Troy Rasmussen says:

Bill Maher: Pot calling the kettle black, “That strikes me as the opposite of journalism, as looking for the end of the story before you find what the real truth is.” (emphasis added)

CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, LATIMES, etc. never does this, right Libs?

My answer is, No, they don’t do that. It always amuses me when my conservative friends blast every major organ of journalism in the country except the Wall Street Journal, because the Journal is famous for its excellent fact reporting side by side with its wild-eyed crazy editorial page. So I just encourage my pals to pick a story from the so-called “liberal” media and go see what the Journal has to say about it. Another good fact source with predictable loony editorial spin is NewsMax. I’ll accept those as factual sources any day. And you know what? If they report the same story as the “liberals”, the facts are likely to line up exactly in parallel with them. And we should all be very grateful that that is the case. It suggests we are getting the truth.

My beef with them all is that they are not asking the right questions. Here’s one: Two months ago, Iraq Prime Minister Al-Maliki announced that he was very close to a peace deal with the Sunnis that would end the insurgency, provided only that the parties agreed that the Americans would withdraw within two years — which, since it promised an end to the fighting, was quite reasonable. As I recall, that was on a Friday. By Monday al-Maliki was saying timetables were inappropriate and the deal fell through. I’m guessing Rumsfeld killed the deal because to the neocons a low-level war that allows our continued occupation for decades to come is quite acceptable, whereas withdrawal just defeats that fundamental purpose of the invasion. But that’s just a guess. But why hasn’t any news organization probed that event extensively? Is peace really held in such low regard in this war? Or is it just yet another comment on the sad state of journalism generally these days?

You fools didn’t debate anything before I came along.

Grebrook on November 18, 2006 at 2:40 PM

Now you have to go and call us fools. But I recall only last week that you admitted being an atheist, did you know the very definition of fool is … atheist, Psalms 14:1 ? Or were you lacking that knowledge ?

oh good lord. what a charmer.

good one… It can be the troll’s new nickname:

a trágya -ban ivás

On topic, Dan Rather’s political efforts go back a long way: Read his awful book ( or as much as you can stand )

He takes credit for ending the Vietnam War years sooner than Johnson or Nixon would have done, and also takes credit for undoing Nixon. Okay, he shares the credit with similar others, but he puts himself in the Gang Who Re-shaped America

That’s “journalism”?

remember TV LAPD Sergeant Jack Friday? “Just the facts, ma’am” ?

Grebrook, are you just another AP user name here to mix things up? You can’t be a real person. — RightWinged

…some who would style themselves, as Reggie Jackson once said of himself, that they’re “the straw that stirs the drink”…and end up rather being the “turd in the punchbowl”….

Debate presupposes that you acknowledge that the other guy has a right to his opinion as you have a right to yours, and you bounce ideas off eachother, sometimes raising sparks. What some seem to think their mission, instead, is to educate the ignorant plebes.

Oh! Before I forget today, my new buzzphrase, now that I’ve appointed myself an Acolard First Class in Da Boss’s Army of the Truculent:

HAIL THE BOSS!!

(…isn’t that in Animal Farm or Lord of the Rings? No matter.)

It lies and distorts and insults; who would allow such a P.O.S. to sit in on any actual in-person discussion>

That strikes me as the opposite of journalism, as looking for the end of the story before you find what the real truth is.

“Hey, let’s take some Muslims to a NASCAR race and show how those dumb rednecks act.” (Answer: Indifferent.)

Grebrook’s Guide to Debate:

Step 1: “Nuh-uh!”
Step 2: Repeat Step 1.

No one disagrees with anyone on anything, that’s the entire reason you’re conservatives.

Wasn’t that Grubby who was just recently chortling about what fun it would be to watch Republicans at each other’s throats over amnesty?

It would be so bad if Grubby was consistent, but it isn’t. It doesn’t even read it’s own crap.

one disagrees with anyone on anything, that’s the entire reason you’re conservatives.

Not so. We disagree with you.

Grebrook, you speak of dabate but I have not heard any from you.

It’s purpose is only to sabotage and ruin worthwhile debate.

Debate? What debate? You fools didn’t debate anything before I came along. You just nodded your heads and repeated the same cliche talking points. No one disagrees with anyone on anything, that’s the entire reason you’re conservatives. You live in an isolated bubble of Fox News, talk radio and right-wing blogs and you essentially share the same opinion on everything.

Pilgrim, this is difficult to translate from Magyar: the first part would be good for trolls: “Bite me”, …with all due respect”

With so many facts around in the social sciences, it is too eary to mangle and distort and misure them to create dishonesty. If most of us were having a discussion in person, we would not allow trolls to sit in, no?

Puritan, you magnificent but very very bad man, I thought this blog was for adult conservatives to discuss and debate Stuff…So….If it can’t / won’t be banned from this site, it should be ignored — Janos Hunyadi

(*puffs up magnificantly badly, like an Australian lizard*)

I wouldn’t ban, were it my decison to make…it’s also an adult decision to ignore. Read, consider, ignore.

It makes one appreciate Connie and Honey and a few others who drop by to drop bombs…as they seem to be real people, not the blog-equivelant of recorded political cold calls. Fight fiercely for a point if you will, but do it respectfully. All of our opinions are important, if only to us.

You can’t argue with a fact. A fact is a fact. You can only arrange and present your facts to put the presented facts in context. Where facts are murky, debate gets murky, and ceased to be debate.

Thank you, though, very much.

…have to ask though: what, no Mongolian?

It’s purpose is only to sabotage and ruin worthwhile debate. So….If it can’t / won’t be banned from this site, it should be ignored

I, for one, will no longer feed it. I suggest you all do likewise. Eventually it will tire and go play elsewhere.

Same goes for all the new trolls/mobies currently soiling this otherwise excellent venue.

The stupidity in this thread can be summed up as follows:

“Grebrook is here.”

…blah-blah…stupidity…blah-blah…summed up…blah-blah…pure Republican propaganda…blah…so therefore it’s ok!” — Grebrook

…let’s not have a day like yesterday…the webmasters pitching us softballs ’cause folks couldn’t keep a lid on things….

Someone is outrageous or offensive to one side, the other side retaliates. We end up not exchanging ideas but beating eachother with boilerplate and invective. It’s not even fun to make fun anymore if it’s going to give rise to childishness.

No more of the “same-old/same-old”. Let’s break new ground today. Let’s be civil.

It would appear she’s trying to top Alisyn Camerota (here and here)

The stupidity in this thread can be summed up as follows:

“Yeah, Fox is pure Republican propaganda, but CBS was biased too, so therefore it’s ok!”

Grebrook on November 18, 2006 at 12:50 PM

Who is that directed at?

You see that protrusion just below Dan’s left ear in the screencap? — eeyore

…no…it’s an inflation nipple…like on a volleyball….