. Took 30 seconds to find it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zQryISazAc
September 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
nolaboyd, don’t worry, I’m getting bored. Posting here is like debating third-graders. Slow third-graders.
Really? Then why don’t you quit wasting your time here and go the fuck away?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I, too, would love to see the link to this video proving Obama wants to teach little kids how to be gay.
I would love to see some evidence there are 30 people in Alaska looking into Palin’s past other than news media and McCain’s people.
Did you know that McCain hates Jews so much he wants them all forcibly converted to Christianity or killed and that he wants to cut off all funding for Israel? I’ve seen the video (I just can’t find a link to it right now.)
September 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Lauren, the charge is that Republicans lied by saying Obama supported sex education for five year olds. In fact, he sponsored the bill. I posted the YouTube clip where he spoke to Planned Parenthood and mocked those who attacked his support of kindergarten sex education.
The issue of WHETHER kindergartners should be taught about genitalia and homosexuality is a separate matter, but I look forward to the candidates debating it.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
E., it’s kind of odd how that YouTube video cuts Obama off in the middle of a sentence. Can you find one that includes the end of the sentence he was saying there, so we can hear whether or not you’re right that he was saying it was the “right thing to do” to teach kindergarten kids about sex, or whether he was referring to something else? Why not give us the facts?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Th, I posted the link. SCROLL UP and CLICK.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Nice out of context video, E. O’Neal. When he says “it’s the right thing to do,” you really can’t tell exactly what he’s talking about. Obviously the person who put together the clip wants us to think he means “sex ed” is the right thing to do.
But the audience is laughing at the idea that Obama favors sex ed for kindergartners. I’m pretty sure if we could see the previous 60 seconds of Obama’s remarks it would be clear that he’s saying educating children about sexual predators is the right thing to do.
Clearly John McCain doesn’t like this idea. He wants sexual predators to have more freedom to practice their love of children. Why does John McCain support sexual predators?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
AJD, you can search YouTube as well as I. He sponsored the bill. It’s public record.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The McCain campaign’s claim that Obama sent 30 lawyers to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin really puzzles me. I mean, even if it were true, so what? What’s so outrageous about trying to find out damaging information regarding one of your opponents?
The smear about kindergarten sex-ed is atrocious, but I can see how it might be effective. And the lipstick one is stupid and infuriating, but I guess I can see the point. But an allegation, not about a particular baseless or out-of-bounds attack against Palin, but merely that–OMG!–Obama is doing oppo research on her?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
James Gary, tell me the name of the blog where the smart progressives hang out, and I will. I’ve been unable to find it.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I think that if hundreds (thousands, even) of people were to write similar messages to Weisman and Slevin that it might prompt some kind of reaction.
The more messages he gets, the easier they are to dismiss. Don’t you know anything about the media?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I don’t believe what you are saying, E. O’Neal. Can’t you at least provide a link?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
What’s so outrageous about trying to find out damaging information regarding one of your opponents?
Tim, I think the problem is that Palin is a woman and shouldn’t have to be subjected to political scrutiny. That also explains why McCain didn’t vet her. Is that about right, E. O’Neal?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
E., good idea. I did a YouTube search and found this video, which contains the full sentence. It seems what he actually said is “it’s the right thing to do to provide age-appropriate sex education in public schools.” You were saying he was advocating age-inappropriate sex education! Lucky we caught that before you made that mistake again.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
If it’s public record why aren’t you linking to it? Why say things you could back up but then not back it up?
Did he push for teaching kids about sex or did he add something to an already existing bill?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
False.
The accusation was that Obama was for teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. That is certainly not true.
In all likelihood, you know this and intentionally lie about it, just as you intentionally lie about the “lipstick on a pig” comment.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
E. O’Neal is cute. He makes things up says progressives are stupid and runs away.
E. O’Neal please defend the state of America today as it relates to the state of America before the Republicans took over Washington….
What’s that? Oh…Exactly. Please go away now. We’ll see you in 8 years when you are complaining that we fixed everything. Just like in 2000…heh.
What a toad.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Of course he does but he’s a troll, his job is to make us talk about stupid shit rather than impoertant shit. Every ‘lefty’ blog has one of these. On Balloon Juice we used to have a guy named Darrell who did this but he left and now we’re stuck with Paul L, Tapped had Specialist, Kevin Drum had Al. I usually don’t feed them but until Palin speaks this is all we got.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
My e-mail:
Dear Mr. Weisman -
After reading your article, I felt that there was something you left out – specifically, the veracity or accuracy of those attacks leveled by Senator McCain against Senator Obama.
Did you perform any analysis of these attacks to determine whether they were true in any sense of the word? Did Obama really support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners!? Or was Sen. McCain being disingenuous?
As a faithful reader who relies on the press for such information, I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on the things you’ve said in this article.
Thanks, and dig deep!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Sigh. Age-appropriate sex education for kindergardners is teaching them about “good touches” and “bad touches”–i.e., teaching them how to protect themselves from perverts.
Now, I can see why good, solid conservatives like E. O’Neal would be worried about this–after all, most of the sex scandals involve Republicans.
What’s more worrying is that maybe this is psychological projection-that the Republicans keep trying to harm our kids–by making the environment less healthy, by calling emergency room access “universal healthcare”, and by making our food supply more dangerous, for example–but they can’t admit what miserable stewards of the public trust they’ve been, so they try to slime Obama.
There you go, E. O’Neal–I’ve tried to use as few multi-syllabic words as possible, so you ought to be able to understand it without moving your lips too much.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
E -
Actually, what Sen. Obama was proposing (as pointed out by several people now) was age appropriate sex education, not comprehensive sex education for kindergartners.
And the reason for this is simple – there had been a bunch of little kids touching other little kids in sexually inappropriate ways. Obama’s plan would’ve ensured that they were not only taught that such molestation was wrong, but why it was wrong.
But, hey – if McCain prefers sexual molestation to happen in kindergarten, good luck to him!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
message sent
September 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I wrote Weisman earlier in the week, after Jamison Foser’s piece came out. I have to believe that the volume of “WTF?” letters these guys in the press get, especially if they’re intelligent and factual, might get them thinking about their purpose as journalists a little more deeply.
But here’s the thing that drives the press vs. McCain at the moment, I think: they’ve mollycoddled this guy for so long, and swallowed Republican smears and lies in general for so long, that they don’t know how to do anything else. Simultaneously, McCain and the Republicans have dropped any pretext that truth matters, they’ve turned into a Frankensteinian lying machine and are literally telling the press (who helped make them) that they don’t matter anymore, and are almost daring the press to do something about it.
It’s another one of those “tests” for the press. They’re failing yet again, but THIS time, I think a few of them actually realize it. (Not that it helps the country, of course.)
September 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Acutally, the WaPo website has a factcheck stating that the McCain education ad is false.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/mccain_attacks_on_education.html
I wrote to Mr. Weisman asking if this information from his own newspaper should be incorporated into his reporting.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Oracle, you can make arguments in favor of opposition research, kindergarten sex education, and racist churches. Just don’t call your opponent a liar for mentioning your involvement with these things.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Emails sent. I think this is a really good idea and a nice grassroots protest. Is it possible that you might continue to do this, as something of a community organizer, so to speak? I would be happy to remind journalists about old school journalistic standards.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
E: “Just don’t call your opponent a liar for mentioning your involvement with these things.”
Why not? He is a liar. He is lying. And so are you. You are a liar. Can we make it any more clear?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Thanks for the suggestion. I sent the e-mail.
I also wrote to the raving idiot Kathleen Deveny at Newsweek who just LOVES !!!!! Sarah!!!!! even though Sarah holds views that are diametrically opposed to everything Deveny claims to believe in. Sarah is such a great role model for her 8 year old daughter because her daughter is bossy and believes “Girls rule!”
We live in a stupid, decadent culture. There is no way Weisman or Deveny will change. They were trained to be stupid, mediocre people. They are to thinking what Denny’s is to food.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
O’Neal, a lie is the attempt to deceive. When you cut context from a statement, you’re intending to deceive. It’s a moral act, and you get no points for anything technical. You wingers want to use the definition of perjury — a legal act — to cover lies. Shame, shame, shame.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Umm…E.O’Neal…I am waiting for your response to my question. I don’t see anything…
You are a toad.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The WaPo says that the “principle purpose” of the bill was to make kindergartners aware of inappropriate touching. Who cares what the “principle purpose” was? What was the content of the instruction? Shawn Hannity read from the curriculum yesterday. It included a discussion of genitals and of homosexuality. You can support this or oppose this, but it goes far beyond saying “don’t let someone touch you down there”. You don’t need a law and a curriculum to tell five year-olds that!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I just had the displeasure of briefly hearing Rush Limbaugh for the second time in ten days – two minutes each time. Both times he was talking about how Obama is in favor of infanticide. He also sounded shrill and desperate. I suspect that McCain’s polling is not as good as we are being led to believe. If it were, Limbaugh would be laying back and talking about the power of good ideas rather than carrying such heavy water. Take this for what it’s worth.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
What we need to know are why are John McCain & the Republican Party trying to protect pedophiles & child molesters?
Barack Obama backed a bill to help our vulnerable children watch out for sexual predators and seek assistance when needed.
But John McCain and the Republican Party are attacking Barack Obama for trying to make our young children safer from child molestation.
Can we trust these types of people with the most powerful office in the world?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Here is my note to Weisman and his co-author:
I agree with yglesias that folks like you can and should do more than repeat political accusations, without regard to their truth or falsity. If the objective facts do not support the accusation, speak truth to power, please. If that means the Repubs or Democrats will complain, so what? It makes your work a public service that goes beyond stenography.
If you were working for a big consulting firm, such as McKinsey, you wold not have done your job without digging into the facts, chronology, documents, witnesses, that support (or do not support) the allegations. Same if you were working in BigLaw as a lawyer, or at Goldman as an i-banker.
Even the sports casting folks are not commonly permitted to just pass on allegations without digging into the proof (if any) that is relevant.
Bloggers have a point in saying the political journalists are giving themselves (and politicians like Palin, Rove, and McCain) way too much of a free pass – just repeating allegations is not even A-quality work in college. Why should it pass for competent political journalism by a top DC news publication?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Matt, if they really didn’t care if they got outraged email, why is it that so many journalists (and editors, and publishers, and broadcasters) roll over and play dead as soon as the wingnuts come to call?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Steady Rifle, I thought your questions were rhetorical. Bush is not on the ballot this time. The choice is between two reformers and two go along/get along careerists. The public is starting to understand this, which is why Barry is stomping his feet and peeing in his pants.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
El Cid -
You forgot the tag line:
John McCain – Good for child molesters; bad for America.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Heh. That is funny. You completely dodged the question. I ask again:
E. O’Neal please defend the state of America today as it relates to the state of America before the Republicans took over Washington…
It is Democrats vs. Republican. Please answer.
You won’t. You can’t. You are a toad.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
The only significant legislative reform John McCain has ever been known for is McCain-Feingold, prompted by McCain’s own involvement in one of the biggest corruption scandals in U.S. history, and what’s more It Must Not Be Named in front of Republicans. Reformer my a**.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Who are the reformers?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Steady Rifle, Rrrribet!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I want Al back; he provides entertainment value and knows his ball.
Doubt you’ll be getting much entertainment value outa me on the election threads. I can’t for November. The election will be over (and presumably you folks will be happy with the result), the off season will be over, and hopefully Matthew can focus a little more time on basketball. How many days left of this? Fifty-something?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
*can’t wait for November.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Dr. Jonathan Weisman,
I wonder why you spent so much time in your article “McCain Camp hits Obama on More Than One Foot” talking about the way the two campaigns were “protraying” Senator McCain’s seeming falsehoods (see the column above yours by Michael Dobbs)? Your lede merely restated a mix of lies and half-truths from the McCain campaign, before indulging in paragraphs of he said, she said. Surely you must be able to verify whether these claims are true? From reading your article, however, the average reader who relied only on it to learn about yesterday’s events in the campaign would come away not knowing whether any of the claims that were made were true or had any merit. Isn’t that at least part of the purpose of such an article, and if not, whence stems the vaunted status of journalism as the “fourth branch of government”?
September 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
jg, by their fruits shall ye know them. The reformers are the two who have, you know, reformed. The careerists are the guy who’s never run anything but his mouth and the guy who’s on his sixth Senate term. I’ll leave it to you to solve the riddle from there.
Hint: It’s not the ones who’ve been waiting for themselves.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Wow, so this E. O’neal is a pedophile sympathizer as well? Amazing how many of those are coming out the woodwork now. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s not a pedophile himself, but you can’t be too careful. They are the party of Mark Foley.
Keep your kids away from E. O’neal folks.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You mean, “reform” as in Phil Gramm promoted the changes to our banking & mortgage financing system which has helped caused such destruction to the economy?
Yeah, okay, I’ll give you that. If by “reform” you mean “make everything sh*ttier”, then, yeah, okay, McCain’s a Maverick Reformer Intent On Bringing Sh*ttiness To Us All.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Shocker. I rest my case. E. O’Neal is a brain dead partisan hack who can’t defend the last 8 years of his party and is jealous of the last eight years of Democratic rule.
He doesn’t think the country is important enough to put aside his, frankly disgusting, partisanship to save it.
Definition of a toad.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Steady Rifle, aren’t you asking rather a lot from a toad? RRRibet!
September 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
McCain and Palin are reformers? Really? Is that the narrative now? I’ll paraphrase a previous question I put to you: Are you stupid or just hoping we are? You attack Biden for neing in the Senate for a long time but what about McCain? Is he a rookie or something? Palin a reformer? She sure reformed the budget of Wasilla.
Have you read 1984?
September 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
E. O’Neil has to cultivate his feeling of victimhood even as he courageously battles uphill against the liberal horde in a kind of bloodless, psychological martyrdom, for which he should be praised, as it takes one with courage to speak un-PC truths. Well done, sir. Abe Lincoln, who was a Republican and freed the slaves, would be proud.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Seitz, I have a devastating response to your charges of pedophilia but no time. The elementary school down the block is about to let out.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Yes, you do.
How many kindergarten teachers are going to be willing to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching without clearly delineated limits about what is acceptable? What bureaucrat is going to develop a curriculum on this topic without having elected officials to pass the buck to should something go wrong?
September 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
What I wrote:
Dear Mr. Weisman,
I am writing to express my concern that, in reporting on recent charges by the McCain campaign, journalists are forgetting to assess the veracity of these charges.
Your recent WP article told readers that the McCain campaign has accused Obama of making sexist smears and favoring sex education for kindergartners. Your article did not explain clearly and immediately (in your lead paragraph) what your objective investigation of the facts suggest about McCain’s accusations.
In my opinion, assessing the validity of political charges is as important as (indeed more important than) than the reporting of the tit-for-tat of campaign rhetoric. This work isn’t editorializing or taking sides. It is fulfilling the basic function of the fourth estate in a democracy.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I also wouldn’t want to vote for a candidate who would level those charges against an opponent in a dishonest matter
…in a dishonest manner.
Seriously, if you’re gonna try sounding all adult-like when learning Weisman a lesson, you might want to try getting your grammatical shit together some day. Seriously.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Please don’t feed the trolls. Mr. O’Neal, like Senator McCain and Governor Palis, will confidently repeat known falsehoods and happily refer to ‘evidence’ that does not prove his claims. Every effort to make him admit that there is any other possible truth will be ignored and ridiculed, because Mr. O’Neal knows what’s true, and does not need further reference to what the rest of us call the real world to verify his wild claims.
Either that, or he’s on the McCain payroll.
In neither cases does responding to him lead to any useful outcome.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I actually think you are a little pessimistic. Anyone who actually read the whole article would have known that McCain’s charges were bogus. I think this Lipstick on a Pig thing hasn’t exactly worked out for McCain.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Here’s my letter:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Message sent.
It’s so tedious listening to people insist they KNOW what works and what doesn’t. The now-total unchecked conflation of opinion with fact is one of the bacteria in the very petri dish that has bred Palin.
Matt — What do you think is the MSM’s “responsibility” to publicize/discuss the practice and purpose of push-polling?
(By the way, I’d frankly like to see a statement of purpose, mission, and methods for hard news from ALL major media outlets front & center on websites, TV, & hard copies. How do we hold these sources “accountable” if they themselves don’t announce the extent to which they themselves definitively accept or reject terms of accountability?)
September 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
James Gary, tell me the name of the blog where the smart progressives hang out, and I will. I’ve been unable to find it.
Try here:
http://www.wsc.co.uk/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,35/func,showcat/catid,28/
September 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Did any of you people complaining about taking remarks out of context complain when Obama said that McCain wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years? Or that McCain thinks a $5 million income is the threshold for being rich? Or that he doesn’t know how many houses he has or the difference between Shiites and Sunnis?
Physician, heal thyself!
September 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Thanks, Bill. It was a step up from this place, but still not quite what I’m looking for.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
E., have you read this article? Here are a few quotes from it:
Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
So, I don’t doubt that Hannity was reading content from the bill that discussed genitalia and homosexuality. The only problem is that those things wouldn’t be taught to five year olds, only older students in higher grades. Not only that, but the bill specifically states that parents could remove their kids from these sessions if they didn’t feel comfortable with it. Give me a break.
I assume from your last statement that you’re ceding the fact that the McCain campaign took his comments out of context and now saying “Look, Obama did it too! Na na na boo boo!” What was that thing about slow third graders?
September 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I put in that first quote as evidence that this bill couldn’t have been so heinous if it were supported by the Illinois Parent Teacher Association and the Illinois Education Association, among others…not exactly what I would think of as crazy liberal organizations looking to educate your kids about sex before they read.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
False comparisons, false equivalencies, and chosen evidence, O’Neal . . . typical but cowardly. Peddle it to folks who don’t know anything about rhetorical argument & strategy. Hey, I know, the MSM might could use you.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Mr. Weisman,
As I confused voter and reader, I was hoping if you could clear up some facts for me.
Can you please tell me how many “months old”, at the time your article went to press, Sen. McCain’s most recent comment about the economy being strong was?
Can you please tell me whether or not Sen. Obama supported teaching sex ed to kindergartners?
Can you please tell me whether or not Sen. Obama actually sent a team of operatives to Alaska to do research on Gov. Palin?
In short, rather than reprint campaign spin, can you please report the facts? Thank you.
A potentially former reader,
Peter
September 11th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Who cares what “the quintessential moronic animus of the journalistic mind” (Mailer) respnds to? 99.99% of them are burping, scratching, neurotic little feckless, hopelessly fatuous nerds. What a waste of time. H.L. Mencken, Murray Kempton, Seymour Hersh – those guys were/are good. The rest are dogshit.
“A pack of wolves”, huh? Noble, beautiful, and thrilling creatures that Dungface (Palin) likes to murder from the air. We should all pray that one wolf (or moose) corners
September 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Here’s a response from Peter Slevin, but there’s not much to it.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I forgot to save my form email, but it was the same gist as MY’s.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Here is a reply from the WP to my email to Slevin and Weisman:
With all due respect, I believe you would have to be reading pretty quickly not to find the answers you seek in Mr. Weisman’s article — and in the Washington Post’s coverage overall. Here is more information on the lipstick on a pig brouhaha. I suggest the record of our work on this is clear.
Peter Slevin
Here is my email to the WP:
# cfw Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Here is my note to Weisman and his co-author:
I agree with yglesias that folks like you can and should do more than repeat political accusations, without regard to their truth or falsity. If the objective facts do not support the accusation, speak truth to power, please. If that means the Repubs or Democrats will complain, so what? It makes your work a public service that goes beyond stenography.
If you were working for a big consulting firm, such as McKinsey, you wold not have done your job without digging into the facts, chronology, documents, witnesses, that support (or do not support) the allegations. Same if you were working in BigLaw as a lawyer, or at Goldman as an i-banker.
Even the sports casting folks are not commonly permitted to just pass on allegations without digging into the proof (if any) that is relevant.
Bloggers have a point in saying the political journalists are giving themselves (and politicians like Palin, Rove, and McCain) way too much of a free pass – just repeating allegations is not even A-quality work in college. Why should it pass for competent political journalism by a top DC news publication?
Looks to me like the WP dashed off a response about the lipstick on a pig issue, but ignored the other issues, at least in the email to me. On the plus side, we know they read some email. Any thoughts on a follow-up email, or perhaps a follow-up post from MY?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/palin_camp_takes_umbrage_at_li.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/10/obama_talks_lipstick_and_mccai.html
September 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Bob, I haven’t read the kindergarten curriculum. I’d like to. Then we’ll see what it included. Until then, we’re all just speculating. Innocence by association is no more logically conclusive than guilt by association.
CLH, I couldn’t afford to work for the MSM. The McCain campaign is paying me too much to post here. They expect me to convert literally dozens of misguided moonbats. My only worry is that the moonbats will be too stoned to remember to vote.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The 100 years thing was taken out of context, though McCain’s Iraq policy is terrible enough without it.
For the rest, I’ve seen the context. It doesn’t help.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
E, why the outrage over the bill if you haven’t read it? Or are you saying you’d rather have Sean Hannity do your work for you? In my opinion, if you’re going to complain about kindergarteners being taught about homosexuality and genitalia, shouldn’t you actually make sure that accusation is true first? Especially when the only people levying this claim are from the McCain campaign? The onus is on you to prove this, not us to defend it.
The purpose of my initial quote was to lend credence to the fact that these are associations devoted to the education of children and perhaps they had done their homework on a bill devoted to the education of children; a bill which they later supported it. Perhaps that’s too much of an assumption to make.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I got a rise out of Peter Slevin by referring to Washington Post journalists as spineless and cowardly. He has very thin skin. Get a rise out of him again by contacting him at:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/peter+slevin/
September 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Moonbat. That’s cute; I’m keeping it.
Here’s what I dig about your responses:
1) That you bothered to respond, but only to the entirely unsubstantive part of my post.
2) That you demonstrate, through entirely endearing name-calling, some commonality with the pre-schoolers discussed in the legislation (and who doesn’t love the budding wordplay of a pre-schooler?).
3) That you insist on underestimating Democrats, Independents, and even (gasp) Republicans (this might be my favorite).
4) And that you sweetly worry about the people who see through you or disagree with you — most especially do you fret about the drug use of a stereotype invented long ago by GOP party operatives. That’s kind of like worrying about the personal life of a TV character . . . like, maybe, Murphy Brown?
I’m off now. This has been great entertainment. And so cheap! But, oh, wait: This moonbat thinks you deserve a raise for your excellent and transparent efforts to keep the “conversation” off topic! Please feel free to use me as a reference.
Affectionately,
Yr Moonbat (See how suggestible I am, deep deep down!)
September 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I found the text of the sex education bill Obama supported in Illinois. http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2008/09/11/09300sb0099lv.pdf The bill does provide for sex education for K-12 where previously it had been grades 6-12. Page 5, Sec. Family life, requires instruction about HIV and safe sex. I don’t know where Hannity got the curriculum he read from yesterday, as the bill was not enacted into law. So the McCain ad should not have said this was Obama’s single accomplishment. However, the main point that he supported sex education for kindergartners is accurate. Of course, there are arguments for and against the bill, but that’s a separate matter.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
E.Oneal you twat, the devil being in the details is entirely the fucking point.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Message sent to Weisman and Slevin expressing approval of their piece and informing them of Matthew’s attempt to use his blog to bombard them with negative emails.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Moonbat says again: You, O’Whomever, can only make your argument using “chosen evidence.” That’s just flabby. Man up already.
(2) All course material and instruction in classes
____________________________________________________
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
_________________________________________________________
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
______________________________________________________
AND
(d) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
___
19 any class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if
___ —-
20 his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and
21 refusal to take or participate in the course or program shall
22 not be reason for suspension or expulsion of the pupil.
I’m gonna go dust off my pipe, natch, smoke up and imagine what it’s like to be you, without the talking points, marching orders, and pull string. I shouldn’t be long.
As ever,
Moonbat
September 11th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
MIXNER FOR HALL MONITOR ‘08!
MIXNER FOR HALL MONITOR ‘08!
September 11th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
We still haven’t figured out why John McCain and the Republican Party are opposed to making our vulnerable children safer from pedophiles and child molesters
Barack Obama supported a bill to help little children recognize sexual predators and seek help when needed.
Yet John McCain and the Republican Party are attacking Barack Obama for trying to make our children safer.
I’m just not sure we can risk our nation to politicians like John McCain who want to keep our children more vulnerable to pedophiles and child molesters.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Oh, and Mixner, feel free to report me too. I’m askeered!
September 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
CLH FOR NIXON MEMORIAL AWARD ‘08!
CLH FOR NIXON MEMORIAL AWARD ‘08!
September 11th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Nice non-sequitur, Mixy . . . That really stung, even coming from way out there in left field.
Hey, I need a pass for 2nd period. Can you help a girl out?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Just sent to Mr. Weisman and Mr. Slevin:
“Mr. Weisman,
In yesterday’s article, “McCain Camp Hits Obama On More Than One Front,” you repeated and quoted a litany accusations from the McCain campaign and his supporters.
Don’t you think it would make sense to provide some context regarding the veracity of McCain’s claims? Is McCain telling the truth when he says Obama supports sex-ed for kindgergartners? It’s McCain being genuine when he claims Obama referred to Palin as a pig? I think you know the answer to these questions.
I don’t read the Post for articles that simply repeat quotes from each side. Your readers expect more from a professional writer like yourself – I hope that your future articles will hold to a better standard.”
September 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Is Weisman just a lazy reporter that doesn’t want to go through the fact-checking process, or is he a biased spinmeister?
Here’s the most recent example, in which he lets Lindsey Graham and the McCain campaign pass off a blatantly scripted (and possibly mythical) incident regarding the bailout impasse.
Yeah, right; now they’re trying to make “the Maverick” look like the Lone Ranger.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I found this links in the previous story What it mean ?
http://lookwater189.hit.bg
http://inflatabl834.hit.bg
Would you like to criticize and witter on disinterestedy side trend with me? I’ll be hosting my blue ribbon-still FW online fash witter Friday at 12pm, answering any questions you iness bring into the world approximately elegance conundrums, where to come across any special items, what to bore decided items with, or disinterested objective to talk on yety side the obstruct that makes us swoon.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
laptop battery
February 9th, 2009 at 3:01 am
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 8:54 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I misspelled my email address on my last mail to you. Anyways, keep the site up!.
I am from Samoa and learning to write in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Whether you are a business traveler who needs a flexible ticket, or a leisure traveler that is looking for a great deal, start here.”
Thank you very much
. Ariene.
April 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
OlIS51 geudogovrzjy, [url=http://fcbwomhjddvi.com/]fcbwomhjddvi[/url], [link=http://huaatrqqisak.com/]huaatrqqisak[/link], http://xnvfdpfkvuib.com/