Hewitt, O'Reilly, Novak: Right Wing Liars
Is "liar" too strong a word when a person makes something up?
I don't think so.
But that's what these three pundits did: they made accusations against Kos and Jerome Armstrong being unethical, when the facts show otherwise. The Wall Street Journal article had an exiting lead, but simply reading the details in the article showed that to be bunk. And one of the reporters who worked on the article called it a "dead story" when looking into the charges.
That these people are respected national commentators is a disgrace. Righties, if you have any self-respect, you'll put the smack down on these tools.
P.S.: Chris Suellentrop, you are a wanker.
Update: Good to see Hewitt getting some flack from his brethren (Hewitt's permalinks suck, so read em while you got em). His response to the criticism of his blathering is pretty weak, too.
posted by Luke Francl @ 3:23 PM |
| 
3 Comments:
tsk, tsk, tsk.
So much anger, so much hate.
Grassroots huh?
Luke the dumbass shoots right to C1 with a post!
Revised Typical liberal nonsense structure*.
A. Subject intro.
KOS AND JA PAYOLA
1. Let me tell what Right-wingers think.
THEY'RE OUT TO GET KOS CAUSE HE'S SO COOL
2. Let me tell why its wrong.
CAUSE KOS IS SO COOL
B. Reply from a righty.
1. Um, we don't think that.
2. You've conveniently ignored "this."
SEVERAL LINKED (BETTER THAN USUAL, BUT STILL A LINK TO A COLLECTION OF SNIPPITS. THERES POTENTIALLY ISSUES OF REMOVING CONTEXT BY NOT LINKING THE ORIGINALS, OR CITING A MINOR OBJECTION RATHER THAN THE MAIN THRUST OF ARGUEMENT, BUT ALL IN HARD TO ARGUE WITH KIND OF CONVENIENCE.)
C. Reply to the reply.
1. Liar!
SEE HEADLINE
2. Your argument doesn't make sense given the way I've told you that you think.
3. Dismissal of evidence.
a. "This" isn't applicable because it disproves what is OBVIOUSLY correct.
A REPORTER SAID ITS DEAD
b. "This" is from an "impeachable" source.
WANKER COMMENT
*failure to follow the predicted pattern will result in personal attacks.
I do have one or two follow up questions.
1. Is "technical consulting" widely understood to mean shilling or could it more easily be understood to mean optimizing routing tables? Were the terms of the disclosure adaquate?
2. If there was no conflict of interest, nor even any grey area then why did JA close down once he went to work for Dean? More specifically, why is that offered as the defense when it would constitute the ethical course of action, one KOS didn't follow?
Payola is a major ethical issue. It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Its also important to note the leverage the Dean campaign applied based on this "Grassroots" effort. If it wasn't really "Grassroots" that raises real questions.
Post a Comment
<< Home