Comments on: Spinning the blogosphere

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:24:14 +0000

“Democrats and their equivalents elsewhere have too many sympathizers who have the habit of undercutting them for trivial reasons at key moments. A significant proportion of left intellectuals seem to think of their primary role as “keeping their own side honest”. (Motto: “I’d rather l;ose than win that way!”)” Without doubt, we need more fighters for dishonesty! It’s a winning tactic! Fight for lying! Fight to be scum! Go! Wow. I’m going to switch parties if anyone convinces me that’s my party. Unbefuckingbelieavable. It’s hard to believe that anyone other than a Republican would argue that Democrats should lie.

By: mk

mk — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:06:56 +0000

Ziska, YOur comment “I’m afraid that you are in some alternate universe. The SBV controversy was 95% bogus and no conservatives that I know of cared.” “Alternate universe?” You’ve godwined yourself and I guess I won that debate. Stick to the facts and try for once to leave the ad hominem rhetoric out. If Kerry asserts 3 purple, 1 silver, and one CIA guy, having two of those be definitive lies constitutes 33% lies. A second purple is under consideration as is the “V” ribbon superfluously stuck onto the silver. Additionally, Kerry denied meeting twice with the NV and in fact, as his own bio shows, he did meet them a second time in Paris. Now, NONE of this would have been a matter of concern if the DNC didn’t make it the centerpiece of the campaign and we would be talking about issues like civilized people. But the DNC did and now his lies have caught up with him and we’re stuck in a mud fight. Really, recycling Bush’s Guard record TWO elections in a row is pitiful. Secondly, Joe Lockhart admitted just today that he talked with Bill Burkett. Counting Cleland, that’s now two top Democratic players. It’s possible more may be revealed. The point is that a) they were forgeries, and b) that Kerry campaign staffers talked with Burkett BEFORE the story broke on 60. Read it at the CBS site. When you’re wrong or caught lying, at least have the intellectual integrity to admit it. Don’t call your adversary names because it transparently reflects on you, even in a strongly partisan thread like this one. Lastly, I’d still like to know: what will Kerry do about Iraq (details, please) and global terrorism? No one knows.

By: woodturtle

woodturtle — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:30:40 +0000

abb1- I don’t read French. Missed the vultures. No problem.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:07:32 +0000

Logic test of the day: Can you tell what makes this post at Crooked Timber silly? Time’s up! The answer is, if a bunch of bloggers point out that documents are forgeries, and the documents really are forgeries, then that is not “spinning.” That is pointing out a fact, which happens to be very embarrassing to CBS, and various other Democratic pundits who opined “Now we’re really going to getcha!” after the world-historically, catastrophically mean Republican convention, the nastiest since the Big Bang. “Spin” is interpreting a fact in some more or less blatantly politicized way. You don’t have to spin “Rathergate” or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps you’d like “the recent alleged forgery event involving CBS” better. Even if it is true (and in fine tradition, Crooked Timber does not even offer a rumor, merely that “Buckhead” is a well known Republican) that someone at the White House tipped off some guy in Atlanta (why him? Oh, no doubt there’s some elaborate story for that. Stay tuned . . . ), so what? Is that what, cheating or something? It’s an outrage, I tell you, an outrage! The White House dares tell bloggers that documents are fogeries! What’s next? The Gestapo pounding on our doors in the middle of the night? Mind control? Flouridation? You’ve got to admire the logic, though. CBS does an attack story based on phony documents, and liberal bloggers accuse the White House of conspiring to defend the President. Well, I’ve got to go now. I see a big W projected by searchlight up on the clouds, so it’s time to pick up my W-phone and get my secret instructions.

By: sagenz

sagenz — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:45:50 +0000

y gys r grt. rspnsbl fr blgfrkrry nd tht s ll y cn cm p wth. BS strtchd frm WP. g chck t hw tst krry s t trdsprts

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:54:33 +0000

woodturtle, re: lyrics leave something to desire The orginal French text here. I don’t know, I kinda like it. It has: “strike the iron while it’s hot”. It has cannibals and it has vultures. It’s very dramatic and solemn. It has probably been played in public more than any other song. Yeah, that’s right. What the fuck is your problem?

By: Radioman

Radioman — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:33:08 +0000

Davidness. Apparently, you haven’t seen the DEAN for President blogs, that the DNC belittled, attacked and feared. So, therefore destroyed and discredited. http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002665.html Then of course Dean attacked the DNC http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/deans-new-tv-ad-attacks-democrats-2004-01-13.html The fractured left, couldn’t seem to get along with itself then. And with a poster child like Kerry and a Cheerleader like RAthER… You’re still a fractured fairy tale.

By: Radioman

Radioman — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:50:44 +0000

By: DavidInnes

DavidInnes — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:04:29 +0000

The assertion that the White House (or more generally, as in out years, the RNC) are spinning bloggers is ominous only to the extent that the bloggers in question don’t want to participate in the spin. For at least the last eight years anyone who listens to conservative talk radio on cross-country trips will notice an astonishing consistency in subject matter day by day. Same with many conservative columnists. The RNC has been very consistent about fax-broadcasting talking points to various like-minded media. The talking points are very consistent, very clever, and very specific. Since folks get the same paycheck (or ratings, or blog hits, or whatever) whether they riff off these talking points every day as they do if they bust a gut digging up original material, there’s little economic incentive to do original work. In this context “spinning” bloggers is no more difficult, and no more ominous, than adding their names to an existing mailing lists. They get the message of the day and to the extent they?re because they?re ideologically committed to the advancement of their party, they repeat it. The irony, of course, is that leftist bloggers are less comfortable with the RNC’s Soviet-style central planning apparatus, so DNC efforts to focus their messages aren’t nearly as effective. I might add that, as a relatively conservative Proxmire/Jackson Democrat, this recent “conservative” tendency to march in lock-step with the sometimes startlingly radical RNC politburo is disquietingly reminiscent of the old Communists. I didn’t like it when the Russians did it. For the same reasons I detest it now that it’s happening here in America.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:41:23 +0000

“That’s the point of the post – I’m sorry that you are too caught up in your own self-appointed role as rightist gadfly to get it.” Summing up your response, and then when I respond to that: “I don’t think it’s worth my time engaging in discussion with someone who persistently accuses me of bad faith. You’re not worth it.” Funny that someone approachs my arguments as bad faith and then accuses me of the same when I express completely unfeigned surprise that ‘spin’ allegedly has a completely common usage that is entirely non-pejorative. I would bet that the ratio of ‘spin’ usages as expressed in non-pejorative to perjorative terms is easily less than 1 to 50. If you are going to use uncommon usages it helps to define them at the beginning unless you want people to be confused about what you mean. Spin is a very loaded word. It does not typically just “refer to the ways in which pols seek to make sure that the news is interpreted in a way that furthers their interests” in a neutral sense. The normal usage of the word is much more like: “In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favor of an event or situation that is designed to bring about the most positive result possible. While traditional public relations relies more on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics to sway audiences away from widespread (and often commonsense) perceptions.” link You seem to be spinning your definition of ‘spin’ to artificially make it appear that I am unfairly creating issues from your post, and I’m sure you will take offense at that interpretation just as you did before—because you know the actual definition of the word ‘spin’.

By: Harry

Harry — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:10:26 +0000

“Equally, I’d be very surprised if people in the Democratic party aren’t communicating with some bloggers in order to try to get their spin across…” Y’d hv n nsd trck t knw, wldn’t y, Hnry? Hs nybdy frm th Dm stblshmnt bn fdng y tlkng pnts r dvc? f ys, d tll. f nt, thn ‘d sggst y’r thr prtsn t th pnt f nsnty r sffrng frm n xcssvly tght tnfl ht.

By: thedaddy

thedaddy — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:16:59 +0000

Ww! Ths s th frst tm hv cm t ths st. Y Dmcrts(?) t lst tht s wht thnk y gys (nd ldy) sm t b ( xcldng th dd sclst r Stlnst), rlly sm t b lsng t. Y rlly dn’t gt t. Wll hr t s in smpl lngg: Th RPDTN hs bgn, t wll cnt nd wll gn spd—y dn’t hv nyplc t hd yr ls nymr. Frst t ws tht lftwng phny hstrn Mchl Bllsls wrtng bt frrms n clnl dys, thn t ws tht thr lftwng phny hstrn Drs Krns Gdwn, thn Th NY Tms ( Jysn Blr nd Hwll Rns) thn tht gy frm S tdy, Nw C-BS nd tht ld fl Rather. Lrs ll—Thr s n plc t hd- t’s vr. Nvmbr 3rd (n sprscrpt n ths typwrtr-srry) Krry nd th Dms wll b Cld (Frnch) Tst

By: Bernard Yomtov

Bernard Yomtov — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:13:48 +0000

You’re asking us to treat the faults of our own side more leniently than the faults of the other. Henry, If our side’s faults are less serious then that is surely appropriate. Perhaps what you should do is weigh the consequences of the faults before deciding how to treat them. Sucking up oxygen to talk about memos lets Bush off the hook, at least for a little while, for vastly greater offenses against the truth. You don’t have to pretend lies are true, but remember that resources, including especially time before the election, are finite, and should be used wisely.

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:08:26 +0000

We appear to have been LGFed – don’t feed the trolls. I’ll be disemvowelling them.

By: leaddog2

leaddog2 — Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:45:10 +0000

Y cll th Prsdnt Htlr, crs r srvc ppl, brn r flg nd se Frgd dcmnts t try t stl nthr lctn? D y wndr why lft-wng Dmcrts r dspsd by dcnt mrcns?