I was just about to give The New York Times an “atta-boy” for publishing my comment beneath their story on the Cain/Libya/Taliban dust-up, defending Herman Cain as correct on his assertion that there are, indeed, Taliban among the rebels on the ground in Libya – you know, the rebels who are now in charge, which is exactly what Herman said – when I had withdraw it (the “atta-boy”).
Interestingly, they updated their article overnight, softening their mockery of him, possibly because they, I dunno, Googled it like I did. My previous post explains why Herman’s statement, rather than showing a paucity of knowledge, in fact, shows a careful – dare I say nuanced – understanding of the rebels-cum-leaders on the ground in Libya. (If Obama, or Hillary had said exactly the same thing Herman said, they would have called it “nuanced” and any honest reader g*ddamned well knows it.) First, here’s my comment:
So what prompted the “atta-boy” withdrawal?
Well, while grabbing the screenshot of it, I looked to the right and saw a “Featured” columns list of headlines. One of the headlines I swear to God – was:
The underlying assumption of that question, by extension, the publishing of that headline, is so revealing, so packed with meaning, I hardly know where to begin!
First, the easy one: You can’t have it both ways, New York Times. You kill whole forests of trees, digital or otherwise, day after damned day asserting the entire GOP are uninformed rubes, which means you, day after damned day, assert that 40% of the country are rubes. That stat is from a recent, reliable poll – one you people usually hold up like friggin’ tablets of stone – which said that 40% of America self-identifies as conservative (20% self-identifies as liberal – that’s 1/2 as much, for you OWS kids doing the math at home).
Perhaps this explains why “the Republican debates seem to matter so much.”
Perhaps it also explains why your newspapers is bleeding subscribers. What have you got, maybe a million paying subscribers, right? That’s only twice your arch-enemy, “rodeo-clown” Glenn Beck’s subscriber base for GBTV, which launched, what? Three months ago?
Beck, who digs up original documents, primary sources, plays audio/video of people saying things in their own words, invites historians, politicians, businessmen on, that you sneer at, who also bring with them original documents, primary sources, and audio/video of people saying things, then give us the links to the original documents, primary sources, and audio/video of people saying things so we can fact-check it ourselves – because he & his guests are not afraid to be “crowd-sourced” and back up on their assertions.
Not a day goes by you don’t hear him say, multiple times, “Go do your own homework on this. The links up at my blog.” That means he’s not afraid to be taken in context, understand? To be “crowd-sourced” on what he asserts. There’s a whole industry of people who take him on it, too. You & Media Matters are among the leaders of that group.
You & Media Matters then, reliably, go on to mock – him– , offering up an Alinsky ad-hominem attack on him or his guests, but 99% of the time, that’s all you got. I defy anyone reading this to go look at the bile Media Matters posts as fact-checking or analysis and you will find the overhwhelming majority of it is tangential noise, attacking the character of the person saying it, but not the core facts themselves. Let me repeat that: They are not able to post facts contradicting Beck’s facts. Got it?
Beck could teach every single on of your how to have the courage of your convictions and do basic friggin’ reporting. You’ve been around since the 19th friggin’ century, 1860, was it?. Before the Civil War!!! You’re the paper of f*cking record.
Think that might be a clue why “the Republican debates seem to matter so much”, a**holes?
I’ll have more thoughts on this later. One involving the Queen of England’s advice to a bride on her wedding night… but I have to go now. I’ll be back later 😉
Share the post "NYT Giveth, NYT Taketh Away"