Talon News will be the media outlet of record soon.

That's such a skunky dismissal. It would have been on the New Yorker site last week; I went searching for it elsewhere this week, as I thought it could provide ground for a fuller-fleshed, old-fashioned even, discussion of the press.

Could have, but did not.

And Wardlet, get off the "objectivity" thing. That is a concept outdated for nearly decades now. You are too stuck there, and your almost exclusive embrace of opinion journalism takes entirely for granted ground on which to get those opinions.

In mine.

This isn't about the press, it's about Gannon, Talon, the RNC, and Bushie. Or did I miss something?

Objectivity isn't my thing, it's yours. You cited fairness and balance as criteria of good (or was it "real"?) journalism. Fox News thinks they are fair and balanced. Presumably, so does Nicholas Lemonn.

Does Lemonn really think the New Yorker doesn't have a slant, doesn't try to be entertaining, or market themselves?

Yes -- my point.



Objectivity is a word I never use, deliberately. And Fox news doesn't think it is fair and balanced, which is why they use that slogan as chant.

Your last question is leading -- and not in the direction of discussion.

I know it was your point. That's why I thought I'd try to help steer back on course. I just heard someone on CBS said Gannon was a plant, an operative, and connected to Rove, but that someone on CBS offered no proof.

HMMMMM.. not what the topic says. Of course if you want to narrow it down to Talon and Republican media manipulation we could start a new topic.

If you let the enemy dictate the battlefield you're halfway to losing before you start.(but you knew that)

I'm looking for some of those fans of the honest media to prove some stuff in the Gannon case, but maybe that's a bit much to expect. His alleged queerness alone ought to really be enough to discredit the entire administration and the GOP.

Fine, you don't use it. But mainstream journalists strive for it and pride themselves in it. I hope you don't think fairness and balance are not related to the myth of journalistic objectivity.

My last question speaks directly to what Lemonn said.

.

Lemonn distinguishes "real" journalism from entertainment, opinion, propaganda, and marketing. I am challenging Lemonn's assumptions, and yours if you agree with his.

He doesn't even mention careerirsm, which imo drives most mainstream "real" journalism.

Indeed. " Not that there's anything wrong with that" don't fly when politics are involved. I still don't see anything that proves he actually had sex with anyone, just posted pics and helped develop a website.

Still, that doesn't preclude asking a question and writing down the answer. Even a gay prostitute can do that. Ask Barney Frank.

The only analogy that I can think of to characterize this 'debate' would be the following:

- X is delusional, clinically delusional.

- Well, define 'delusion' and 'delusional'!

- A 'delusion' is x,y,z and a person is clinically delusional when . . .

- Aha, isn't delusion therefore part of the human condition? Isn't every human being not only capable of it, but may also find it useful and necessary? Have you done an exhaustive clinical study of all those supposed 'normals' to see if they wouldn't be classifiable as 'delusional'?

Etc.

Well, that clarifies everything.

In order to prove delusional, would it not be necessary to know how the curve for normal looks?

And there you have it.

Jeff Gannon is just another journalist. All journalists are biased. Therefore, no judgement can be passed on Gannon, and those who granted him access to the White House and called on him for questions.

Game, set, and match.

Roll your eyes all you want, Ward. I didn't claim that I was going to clarify anything.

Read the first sentence of my post.

YMMV

It's over. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

What Is Politics?

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense,"

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep Sh*t."

Gannon is a Republican tool. No more.

He is a fuckinggoddamned plant to attack the opposition.

He isn't a "real" journalist, he's a phony, he is a weapon.


Point him at the Democrats and blow their heads off.

"He's not connected to the GOP in anyyyyyyy way."

Ahhhhbullshit. You have got to be kidding. He's an assassin.

Dirtbag.

Republican radicals want to destroy anything that stands in their way. ANYTHING.

The media, the Democrats, AARP, (even after loooooving them for the Medicare bill), all ethics organizations, THE PUBLIC (if you don't agree) even Republican moderates for Christ's sake.

Grind them into dust. Ruin their reputations, ruin their carreers. There is no limit to what they'll do.


Gannon is just one more gun.

Where did such Devil spawn come from?

When did that line that seperated good ol' get down & slug-it-out politics from absolutely slimey, disgusting and vile, win-at-any-cost stuff that goes on these days....?

At what point did we completely lose our humanity?

He certainly ain't no reporter.

He's a political advocate.

Hail??





Nothings changed as far as politics. Politics is vicious. However, TV changed the way you market to the masses. Much easier to baffle them with BS.



When we elevated corporations to the level of people?

Hi Bee...

I just saw him on tv 2 minutes ago....on the Today show.

He was ask'd, among other things, if he advertised himself as being available as a gay escort. He sputter'd and stammer'd....and then said he'd been advised not to answer that.

He also said he uses the name "Gannon" because "Gookert" (sp) is so hard to pronounce. The interveiwer looked at him and said "I can pronounce it easily" He just looked at her for a second, then said something like it looks difficult on paper.

Just thought you'd maybe find that semi-amusing.

I wish it was. The guy's getting way more than his 15 seconds of fame.

What I want to know is what is a political advocacy group like GOPUSA doing getting a press pass?

They ain't the press.

"Gookert"?


I'd change my name even if I weren't a reporter.

Can you imagine the abuse as a child?

I recognize Bush in the center, but who are the other two

I'd probably drive you to being gay

Bee is the pretty one.

Maybe it was davis....I get them confused.

Gotta admit...I recall a picture of her also. Very good looking girl.
Too bad about the rest of the equation.

I think you'd better delete Grig.

I'm not the issue here, media bias is.

But thanks anyway.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...9/fioreacct.DTL

Hey Davis, who's this remind ya of?

Thanks.

No they don't.

Who's "Lemonn?"

Is "careerism" what drives everybody, everywhere?

You might go back and read the James Warren segments.

How deliciously undelusional.

We have a local columnist that I've read for years and still can't tell if he's a Democrat or a Republican, I talk to him occasionally and would not insult him by asking.

I've consistently said most were moderately left(barely more than myself at most), but easily left enough to make 87% Clinton/Gore/Kerry voters. I don't know what Rove thinks exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if he expected most journalists to prefer Dems over Bush though.

James Warren is correct, though, Art. The bulk of work done by mainstream journalists is (by the standards they must abide) irrelevant to their partisan leanings. The slant of the news organization is more important, and there are plenty of news organizations out there that take their craft waaaay more seriously than Talon.

Rove is apoplectic about the (old) mainstream press and screams unfair at every opportunity.