Punk the National Review

This has got to be the best idea EVER.

Imagine the poor editors at the NR. How on earth are they going to distinguish the sincerely fabricated stories from Republicans from the fake fabricated stories from Democrats?

You may also want to then notify the National Review that the letters were fabricated, thus embarrassing them completely.

I can see this having appeal to political columnists as well, if we can pull it off.

A.

I am somewhat concerned here; maybe I just don’t have a sense of humor.

You offered to pay people to lie. Right? To say something known to be untrue for the purpose of deception.

Are there any ethical problems with this? I would have a real problem doing it. Is it just that it is okay to lie to liars (i.e. National Review)?

Serious questions, not just trolling. I am probably wrong, but this post just set off something that bothers me, and I can’t see how to think about it clearly.

Anonymous,

Seriously, the National Review shouldn’t be publishing stories if they have absolutely no way of knowing that they are true. I’m hoping to throw that into sharp relief.

If they get an email that says “I saw John Kerry cut to the front of the line,” or “I gave John Kerry Botox” or “John Edwards ran over my puppy”- neither they nor their readers have any idea about whether it’s true or not. They’re not a hobby blogger- they’re paid professionals, and they should know better.

Timber… this no new idea… you would barely even to fathom how many of us NRO-niks have been e-mailing ANY and ALL of the Dem nominees about how they are the greatest thing since sliced bread…

I wonder what they’d make of a story about Howard Dean and Roy Neel discussing whose corpses should be dug up and hung.

(one the topics on the Corner today. Yeah, that’ll show Thurgood Marshall. Christ.)

Punking NRO, eh? The only ones I see being embarassed are the sad sacks who think this is a whale of an idea (“This’ll be better than even an all night session of Pokemon, man!”). Sure you’re welcome to try… I’d rather you be wasting your time on that rather than out convincing some poor slob that John Kerry is going to somehow improve his life through criticising military action and the Patriot Act despite the fact he voted for both, or trying to spin Howard Dean economic plans for Americans (Higher taxes! YEEEAAAGGRRHHH!!!) or telling everyone that John Edwards will get them the money they deserve! Maybe you guys are Clark fans (He’s loopier than even Dean!) or Kucinich (We must change the world through diplomacy and good mental vibrations via the ether), or maybe Sharpton (the only way to fight the man is to make ME the man).
I’m sure the folks at NRO though will appreciate the laughs. Go get ’em…and stay off the streets and out of the polling places.

Cheers,
Vrooster

…I mean, did you think all that Clark and Dean hype was for real?

Do you have anything interesting to write about on this blog? Or is “punking” the National Review the best you’ve got? Maybe you should stick to watching MTV…the National Review is oviously over your heads.

Here’s a better idea….why don’t you guys swamp NR with positive, truthful emails about the candidates? Maybe Joe Lieberman let you use his cellphone. Maybe Howard Dean gave you some of McDonald’s french fries.

That’s fine that you want to stem the tide of negativity for the folks you support, but why attempt to discredit folks who may be telling the truth? What kind of purpose does that serve…especially when you’re offering a prize for doing it?

My first thought upon reading “Jonah Goldberg’s onto the plan!” is: Goldberg’s too clueless to know what Crooked Timber is? If he had any clue about the collective brain power here, he wouldn’t be so smug.

Once again this shows how “intelligent” and “mature” liberals really are. Or aren’t. Long live conservatism!

OK, my fake story about John Kerry got posted, where’s my gift certificate? I copied it to you, Ted, just like you asked. Check the email.

They’re getting too wise at the Corner. I wrote Jonah some juicy hate mail and he didn’t even respond. Must have known it was hate mail before reading it, because, if he did read it, it would have destroyed his self esteem.

BTW, John Kerry ran over my dog and didn’t even apologize.

The only ones I see being embarassed are the sad sacks who think this is a whale of an idea (“This’ll be better than even an all night session of Pokemon, man!”).

Ladies and gentlemen, now you know the end result of four years of bringing dignity back to the White House.

By the way, sir, the Pokemon craze reached its peak and started its downhill slide back in 1999. For your next troll, might I suggest one of the following references, all guaranteed to be equally fresh and just as relevant:

1. Ted Barlow’s Hypercolor shirt is yellow and pink, the officially recognized colors of liberalism.

2. Ted “Liberal Spice” Barlow got kicked out of the world’s most popular band for being too liberal. Also, I’m implying he is a girl.

3. As sure as Boo.com stock is at $400 a share and will stay there forever and ever, Ted Barlow will always be wrong … and liberal!

How can NR get away with that? John Kerry not a nice guy? That’s simply not possible. He is a Democrat afterall! He simply MUST be wonderful right? It’s only Republicans afterall who kick puppies, beat old people or drown women in their cars. Whoops…went too far on that one.

Are the NR’s defender’s (and Ted’s detractors) actually saying that it is ok for the NR to pass on completely unverified stories because they are doing it on a blog? You don’t hold conservative publications to higher standards than that? If there were a liberal mag I liked (there isn’t, unfortunately) and it engaged in the same practice I’d cancel my subscription and be completely embarrassed. I wouldn’t defend it, even in posts on someone else’s blog. Not suggesting that liberals or leftists have higher standards than conservatives: I presume, in fact, that plenty of conservatives will be giving the NR as hard a time as Ted is, if a bit more discreetly.

Wow!! Loook at all the people come here to defend the right of the National Review to lie to them! Apparently Conservatism and Journalism don’t go together. No wonder the idea of the liberal media persists. If ABC won’t post unverified annonymous ramblings about how rude John Kerry is they must be part of the liberal machine!

the National Review is oviously [sic] over your heads.

Actually, the National Review is under my bird. But, of course, I don’t like my bird.

Drew,

If the Kerry story had been presented as an opinion (“Kerry seems like the kind of a guy who would cut to the front of a line”) I’d have no ground to stand on. But it was presented as a fact, not as unadulterated opinion.

James, I would never say that the Kerry story is false- I have no idea. But the crew at NRO have no possible way to assert that it’s true, either. If it had been somebody’s hobby blog, que sera sera. But from professional journalists, it’s pretty out of place.

f.u. guys- “appalling sense of moral equivalence”? What do you mean?

Once again this shows how “intelligent” and “mature” liberals really are. Or aren’t. Long live conservatism!
Posted by YCF · February 3, 2004 06:41 PM

Apparently American universities think liberals are better prepared for post-secondary education. And the graduation statistics proved those assumptions.

Number of Top Advanced Placement Scores (3+ out of 5) per 1000 students, year 2000:

Summary: The results of this ranking are more balanced. Of the top 10 states, only six are Democratic. Fully ten out of the worst ten states in the nation in this respect are Republican. The highest ranked, Maryland, voted Democratic.

Absolutely brilliant, sir. I salute you.

It’s just perfect. If they’re going to print unsubstantiated garbage, you can poison the supply by flooding them with booby-trapped unsubstantiated garbage. If they bothered to do proper fact checking it wouldn’t work, of course, but they don’t so it will.

Since the risk that you’ll bust them is unacceptably high, just about all they can do is whine briefly, stop printing junk, and send a short bus full of their typical readers over here to show what they’re about.

It’s all good.

I wouldn’t post an email on my website that I couldn’t verify, and my website is strictly for family and friends – so I definately would hold a political “blog” to the same standard.

And as for the NR supporters who’ve commented here, doesn’t the publishing of unsupported comments dilute the impact of other posts that are verifiably true? Doesn’t that bother you?

MD lad (lassie…couldn’t tell from the signature).

The reference to Pokemon was in fact intended to infer lame out of dateness. What I should assume that people pulling the equivalent of an old radio DJ stunt are hip and with it?

Oh yeah, they probably are all a buzz about the Janet Jackson malfunctioning wardrobe brouhaha, but everyone and their grandmother saw that. Do they listen to Radiohead? Do they snack on Li Hing Mui? Do they channel surf IFC and Sundance and trip on Kim Possible?

As for dignity, I laugh. Bush spends and bipartisans with TeddyK and TK dreams up conspiracies while Dean lets out a rebel yell and Sharpton is fawned over. Kerry maintains the apperance of dignity simply through the process of inertia.

Let the punking continue…

The words of Robert Lyman (pseudonym or not) are the most intelligent on this thread yet. But I think you’re all missing an important point about The Corner (NR’s blog):

Yes, it’s a political blog. But it isn’t a place readers go for hard news — people read The Corner for opinion and humor in quick doses. The purpose of the blog is to have a running dialogue regarding the news, not to report news itself. So when allegations of John Kerry’s rudeness came up in the news, readers sent stories about it (false or not) to NR’s writers and editors.

None of these stories were presented as hard news. Since when was saying, “Gee, I’m getting a lot of emails about how John Kerry is rude to people” a violation of journalistic code? This is a running blog on an opinion magazine, not hard journalism.

Besides, considering the main audience of The Corner, and even if these unsubstantiated stories about John Kerry were, in fact, total lies, do you really think it would result in a huge anti-Kerry firestorm, robbing him of the Democratic nomination? If the writers at NR were actually trying to spread lies and sabotage a campaign, don’t you think they’d find a better medium than an opinion-based blog read almost exclusively by conservatives?

In short, you’re all taking a light, amusing, harmless blog way too seriously.

Actually, The Corner at NRO frequently posts corrections and apologies to earlier misstatements. It may just be a front, but they seem to be pretty conscientious about admitting their mistakes and crediting the readers who identified those mistakes.

I’ve also seen the occasional positive statement about a Democratic candidate. Typically, such statements are made as an explicit contradiction of an anti-Dem statement made earlier.

So the chance of them posting positive statements about Dems is somewhat less than “vanishingly small”–even if it is somewhat less likely than them posting negative statements about President Bush.

I’d cite examples, but really, you should be reading the Corner for yourself, if you’re going to rant about what is and isn’t going on there.

Also, after you die, we’re going to gibbet your corpse.

Nah. Just kidding!

Made you look, though.

While you’re fixing modern journalism, can you do something about my morning newspaper? It publishes all sorts of inaccuracies in its “letters to the editors” section, most often from Dean supporters and other deranged anti-Bush activists. (Not just differences of opinion, but bald misstatements of fact.)

Whoops,

Summary: The Democratic states lead with 7 of the top 10 showings. The strongest performer is a Democratic state — New York. The Republican states account for 9 out of the 10 worst states in this metric.

Although your statistics are suggestive, they actually don’t show anything about the level of education of democrats vs. republicans. Implying that because the states which vote democrat also have the most well-educated populations says nothing about how the individuals within those states vote. Just going on your stats, New York might have the most well-educated population, but it is possible that all its intellectuals vote republican while its less-educated masses vote democrat.

There are studies which show that education and liberal attitudes are positively correlated, but I think what you’ve got there is a fallacy of division – arguing that because the wholes (states) have certain characteristics, then the parts (voters) must have the same characteristics.

All that being said, your conclusion is probably right.

I dunno, this Mr Crooked Timber man sounds kinda like a lumberjack. I think Mr Timber isn’t to be trusted, because you know, he likes to wear women’s clothing.

lyman-

First off, Kristof: the whole point here is that these posts are anonymous – there is no way whatsoever to judge their veracity. Whereas, in your anecdote about Nicholas Kristof, I can’t help but notice that you’ve identified him, apparently as “Nicholas Kristof.” I wonder whether it’s possible to research this “Kristof” person to help gauge the likelihood of his veracity?

[Shorter fourth lyman paragraph: “He said something we didn’t agree with, so my friends & I agreed he was lying.”]

Also:

“Absolutely.”

– White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

Glad you & your buddies have debunked that one too! “See, Ari didn’t say ‘imminent threat.’ The reporter did.”

Finally, when people cite personal experience to back up an argument in a a blog comment, it’s treated as an illustration, not a proof. And when someone *cough*McArdle*cough* continually offers suspiciously self-serving “personal experiences,” that person’s experiences are discounted further. As we’ve all seen in the cases of certain once well-regarded bloggers.

All of which is different from simple smear campaigns on the level of “For a good time, call….” Yes, it’s a continuum, blah blah, but the bottom line is that there’s a common sense distinction between presenting fact-free smears as evidence of bad character and anecdotal give-and-take.

dalai,

You’re right about the fact that even a state average comes from numbers with a broad range.

However, given that an increasing percentage of adults in Democratic states are well-educated and that the education, health*, and wealth** gap between Blue and Red states is widening, is it not fair to say that Blue societies lead to a better environment — and consequently, better education as well?

*: I don’t have the national health coverage stats in front of me, but I saw this the other day:

Percentage of uninsured children under 19 at or below 200% of poverty, years 2000-2002 (average):

Summary: The Republican state of Texas, in the aftermath of Mr Bush’s governorship, had the nation’s highest percentage of uninsured, extremely poor children at 15.88% between the years 2000 and 2002 — 4.44 percentage points apart from the second worst state, Arizona. Arizona is one of thirteen Republican states among the nation’s fifteen most afflicted states in this respect.

Democratic Vermont holds the nation’s best record in this ranking at 2.16%. Of the fifteen states with the lowest percentage of such unfortunate children, eleven are Democratic.

**: Median income, years 2000, 2001, 2002 (average):

Summary: Democratic Maryland boasts the 50 states’ largest median income. Seven of the ten top earning states are Democratic. Aside from Maine and New Mexico, Democratic states are within the 29 states earning the most in the country. Nine of the ten states where one earned, on average, the least are Republican. This group includes the nation’s lowest average earner, West Virginia.

Gosh, it’s quite revelatory to see what a link from the Moroner brings in. This must be like living near a sewage outlet.

I think this is a clever idea, and probably a future discussion question in some Ethics of Journalism class. But let me take this in a slightly different direction.

The thing about, say, the Kerry story is that it seems like it’d be the sort of dumb thing spiteful people make up, but–as the NRO faithful have pointed out–we can’t be sure, because it could be true. So–let’s review. Kerry allegedly cut line at a B&N and got sassed by a clerk. So there must have been at least a dozen witnesses to this specific event, including the friend of the guy who wrote in.

Let’s have a secondary contest–can anyone verify this story? And will those who think they can all claim they saw Kerry at the same B&N, on the same day? I’ll split $100 worth of Amazon gift certificates among each and every witness who comes forward with a credible account that is corroborated by a plurality of other accounts…AND I’ll devote a day of my liberal blog to how the NRO was right, and Kerry is a jerk.

Any takers? I realize it’s a slim chance that a witness is reading this post, but come on, conservatives–put this on your blogs and see what you can come up with.

Look, NRO do not present the emails they post as fact; the present them as emails from a reader. This assumes that the reader has the mental capacity to evaluate the sources of information and make up their own mind on the veracity of that information. NRO would only be in the wrong if they wrote a story about John Kerry under one of the contributors names that claimed as a factual matter that John Kerry did whatever, with the only source being the emails. There is nothing wrong IN ANY WAY with posting and email and saying, “Here’s an email, take it for what its worth.” This is why Jonah Goldberg wrote, “Corner readers [given the posts above, I think he was right to limit this to a particular subset of readers] — understand that some emails should certainly be taken with a grain of salt on the off-chance a correspondent is embellishing”

brian: a median point can’t tell you anything about the number of outliers

whoops,

I certainly wouldn’t dispute the claim that Democrat-run states are likely to be better off, happier, healthier places than the alternative. And I, like you, am inclined to believe that it is partly because of the differences between the two parties.

On the other hand, to be a stickler for logic, there is a possibility of reverse causality. Thus, when you say “is it not fair to say that Blue societies lead to a better environment — and consequently, better education as well?“, one might reasonably object that it goes the other way. A better ‘environment’ (I think you were using this to mean social environment, right?) might cause people to vote democratic, even if the cause of the better environment is something totally unrelated like, say, the weather.

Did the level of uninsured/children in poverty go up during Bush’s tenure as Governor of Texas? Can we show the connection as opposed to just the correlation?

Just playing devil’s advocate.

I don’t understand why voters in Red states, after looking at a Red vs. Blue map of the country along with quality of life statistics, don’t understand that they’ve been making the wrong choices for themselves and their children.

I don’t understand why voters in Red states, after looking at a Red vs. Blue map of the country along with quality of life statistics, don’t understand that they’ve been making the wrong choices for themselves and their children.
———————————

Oh man, now you’re just trying to push my buttons, right????

Sorry, this is me going into kneejerk-lefty reaction mode. Nothing pisses me off more than when someone suggests he/she somehow knows what’s “better” for a group of people they absolutely know nothing about except for their perceived political affiliation (by basing it on a general measure; whether they live in a “blue” state or a “red” state). That is the height of ivory tower elitism.

The reference to Pokemon was in fact intended to infer lame out of dateness.

The word you’re looking for is “demonstrate”, not “infer.”

Do they listen to Radiohead? Do they snack on Li Hing Mui? Do they channel surf IFC and Sundance and trip on Kim Possible?

If the answer is “yes” will you go away? Do you promise it? I know it will be quite a task finding a liberal who is into independent movies and alternative music (God knows if there’s anywhere you can’t find an arthouse cinema or a small record store that specializes in vinyl it’s a left-wing college town), but that’s a risk I’m willing to take.

Do they listen to Radiohead? Do they snack on Li Hing Mui? Do they channel surf IFC and Sundance and trip on Kim Possible?
———————————

For this urban-dwelling, 25 year-old conservative it’s My Bloody Valentine/Ride/Spiritualized while snacking on tapas and surfing Discovery, ESPN, and CNBC. Of course, that’s not when I’m browsing the used book stores or catching a show at Visions in DC, trying to figure out color Fender Jazzmaster I want to buy,deciding if I really want that second tattoo, or heading out for a few pints.

I’m having a hard time seeing why occasionally posting letters from readers, as NRO does, is any worse than having a comments section, as Crooked Timber does, where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything.

dalai,

Children under 19 in Texas:

Total, B200P, B200P%, UB200P, UB200P%

1993-5:
5,754 2,956 51.4 1,031 17.9
1994-6:
5,841 2,958 50.6 1,074 18.4
1995-7:
5,893 2,934 49.8 1,034 17.6
1996-8:
5,992 2,971 49.6 1,084 18.1
1997-9:
5,979 2,873 48.0 1,040 17.4
1998-2000:
5,977 2,768 46.3 973   16.3
1999-2001:
6,241 2,884 46.2 990   15.9
2000-2002:
6,378 2,998 47.0 1,013 15.9	

Total: Total children under 19, all income levels
B200P: number at or below the 200% poverty line
B200P%: B200P as a percentage of the Total
UB200P: uninsured number at or below the 200% poverty line
UB200P%: UB200P as a percentage of the Total

“I’m having a hard time seeing why occasionally posting letters from readers, as NRO does, is any worse than having a comments section, as Crooked Timber does, where absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything.”

Posting letters from readers implies a certain level of quality control, even endorsement, by the blog owner, that simply having an open comments section does not have.

I would certainly agree that it’s a bad idea to make broad general inferences about political blogs based on some random comment in open discussion. Of course, I’ve only seen such inferences made by right-wingers, about non-right-wing blogs.

sorry for the double post with the table… was just making the font monospaced.

Dear vroosterat,

How are the economies of West Virginia, Alabama, and Wyoming doing?

love,
daniel

One more thing about Welfare States: why do republicans get agriculture subsidies but democrats get no informatics subsidies?

do people here really see no difference between a comments section and letters that are posted on the blog itself? It’s the difference between the city of Wherever allowing people to hang posters on their lampposts regardless of their content–maybe with some restrictions about profanity or threats–and having city employees xerox and hang their favorite posters.

You’ll have to clear this statement up for me. Mostly on how political affiliation affects job market prospects.
————————–
Sorry, I meant people living in and benefiting from the resources provided by Blue states.

Just a quick question though…a few posts up, you came to the conclusion that Maryland, a state with a Republican governor, was in fact a Democratic state. Could you elaborate?
—————————
A Blue state is usually defined as one whose electoral votes went for Gore in 2000.

Enlighten me on what an “informatics subsidy” is and why Dems don’t get them?

Informatics is also known as Computer Science. Software developers and the like receive no special funding from the government.

Census data shows Blue states depending on the computer industry more than Red states do.

Also, see this article (please disregard the inflamatory title):

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0401.florida.html

Posting letters from readers implies a certain level of quality control, even endorsement, by the blog owner, that simply having an open comments section does not have.

Well, it doesn’t just “imply” a certain level of quality control. It *is* a certain level of quality control, that an open comments section does not have. So the complaint is, too much quality control?

To be clear, I’m fine with open comment sections too. We know the comments are from readers, and can judge for ourselves how reliable they are. Just like the reader emails at NRO, which are clearly labeled as such.

Informatics is also known as Computer Science. Software developers and the like receive no special funding from the government.
——————————
This is not true. I track Congressional funding for a living.

I know you are, but what am I?

“In most places, you can post ads for almost anything.”

1. this is precisely my point. You can post ads for anything, but it would be inappropriate for the city or college to post a lot of things.

2. If you’re reprinting something that you have no particular reason to believe is true or that you believe is untrue, you have an obligation to point this out.

3. If the rule in an opinion column or blog is “anything goes”, why are y’all so freaking obsessed with Paul Krugman? Sure, people are responsible for forming their own opinions, but those claiming to be journalists have responsibilities too–and those include not printing allegations that are as likely as not to be made up.

Great. I’d be happy to learn where I can pass go and collect my extra check then.
———————————
Well, I’m about to provide you with a service that’s lots of other folks pay a lot of money for…I’m going to tell you how.

First of all, you need to go to the government. They’re not going to come to you. They don’t even know you exist, at least in terms of funding priorities. There are a couple of ways you could do this. You could try the Senator of Congressman of your home state/district and the staff memebr which handles the issues most closely related to your project. If he’s an appropriator, that’s a bonus right there. Be prepared to present a white paper on what it is you’re looking to fund, and why the government should fund it. Some members will specifically ask for justification. They’ll also want to know what kinds of funding, if any, you’ve received in the past.

It would probably help to find out which department and account you should seek funding under…you know DoD RDT&E, Homeland Security, whatever. You’ll kind of have to figure this one out yourself, or hire someone specializing in Washington representation to help you with this. It also helps to talk to House/Senate Approps staff.

Provided you make it through all of the different votes, you’ll be good to go.

Well, it doesn’t just “imply” a certain level of quality control. It is a certain level of quality control, that an open comments section does not have. So the complaint is, too much quality control?

To be clear, I’m fine with open comment sections too. We know the comments are from readers, and can judge for ourselves how reliable they are. Just like the reader emails at NRO, which are clearly labeled as such.

By picking out an email and posting it on the blog, you’re implying that the email is worth showing to all of your readers, as opposed to all the email that you receive but don’t post. The complaint is that Jonah picked this email out of all the ones he received, and said basically “Hey! Look at this! I think you all should see this.” That implies either that he thought that the story was probably true, or wanted to point it out to everyone even though it wasn’t proven true. With a comment section, readers can just post whatever they want, and no endorsement by the website’s author is implied.

In short, the complaint is too much quality control was implied for an email that Jonah probably didn’t even try to verify.

Here’s one, Ted:

The Corner

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

SENATOR ROAD RAGE? [Jonah Goldberg]

Just received the following, re everybody’s favorite Boston Brahmin running for president, from a reader:

“Dear Jonah, K-Lo and the gang at NRO,

“This is a true story that I thought you might find interesting. One time John Kerry cut our car off in traffic, causing me to bite off Dick Cheney’s cock, as I was giving him a hummer in the back seat of George W Bush’s SUV at the time. George himself was so startled by being cut off that he totally snaffled the rail of coke he was doing, blowing out a huge dust cloud of Peruvian flake into the trigger mechanism of Karl Rove’s (he was in the passenger seat) sniper rifle, causing Karl to miss out on a perfect shot on Paul Wellstone, who was crossing the street in front of us.

“Fortunately, Dick was able to sew his dick back on, and we got Wellstone in a plane crash later. Also, George was able to score another eightball from an orderly at the ER where we took Dick.

“Hugs and kisses, Peggy Noonan”

Of course we can’t vouch for the authenticity of this, but if Kerry has the same problem with flying off the handle – behind the wheel no less – as Dean, he’s in trouble.

Posted at 04:59 PM

Although I now realize my English Degree, coming from a Texas University, is marginalized by liberal elites, here goes.

When I say something, I am Implying. The way you take it, is Infering.

Hey Brian,
” Yes, I absolutely think there’s something good about defending NR. I can understand why you probably don’t…it’s a publication diametrically opposed to your ideals and beliefs. That’s fine. Individuality is the essence of conservatism, so as a conservative I don’t expect anyone or any publication to please 100% of the public. I don’t care if you like it or not, nor do I expect you to like it at all.”

You seem a little confused – you think that “individuality is the essence of conservatism,” but then you write as though it’s good to defend NRO as if it were the exemplar of conservatism as you define it.

What, then, pray tell, is NRO doing running articles opposing the choice of gay marriage because it undermines a traditional social institution – by contributing editor Stanley Kurtz, http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp – and criticizing the media for “distort[ing] the sexual narrative” from its proper connection with reproduction, and for “pushing the line of broadcast standards past the basest denominator of decency, alienating legions of people of values” – as expressed by guest commentator Nicole Gelinas, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gelinas200402030859.asp?

Methinks you’ve conflated conservatism and libertarianism. I’d agree that individualism is more or less the essence of libertarianism, but individualism is most certainly not the essence either of conservatism or of NRO.

1. I still find your analogy less than apt. FIrst, You distinguish between two mediums – comments and blog – yet you only use one medium – the post – where it is generally accepted that anyone (incl. colleges and gov’t) can post. Perhaps you meant to distinguish (for example) between a streetpole and a city government bullitin board. Second, if a city told its employees to post its favorite posters (perhaps to “beutify the city”), it wouldn’t be vouching for the opinions expressed by their employees because the understanding is that the employees are choosing their own personal favorites, not something the city says they have to post. The underlying question here is vouching. In posting, NRO did not say that the posted was true and, most importantly, identified that the source was a single reader.

2. I guess NRO could say, “Here’s an email we received; We think its interesting. While we have no particular reason to doubt its veracity, there is always the possibility that this particular reader could have made the story up. Further, as we receive many emails we have not fully checked into this particular reader’s credibility,” but it seems like this would be tacitly understood by most intelligent readers simply by the context.

3. First, Paul Krugman presents his own ideas and, therefore, inheretly vouches for them with his reputation as a journalist for the times and a professor. Conservatives feel that often Paul Krugman, in representing himself in his column, says things that are in some cases arguably wrong and, in others, factually untrue. THe former is OK in an opinion column, the latter is relevant as to Krugman’s credibility. However, the Krugman-type situation is not what’s going on here. Goldberg did not present the letter in one of his columns as proof of anything or as a basis for any of his beliefs, nor did he say that he knew it to be true. Certainly, it was implied that he thought the story was probably true, but that’s noting more than saying, “I don’t know for sure, but I believe this guy.” – compeletely OK for an op/ed columnist in a blog. Second, you should distinguish between blogs and opinion columns, especial newspaper op/ed. Third, nobody said “anything goes.” Obscuring the source of information would not be OK, nor would presenting the email in a way to make it look difinitive, nor would explicitly vouching for its credibility in the absense of corroboration. NRO did none of these things; there is simply nothing wrong with posting a letter and saying, “here’s an email I got, take it for what it’s worth” (Nothing there hinders one from deciding that the information isn’t worth much).

nat whilk,

Since we’re talking about societies, I assume you meant predominantly African-American communities. We should then likewise include the caucasian community from Wyoming.

You seem a little confused – you think that “individuality is the essence of conservatism,” but then you write as though it’s good to defend NRO as if it were the exemplar of conservatism as you define it.
——————————–
I don’t think I ever said NR was the “exemplar of conservatism”. But that proves my point. I don’t march lockstep with NR, yet I find it worthy enough to defend. Do I find things I disagree with there? Absolutely. But so what? There’s no virtue in defending something or someone solely because they agree with you on every single minute detail that can possibly be scrounged up. I’m open-minded enough to understand that not everyone is going to agree with me wholesale. Regardless of what I agree with or disagree with in NR, it’s a publication I like and a publication I learn from. I also like The Nation. I subscribe to both. Did I just your mind or what?

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Jonah was implying that the story was true. But obviously, he thought that the story was worth mentioning for some reason. Now, what reason do you think that is? He’s not swearing on his mother’s grave that the story is true, but the fact that he posted it indicates: 1.) that he believes it is true, and/or 2.) that he hopes that some people will assume that it is true. What else could have motivated him to post it? Maybe it’s not an “endorsement,” but it does show that he wants the story heard, and he’s doing his best to ensure that it is. Don’t you think that this distinguishes Jonah from someone who merely put up a comment board?
——–
Goldberg is an opinion columnist; expressing his opinion is what he does. There is nothing that says ANYONE has to be nice to John Kerry. If Goldberg thinks (rationally or irrationally) that Kerry is a jerk, he has the right to express that view and post letter from other people who agree, so long as he does not say “I know this guy is telling the truth” when, in fact, he does not. If it turned out that the story is not true, you could certainly attack the reader for being dishonest and Goldberg for being gullible. But, that is not what this is about – the attack is that Goldberg acted unethically. Simply, he did not.

You singlehandedly discredited every single “anonymous” anecdotal e-mail that NRO will ever publish attacking any of the Democratic candidates.
—–
Goldberg noted that the emails are not annonymous to him – he can check with the source. He only leaves the name and address off so that people who have better things to do don’t have to deal with “The Attack of Ten Thousand Liberal Bloggers.” In other words, simply sending an annonymous email is now a tip-off to NRO that the this site or others like it is the source. Have fun.

A comments section and a blog are both html websites, often with a similar format. The difference is who’s doing the posting. Same with my analogy. I am comparing it to the mayor or the public works commissioner or whoever picking one poster, and having employees xerox it and hang it all over town.

If there’s no reason to believe it’s true, what is the point of publishing it? Is it interesting that someone would make up a story about John Kerry being a snob? Intelligent viewers and listeners should know not to take anything they hear on Fox or Limbaugh seriously until it’s independently confirmed, as far as I’m concerned, but other people don’t see it that way and it doesn’t absolve them of responsibility. Otherwise shoddy journalism becomes its own excuse.

I don’t think an opinion column means you can responsibly print any rumor you hear, and I don’t think having someone else tell you something means you’re not responsible in any way for its truth or falsehood.

alaska jack,

I assume he would require proof that your story is fabricated.

For example, you could send a letter claiming Candidate X slapped a woman in State A along with proof that he was in State B at the time.

Goldberg is an opinion columnist; expressing his opinion is what he does. There is nothing that says ANYONE has to be nice to John Kerry. If Goldberg thinks (rationally or irrationally) that Kerry is a jerk, he has the right to express that view and post letter from other people who agree, so long as he does not say “I know this guy is telling the truth” when, in fact, he does not. If it turned out that the story is not true, you could certainly attack the reader for being dishonest and Goldberg for being gullible. But, that is not what this is about – the attack is that Goldberg acted unethically. Simply, he did not.

If Jonah posted the story because he honestly believed that the story was true, then yes, he’d be gullible rather than unethical. On the other hand, if he knew for sure that the story was phony, you would agree that he was unethical, right? The question is, how do you classify the grey area? In my opinion, if you honestly have no idea whether a story is true, you shouldn’t publish it. If you have so little regard for the truth that you’ll pass along any rumor that fits your agenda, then I’d call that unethical. Perhaps you disagree on the “ethics” issue, but would you really have respect for Goldberg as a commentator if he did this sort of thing all the time?

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Jonah was implying that the story was true. But obviously, he thought that the story was worth mentioning for some reason. Now, what reason do you think that is? He’s not swearing on his mother’s grave that the story is true, but the fact that he posted it indicates: 1.) that he believes it is true, and/or 2.) that he hopes that some people will assume that it is true. What else could have motivated him to post it?

3. He thinks it’s interesting. Not that 1 and 2 are necessarily wrong, but NRO is essentially entertainemnt. He posts things that he thinks people might find interesting and/or entertaining. This is particularly true in Jonah’s case. Some people at NRO are dull, humorless ideologues. Jonah posts links to penguin hitting games, funny videos, anything that strikes his fancy. If you want to say that he would never post similar stories about Bush, you’re right. NRO is basically going to print things that appeal to Republicans. We all know this, and can take their postings for whatever they’re worth. Half the authors over there I just breeze right by.

If Jonah posted the story because he honestly believed that the story was true, then yes, he’d be gullible rather than unethical. On the other hand, if he knew for sure that the story was phony, you would agree that he was unethical, right?
——
Of course I agree that posting what you know NOT to be true is unethical. However, I didn’t include that part because I didn’t think it was even involved here – everyone seems to be pointing to Goldberg’s posting as a sign that he does, in fact, believe it to be true. Further, it’s highly unlikely that Goldberg would post the story if he knew it to be untrue – there’s just nothing in it for him: “Kerry cuts in line” is too trivial to be picked up by CNN or FOX; Corner readers are generally conservatives who don’t need to be convinced not to vote for Kerry whether he’s a jerk or not; Liberals just won’t believe it. If you could prove Goldberg deliberatly posted a story he knew to be false, I would stop defending him.

The question is, how do you classify the grey area? In my opinion, if you honestly have no idea whether a story is true, you shouldn’t publish it. If you have so little regard for the truth that you’ll pass along any rumor that fits your agenda, then I’d call that unethical. Perhaps you disagree on the “ethics” issue, but would you really have respect for Goldberg as a commentator if he did this sort of thing all the time?
——
I have to disagree that this is a “grey area case.” To make it such, you have to assume that he had no idea that the story was false or that he seriously doubted it. This is a huge assumption; Goldberg stated that he has the contact info for the sender and he’s no novice – he’s been in the opinion business for a little while now – I think he’s probably able to make up his mind fairly confindently on the veracity of sources. He already stated that he receives a great deal of email that he declines to post because it “seems too good to be true.” That’s the problem with the attacks here – they can only be sustained on highly unlikely, conspiracy-theory assumptions.

Several points.

A blog for NR, precisely because it is sponsored by a well known national publication, most certainly should subscribe to some real journalistic standards. It’s not Ma and Pa Kettle’s vanity site, right? If such a blog publishes an email, there’s some real expectation that it has had a little due diligence applied beforehand. This is one of the reasons, of course, that it is the perfect venue for the Crazy Right Wing Conspiracy to spread its rumors and lies.

It’s important to note as well that Jonah Goldberg defends his using the email, by suggesting (though never quite asserting) that he knows who it was who wrote the email, and that this person is, by his lights, creditable (because he/she is “known” to him). And Goldberg ALSO implies that the email is confirmed by, and confirms, a previous story (of equal merit, no doubt) regarding a visit the Kerrys made to a restaurant. The use of the email was, therefore, hardly just to be taken with “a grain of salt”, an attitude in any case never suggested in Goldberg’s original post. No, it was clearly intended to spread an ugly, unsubstantiated rumor. (And of course Goldberg still does NOT tell us who this person is.)

As to the question of whether the letter was based on a real incident, I point to the following web page, which describes a previous iteration of essentially the same rumor, applied to some different liberal personalities.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/fonda.asp

If you want, do a Google search on the phrase “Do you know who I am?”, and you’ll find plenty of jokes and anecdotes with clerks coming up with snappy answers to some self-important person. It’s a staple piece of fiction.

Only a conman would publish the email, and only a fool would believe it. But Goldberg is such a conman, and his right wing readers are such fools.

I came over here after Jonah posted your info in The Corner. According to what I read there, you all believe that you have considerable intellectual power. I enjoy reading the thoughts of the occasional intelligent liberal, so I read through the entire page, hoping to read a single thoughtful comment.

I wasted my time. Kristof you aren’t.

Actually, here’s the real problem with this thread: we’re all acting as if the National Review normally upholds high standards of journalism. They should, but they don’t. Off the top of my head I can think of several lousy anti-gay pieces and an article about Jean Chretien and terror that completely misrepresents the Maher Arar case. Those were the magazine itself; the blog is worse, the only standard is “You know what I heard?” I can’t imagine, say, Tapped writing the leftish equivalent of the stuff the Corner puts out. (a few writers are different, but only a few.)

(They also seem to think today is Super Tuesday, based on their website.)

Most of them with fake email addresses like yours.

Actually, here’s the real problem with this thread: we’re all acting as if the National Review normally upholds high standards of journalism. They should, but they don’t. Off the top of my head I can think of several lousy anti-gay pieces and an article about Jean Chretien and terror that completely misrepresents the Maher Arar case. Those were the magazine itself; the blog is worse, the only standard is “You know what I heard?” I can’t imagine, say, Tapped writing the leftish equivalent of the stuff the Corner puts out. (a few writers are different, but only a few.)
——–
Its an opinion journal. I know liberals have trouble accepting that people can disagree with your positions honestly and not be stuid, cold-hearted, or racist, but its true. Expressing conservative opinion is not yet a crime. I just wish we could get over this “attacking the messenger” impulse. I don’t think journals like The Nation, etc. uphold any higher standards, but I don’t begrude its right to exist and people’s right to hold liberal opinion. More importatnly, I’m more intersted in attacking liberal arguments than in expressing my disdain for the liberal publications. We could deal instead with serious arguments. Instead of saying, “NR is full of lying liars and has the journalistic standards of a cockroach.” how about, “I disagree with ____ in NR because….” And before you say, but NR attacked Kerry – it was presented as an amusing anecdote for conservatives, and a reason why he might have trouble getting support in the long run, not as a reason to vote against him – his policies and voting record are reason enough.

If Jonah posted the story because he honestly believed that the story was true, then yes, he’d be gullible rather than unethical. On the other hand, if he knew for sure that the story was phony, you would agree that he was unethical, right?
———
Of course I agree that posting what you know NOT to be true is unethical. However, I didn’t include that part because I didn’t think it was even involved here – everyone seems to be pointing to Goldberg’s posting as a sign that he does, in fact, believe it to be true. Further, it’s highly unlikely that Goldberg would post the story if he knew it to be untrue – there’s just nothing in it for him: “Kerry cuts in line” is too trivial to be picked up by CNN or FOX; Corner readers are generally conservatives who don’t need to be convinced not to vote for Kerry whether he’s a jerk or not; Liberals just won’t believe it. If you could prove Goldberg deliberatly posted a story he knew to be false, I would stop defending him.

——————

The point of my question was to see how much emphasis you’re putting on the magic words “A reader tells me…” Jonah could publish something he knows to be completely false, but his statement would still be true if he phrased it “A reader tells me that John Kerry did this or that awful thing.” If you grant that this is unethical, then you grant that technically true statements that imply something not necessarily true can be unethical. Thus, the debate is not really about whether Goldberg lied, but whether he did something unethical despite telling the truth. Anyway, moving on…

—————————-
—————————-
The question is, how do you classify the grey area? In my opinion, if you honestly have no idea whether a story is true, you shouldn’t publish it. If you have so little regard for the truth that you’ll pass along any rumor that fits your agenda, then I’d call that unethical. Perhaps you disagree on the “ethics” issue, but would you really have respect for Goldberg as a commentator if he did this sort of thing all the time?
———
I have to disagree that this is a “grey area case.” To make it such, you have to assume that he had no idea that the story was false or that he seriously doubted it. This is a huge assumption; Goldberg stated that he has the contact info for the sender and he’s no novice – he’s been in the opinion business for a little while now – I think he’s probably able to make up his mind fairly confindently on the veracity of sources. He already stated that he receives a great deal of email that he declines to post because it “seems too good to be true.” That’s the problem with the attacks here – they can only be sustained on highly unlikely, conspiracy-theory assumptions.

———————–

I think that it comes down to this: You trust Jonah to publish information that’s relatively reliable. I don’t. You think he would only publish this letter if he had strong evidence that it was true. I think he’s willing to pass on this story because it’s damaging to Kerry and sounds true enough not to be ridiculous. You haven’t given me any reason to believe that Goldberg had more to support this story besides a name, an email address, and the fact that it didn’t strike him immediately as false. Thus, I think it’s fair to call it a “grey area” case; as far as we know, he had no idea whether this was a true story or a total lie.

1) Ruta spoke to her, in person. Very different from an email from an anonymous address.

2) The plausibility of what you are claiming matters. If I tell a reporter I support Dean and why, I don’t expect him/her to ask for a character witness. If I tell a reporter I saw Dean under-tip a waitress at a diner and make her cry, I expect more skepticism. If I tell a reporter I saw Dean beat up a waitress, a higher standard still. etc, etc.

For what feels like the twentieth time: The fact that NR is an opinion journal does not excuse their omitting or misrepresenting key facts or printing rumors with no verification. To the extent that the Nation does it too–which I can readily believe of a few of their writers, but not others and I see zero examples–that’s not okay either. I never said anything about cockroaches or crimes, so spare me the indignation over that. I’m talking about good and lousy journalism.

The point of my question was to see how much emphasis you’re putting on the magic words “A reader tells me…” Jonah could publish something he knows to be completely false, but his statement would still be true if he phrased it “A reader tells me that John Kerry did this or that awful thing.” If you grant that this is unethical, then you grant that technically true statements that imply something not necessarily true can be unethical. Thus, the debate is not really about whether Goldberg lied, but whether he did something unethical despite telling the truth. Anyway, moving on…
——–
You assume a)Goldberg accepted the email immediatly at face value and did not communicate with the author, b) that he had not interacted previously with the author of the email and, therefore, have a basis on which to evaluate his credibility, c) that he hadn’t heard other accounts of Kerry from other people which suggested a pattern of behavior into which the story fit. etc. I’m perfectly willing to admit that it is possible that Goldberg could have been more careful in checking out the story, but you’ve assumed the worst of him in every case based primarily on his conservative ideology (whether you will admit that or not) and that, I think, is a mistake without more evidence. I mean only that you (and the more vitrolic members of this board) should admit, as I have, your assumptions could just as easily be incorrect as correct and reserve judgment.

I think that it comes down to this: You trust Jonah to publish information that’s relatively reliable. I don’t. You think he would only publish this letter if he had strong evidence that it was true. I think he’s willing to pass on this story because it’s damaging to Kerry and sounds true enough not to be ridiculous. You haven’t given me any reason to believe that Goldberg had more to support this story besides a name, an email address, and the fact that it didn’t strike him immediately as false. Thus, I think it’s fair to call it a “grey area” case; as far as we know, he had no idea whether this was a true story or a total lie.
——
First, As before, you haven’t given me any reason to believe that Goldberg didn’t have good reason to beleive the story.
Second, because of this we do not know if it is an ethical grey area case. Whether it is an ETHICAL grey area case DEPENDS on whether he accepted a possibly dubious story at face value. If he had good reason (even evidence where reasonable people could disagree as to its significace) believe the story, then it is not a gery area case. If, on the other hand, he did just print the story without considering its veractiy or the likelihood that someone just made it up, then I agree, it is a grey area case where we might say he wss wrong, but it wasn’t a terrible wrong. Thus, whether it is a grey area case depends on exactly what we don’t know – whether Goldberg was convinced that the story was likley true or he just posted the story because he didn’t know it not to be true. In other words, it could be a grey area case, but we don’t know (and I don’t think so). Once again, you have simply assumed the worst of Goldberg, based on you ideologically-shaded view of him in a blog. Which, I would point out, is pretty damn close to what you accuse Goldberg of doing to Kerry.

For what feels like the twentieth time: The fact that NR is an opinion journal does not excuse their omitting or misrepresenting key facts or printing rumors with no verification. To the extent that the Nation does it too—which I can readily believe of a few of their writers, but not others and I see zero examples—that’s not okay either. I never said anything about cockroaches or crimes, so spare me the indignation over that. I’m talking about good and lousy journalism.
—-
The “its an opinion journal” was directed towards your statement for NR in general. For the 20th time, the Corner IS NOT journalism and does not claim to be, it is not even an op/ed page.

You don’t know that the anecdote is untrue any more than I know its true – this fact holds WHENEVER anyone tells you an acecdote. I would relate the Corner (and this forum) more to a conversation that journalism. Misrepresentation would have occured if Goldberg had suggested that the story came from a highly reliable source (he didn’t) or if he had simply related the anecdote as fact without revealing that it came from a reader email. We’re all grown-ups, we don’t need anyone to hold our hands and tell us, “There is a possibiility that the story was made-up or embellished because it came from a reader email.” We already know that.

Also, You haven’t pointed to anything NR the magaizine has done to misrepresent facts. You mention an anti-gay piece – but that’s a controversial issue, just the thing opinion journals should debate. Believe it or not, some people in this country do have strong moral problems with homosexuality. I am not one of those people, but I recognize other’s right to make up their own mind. It is not poor journalism because you disagree with the editorial stance. You say also that it misrepresents the Maher Arar case, but you make only that conclusory statement, presenting no evidence (in other words, representing your opinion as fact). Furthermore, I find it highly likely that what you call “misrepresentation” is a difference of opinion on how to interprete particular information.

Do any of the Corner defenders on this thread understand that saying “I’m going to publish this tale that’s claiming that something happened” is putting the imprimatur of the group’s credibility on the tale?

No?

Well, okay.

Do any of the Corner defenders on this thread understand that saying “I’m going to publish this tale that’s claiming that something happened” is putting the imprimatur of the group’s credibility on the tale?
——–
I suppose you didn’t notice that is exactly what all these posts are debating. Simply stating your opinion in a conclusory manner does not make you correct. Thank you for offering no support for your opinion.
My conclusory statement: Goldberg passing on an email he received to others who might be interested calls into question his own credibiltity no more than my own credibility is called into question when I repeat to my friends something someone else told me during the day, whether via speech or an internet forum.

Don’t be so desperate.

A discussion about the importance of factuality/truth, that has been inspired by a plan to inundate (any media source) with phony stories, is absolutely breathtaking in it’s own dishonesty. How come this wasn’t started by the NRO site? Aren’t they the ones supposed to be lying?

There’s this weird concept, which Katherine addresses, that NR is excused from journalistic standards because it’s an opinion journal. If this means that its stories should never be trusted, because they are not vetted, well, I guess that seems just about right, given its behavior. I wonder, though, if that is really how it wants to be perceived, or how its devoted readers want to perceive it.
——-
AGAIN – the Corner is not “journalism.” It is a blog for sharing opinions, ideas, websites, and, yes, even correspondence from readers.

That aside, even if NR had printed the email in its print edition or in a NRO article, they DID NOT violate any “ethics of journalism” – they did not conceal the fact that the source of the story was a reader email; they did not say, “we know this anecdote to be true,” “this comes from a highly reliable source,” or even “there is a good possibility that it is true.” (Yes, you can infer that last one from the posting). It wss left to the reader to judge the worth of the story – nothing prevented people from reaching their own conclusions and I fully agree that one could just as easily conclude that the story was concocted by the reader. BUT, this is not a breach of any kind of journalisn ethics and saying over and over that it is because you don’t like people speaking ill of Kerry or whatever does not make it so.

Yes, the story could be untrue (but it could also be true) – this does not equal an ethical breach. To suggest that a reporter, so much less an opinion columnist, cannot post anything without being absolutely convinced of its absolute truth is simply absurd…sorry guys.

…and I don’t know if you realize this, but using anonymous sources is a fairly standard journalistic practice; go to your local journalism school and try to argue that a failure to reveal the names of sources is an ethical breach. I doubt you’ll get far with (generally liberal) journalism professors on that one.

As a life long democrat and resident of Boston, I have never liked John Kerry. I’ve met him several times and there is this feeling of self importance that is off putting. I’m glad we have a democratic senator, but I would gladly have another. I’m surprised Kerry is considered more electable than any of the other candidates, just shocked really.

Something tells me that this game is not new. I believe somebody has been playing it for years now with Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds.

jcl – Goldberg passing on an email he received to others who might be interested calls into question his own credibility no more than my own credibility is called into question when I repeat to my friends something someone else told me during the day, whether via speech or an internet forum. Don’t be so desperate.

Perhaps your analogy would work better if it had you racing around to 10,000 of your friends repeating the same story and admitting afterwards that it’s source was an internet mail from a person you’ve never met but is -certainly- truthful!

Doing so would make you look like a desperate partisan or a credulous moron, right?

Timber folks, I have a suggestion for you that I think would allow you to get on with your lives with less wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments:

Imagine the Corner to be a spirited cocktail party, with people (whose company you don’t necessarily enjoy) swapping facts, opinions, anecdotes, and tales. I think that is the spirit in which the Corner is offered, and I think that it is counterproductive to imagine it otherwise for the (I admit: probably enjoyable) feeling of self-righteous indignation that it might provide.

“Goldberg feels that his readers, even those who share stories, have better things to do than clear his inbox of 20,000,000 emails from pissed-off liberals saying that he should be nice to John Kerry or whoever.”

What does that have to do with Goldberg publicly vouching for this anonymous person’s credibility?

The obvious answer is, it doesn’t. It’s nothing but straw man B.S.

And if Goldberg is unwilling to say: “I can’t tell you this person’s name because I promised them confidentiality, but they are in a good position to know this information, and I trust them,” then he has absolutely no business publishing the damn e-mail in the first place.

He’s simply hiding behind New York Times v Sullivan to slander Democrats. Pure and simple.

Brian writes that Software Development is subsidised just like Agriculture.

Of course, he’s lying. See, while you can go do government work developing software, or get government grants to develop software, what you can’t do is develop software and just demand the government give you money.

How much of Oracle’s money came from throwing software away?
How much of ADM’s money came from throwing vegtables away?

Thanks.

What does that have to do with Goldberg publicly vouching for this anonymous person’s credibility?
—-
He didn’t vouch for the story being true. He said that he himself found it believeable (not the same thing as saying something is true) and let others make up their own minds

And if Goldberg is unwilling to say: “I can’t tell you this person’s name because I promised them confidentiality, but they are in a good position to know this information, and I trust them,” then he has absolutely no business publishing the damn e-mail in the first place.
—–
Why? because you say so? People can’t decide for themselves whether to believe something Goldberg says he finds at least within the realm of possiblity. Who are you to tell people what they have any business posting ON THEIR BLOG? Sonnds like your real problem is in “allowing” people to make up thier own minds – I’m still waiting for someone to come up with something more than blind ideological attacks on NR.

And if you have an unsubstantiated story about snorting coke with, or selling coke to, our current President, I’d be happy to post them at my site.

vroosterat –

The simple fact is that they are not interchangeable, 4th definition by one source be damned! ;-) After a quick websearch, I see that Oliver Strunk, the Columbia Journalism Review, and nearly every other usage website I got from Google agrees (not interchangeable). I also note that dictionary.com’s definitions for “imply” don’t include “infer.” Please, do some good in the world and use these terms correctly – we’ve devolved enough.

PS – I’m a big 8th grader now.

Let’s do this one better – get actual letters from Penthouse Forum, change the names to include the Democratic candidate of your choice, bcc this blog, and see if NRO takes the bait.

“Republicans are “infamous” for “making things up”?”

No, impossible. We all know that Vincent Foster was murdered by Hitlery, after Bill fathered a child by a black mother, and Max Cleland was in league with Saddam, and lesbians are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and the CIA gave bad information that Saddam wasn’t an imminent threat, until they gave bad information that Saddam *was* an imminent threat, and Al Gore said that he invented the internet, and Bill Clinton blocked LAX getting a haircut, and Ronald Reagan liberated concentration camps in WWII, and Tom Delay couldn’t join up to serve in Vietnam because all the places were taken by minorities, and George Bush never went AWOL, and tax cuts solve every problem, and Elian was saved by dolphins, and Paul Wellstone’s memorial was a political rally, and Bill O’Reilly won a Peabody, and Saddam was behind 9/11, and the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election on the legal merits, and Ken Lay slept in the White House during Clinton’s term, and Clinton’s staff trashed the White House on their way out, and Bush’s budget numbers are meaningful, and there were threats to Air Force One on 9/11, and trees create carbon monoxide, and on and on and on.

Republicans never make shit up, not at all.

Imply not infer. All right, all right…Nobody’s perfect (It is fun watching it spiral out of control though ;) I’m just glad no one commented on my earlier typo. That conversation might have lasted for days.

By the way, “devolved” is not a real word.

I’m just kidding…

BTW Not bad for an 8th grader…

draw? bring? attract?
–dammit

The Corner is a blog, and moves quicker even than a daily.

Nah: it just moves quicker than one’s bowels after a chicken vindaloo.

ahem:

Hey. I like vindaloo. (Too hot for you? Stay out of my kitchen.)

No, impossible. We all know that Vincent Foster was murdered by Hitlery, after Bill fathered a child by a black mother, and Max Cleland was in league with Saddam, and lesbians are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and the CIA gave bad information that Saddam wasn’t an imminent threat, until they gave bad information that Saddam was an imminent threat, and Al Gore said that he invented the internet, and Bill Clinton blocked LAX getting a haircut, and Ronald Reagan liberated concentration camps in WWII, and Tom Delay couldn’t join up to serve in Vietnam because all the places were taken by minorities, and George Bush never went AWOL, and tax cuts solve every problem, and Elian was saved by dolphins, and Paul Wellstone’s memorial was a political rally, and Bill O’Reilly won a Peabody, and Saddam was behind 9/11, and the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election on the legal merits, and Ken Lay slept in the White House during Clinton’s term, and Clinton’s staff trashed the White House on their way out, and Bush’s budget numbers are meaningful, and there were threats to Air Force One on 9/11, and trees create carbon monoxide, and on and on and on.

Republicans never make shit up, not at all.
——
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Please discontinue any posts about the “collective brainpower” of this site. Seriously.

hey, jcl: we’ll start paying attention to you when you learn how to quote properly in comments.

ahem: It would appear that you’re paying attention to him already, yes?

Hey! Michelles and jcl,
I think the whole point here is that the media in general not just the NRO, has for sometime now been reporting/repeating what others have said in posts and email and articles and on tv that get no-other scrutiny than to say that this is what so and so said or it was in an email or it was from an anonymous source. This is not good journalism. It used to be that before one organization or reporter would repeat something it needed to be varified at least to some degree. But, as it is now in most of the media it is just repeated as being fom another source with no investigating of the claim at all. Again this is not journalism it is gosip.
I think this is mostly due to the fact that a lot of the media is now looking to entertain their audiences rather than inform them.
This has led to the dismisal of good reporters in favor of good entertainers.
I could go on to state that the media is biased toward the right in most of the news and print. However there are growing numbers of liberal outlets poping up everywhere. So it may do you good to try and find one you like rather
than be critical of this one.
It is apparent to me that you are just another one of those people whose vote got counted in 2000.
And now your so pissed off because you know you were/are lied to by bush and his cronies. And I could go on and on and on,,,,,,,,I could try to reason you out of the position you are in,,,,however I learned a long time ago that you can not reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into in the first place

And on and on and on

Bush is Sauron!
Save the shire!

Liberalism is becoming alot like communism, becoming extinct.
I imagine most of you will be waving your little red Chairman Mao books in the not so distant future.
Power to the party comrade Ted, you are just so darn clever and orginal.

Oh, I almost forgot you Democratic Liberal Socialists don’t quit yur day jobs.

Dennis Kucinich: Use Chico’s soap, no give back.