Since about 1997 actually.

Subby forget it. There is no interest in this article on Fark. Now, say, if Fox had sent out a flyer to all journalists basically selling their access to the Bush team.....

radioshack: Subby forget it. There is no interest in this article on Fark. Now, say, if Fox had sent out a flyer to all journalists basically selling their access to the Bush team.....


Oh, I don't know. The barking moonbats who think the media are biased to the right and the sky is purple with pink polka dots might be interested.

What - did the Obvious tag call in sick or something?

Lord God protect us if the wharrgarblists are divorced from the notion that the media is a huge communist plot

.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Lord God protect us if the wharrgarblists are divorced from the notion that the media is a huge communist plot

FTFA: A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home.

Well, if it was not for the above, what was the $25K for? A BJ?

Translation:

We are sorry that people discovered exactly what we were trying to do.

The ad department will be sure to lie better next time.

Oh, how Third World!

When I lived in the Philippines, you had the papers/TV stations aligned with the government, and the TV/papers aligned with the opposition. If one claimed the sky was blue, the other claimed it was purple. Wapo/NYT are aligned with the Democrats/liberals, and don't even try to hide it. They're just pissed that the proles found out about their tidy little arrangement.

BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

Not to worry. Few people have ever been in doubt regarding the WaPo's independence and integrity, so this incident changes nothing.

In other news, John Grisham seen furiously copying headline for plot to next "legal thriller."

/Starting to turn into the Stephen King of that genre
//Only his non legal are worth reading anyway

mark12A: Oh, how Third World!

When I lived in the Philippines, you had the papers/TV stations aligned with the government, and the TV/papers aligned with the opposition. If one claimed the sky was blue, the other claimed it was purple. Wapo/NYT are aligned with the Democrats/liberals, and don't even try to hide it. They're just pissed that the proles found out about their tidy little arrangement.

BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

I have said for years that openly declaring ideological or party affiliation would be an improvement here in the USA. Take the UK, papers openly declare where they are coming from. Fair enough, now readers can read the Guardian knowing that they are leftist, and everyone is comfortable with it. Whereas here in the USA, newspapers or other organizations pretend they are objective and/or nuetral, causing mischef and angst because obviously they are not.

If the Washington Post declared themselves openly, they might see their numbers improve.

mark12A: Oh, how Third World!

When I lived in the Philippines, you had the papers/TV stations aligned with the government, and the TV/papers aligned with the opposition. If one claimed the sky was blue, the other claimed it was purple. Wapo/NYT are aligned with the Democrats/liberals, and don't even try to hide it. They're just pissed that the proles found out about their tidy little arrangement.

BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

And did any of those idiots bother to send out a press release? Or, y'know, have a cogent point to make?

repeat from the late 90's?

mark12A: BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

Say what now? (new window)

I think this a good illustration of what's wrong with a lot of media these days (besides the infotainment on cable news channels): the aura of access.

It seems that access to powerful individuals matters more than getting good, honest information from those individuals. Once a reporter or media organization gains access, they don't want to seriously threaten that access by asking tough, awkward questions that would threaten their access, even if that access doesn't provide anything of value in the first place.

mark12A: Oh, how Third World!

When I lived in the Philippines, you had the papers/TV stations aligned with the government, and the TV/papers aligned with the opposition. If one claimed the sky was blue, the other claimed it was purple. Wapo/NYT are aligned with the Democrats/liberals, and don't even try to hide it. They're just pissed that the proles found out about their tidy little arrangement.

BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

Yesterday, thousands played darts in pool halls across the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

If you don't doubt the independence and integrity of large profit-making corporations that posture themselves as bastions of truth, then you probably have a little problem, and you probably watch Fox News.

MuadDib: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Lord God protect us if the wharrgarblists are divorced from the notion that the media is a huge communist plot



Overused memes on Fark? That's wharrgarbl talk.

Washington Post editor: "You Farkers can't make fun of us! We broke Watergate, man! Watergate!"

LargeCanine 2009-07-05 03:46:37 PM
mark12A: Oh, how Third World!

When I lived in the Philippines, you had the papers/TV stations aligned with the government, and the TV/papers aligned with the opposition. If one claimed the sky was blue, the other claimed it was purple. Wapo/NYT are aligned with the Democrats/liberals, and don't even try to hide it. They're just pissed that the proles found out about their tidy little arrangement.

BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

I have said for years that openly declaring ideological or party affiliation would be an improvement here in the USA. Take the UK, papers openly declare where they are coming from. Fair enough, now readers can read the Guardian knowing that they are leftist, and everyone is comfortable with it. Whereas here in the USA, newspapers or other organizations pretend they are objective and/or nuetral, causing mischef and angst because obviously they are not.

If the Washington Post declared themselves openly, they might see their numbers improve.

It is not only the slant of the news they report it is much more the news they REFUSE to report.

And you know what? I'm starting to think you're correct; I would rather have them ALL admit their biases and know exactly where they were coming from than the put to the lie notion that somehow they are all unbiased.

Fox doesn't bother me as much; while the people that claim Fox's actual news programs are extremely slanted - I don't agree with this - the COMMENTARY programs are and this gets a big shrug from me because Hannity et al have never pretended to unbiased.

Much worse are all the others that claim they are not biased when they blantantly are; Mathews, Olbermann, Maddows, PBS etc.

The 85%+ of reporters surveyed said they vote Democrat but somehow don't let this influence their reporting are only fooling themselves.

I hit my limit a few years back while the NYTimes book reviewers were taking shots at Bush in reviews of COOK BOOKS.

the wapo has always been a direct feed from the democrat party and they now proudly take their talking points from Raum Emanuel

Well, as long as The Washington Times remains the beacon of integrity and objectivity that she is, I fail to see a problem.

I don't get why people think that the Times or FOX are so conservative. It's just that they've been mental slaves to the liberal media for so long, they don't recognize actual fair journalism when they see it.

/paraphrased from my father, a man I otherwise love and respect dearly

Drakkenmaw: mark12A: BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

Say what now? (new window)

An critical, unpublished blog post from 6 months ago? Hardly in-depth reportage...

Old Punchline --

"We've already established what you are. Now we are just arguing about the price."

Translation: "I got caught and am writing this BS to save my ass!".

Cache: If you don't doubt the independence and integrity of large profit-making corporations that posture themselves as bastions of truth, then you probably have a little problem, and you probably watch Fox News.



Hey, look everybody!!! We actually got a Left-winger in this thread!

/hot hot hot

hershmire: Drakkenmaw: mark12A: BTW, yesterday thousands participated in Tea Party protests all over the country. Did you read all about it? See any of it on TV? Of course you didn't. Doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is pushing.

Say what now? (new window)

An critical, unpublished blog post from 6 months ago? Hardly in-depth reportage...

What depth is there to report? When they did the tea parties a few months ago there was lots of news coverage (both critical and supportive). I would argue that there was even too much news coverage considering the rather small turn out and the lack of any real point. I mean the original tea parties were about taxation without representation, what was the point of these tea parties? People earning over $250k a year are paying more taxes?

Beginning with the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee and Sussman telling Woodward and Bernstein that the infamous Watergate story could not be published without a corroborating inside source.

So the four of them cooked up an imaginary source and code named it Deep Throat (something that appealed to Bernstein's infantile sex fantasies).

There was no Deep Throat. It's all fake. How do I know? Their book editor made them come clean before committing to publication and all the Libel that could ensue with publication. Woodward and Bernstein confessed there was no Deep Throat, and the book deal went through. Forget Mark Felt. That poor guy is a tale of untreated psychosis and thwarted dreams. Probably confessed to being the gun man on the grassy knoll, too.

That's how reputable the Washington Post is. All that mattered was taking down a sitting President and the ad sales that would result from increased circulation.

Screw jobs to the left of us, screw jobs to the right. But the WaPo can screw anything and anybody.

And in other news, paying a whore for sex might lead you to doubt she really loves you.

You overlook the fact, she was a whore all along.

A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind.


The some-peon-did-this-without-our-approval excuse. Nice leadership there Katharine.

and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity.

"every word [The Washington Post] writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'." (apologies to Mary McCarthy)

The Washington Post was started as a house organ of the democrats and has remained a house organ and always will be a house organ for the democrats. The really amusing thing is that they bothered to apologize and are going to "change" things.

While I do believe there is a legitimate way to hold such events, to the extent that we hold events in the future, large or small, we will review the guidelines for them with The Post's top editors and make sure those guidelines are strictly followed. Further, any conferences or similar events The Post sponsors will be on the record.

Interpretation: They won't be held at my house and some other left wing lap dog will be picking up the bill but since they're not going to be sponsored by us they will be still off the record and will proceed but without us having to take any responsibility. The Washington Post people will be there as reporters but the stories won't be printed because we'll run something more "newsworthy" like Michelle Obama visiting a day care center instead.

Come on guys, we can all get along here. Everyone should hate the WaPo: libtards can be pissed that they publish conservative hacks like Kristol, Will and Krauthammer and that they fired Froomkin; and wingnuts can be pissed that they're ethics-free cynics who are happy to broker access to the administration in a bid to stay relevant. We're in this together, people. Feel the love.

Here are 12 updates from the Politico vs. Washington Post battle.

That is some crappy writing right there. Two sentences started with a conjunction and comma splices all over the place. Wow, this from a publisher, and WaPo at that.

On another note, this woman's job is done. Not only can she not write, the first thing she did when this fiasco arose was toss her marketing department under the bus, and she is still doing it. Sorry babe. You are in charge. You didn't make it clear to your marketers what the salon was about, and it happened under your watch. Its your fault, or are you only in charge when things go right?

It was either that, or make money reporting the actual news. I think we all know what the obvious choice is. Actual reporting is so 1990's.

Dick_Hertz 2009-07-05 05:31:25 PM
Cache: If you don't doubt the independence and integrity of large profit-making corporations that posture themselves as bastions of truth, then you probably have a little problem, and you probably watch Fox News.



Hey, look everybody!!! We actually got a Left-winger in this thread!

Yup. And he thinks he's superior to people who watch Fox because he watches those time-wasters Olbermann, Mathews and Maddoes.

Yeah, as if those folks are 'fair and balanced'.

But invite one blogger to a press conference and the newspaper reporters (still in denial about the future of their medium) will raise hell.

LasssiterBeRight: Beginning with the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee and Sussman telling Woodward and Bernstein that the infamous Watergate story could not be published without a corroborating inside source.

So the four of them cooked up an imaginary source and code named it Deep Throat (something that appealed to Bernstein's infantile sex fantasies).

There was no Deep Throat. It's all fake. How do I know? Their book editor made them come clean before committing to publication and all the Libel that could ensue with publication. Woodward and Bernstein confessed there was no Deep Throat, and the book deal went through. Forget Mark Felt. That poor guy is a tale of untreated psychosis and thwarted dreams. Probably confessed to being the gun man on the grassy knoll, too.

That's how reputable the Washington Post is. All that mattered was taking down a sitting President and the ad sales that would result from increased circulation.

Screw jobs to the left of us, screw jobs to the right. But the WaPo can screw anything and anybody.

Citation?

Ronald Kessler, who had spoken to former Bureau agents, reported that throughout the investigation they "were amazed to see material in Woodward and Bernstein's stories lifted almost verbatim from their reports of interviews a few days or weeks earlier."[31] (new window)

"Washington Post publisher worried that paper's plan to sell its access to power brokersWhite House officials and Congresional aids...... might have caused readers to doubt paper's independence, integrity."


Uhhhmm... yea, they were right. WaPo is not really credible if they are pimping.

Liberal Media Wahhhhhh. Socialists waaaaaaaaa. Commie scumbags waaaaaaa.

Jesus Christ, you whiny conservatives (just the whiny ones, mind you) are so farking predictable in your stupidity. Have you ever paused a moment to think that life isn't black and white? Maybe not all liberal concepts are wrong and not all conservative concepts are right? For fark's sake, you're like a bunch of whiny teenagers. A knee-jerk lynch-mob who don't bother to think about anything. You listen to hours and hours of conservative propaganda a' la Rush Limbaugh and take it as gospel, not realizing that not even Limbaugh and his cronies believe the shiat they spout.

Not to say that left doesn't have Rush Limbaugh types or whiny bastards, but you guys really are kings of misinformed outrage.

MightyRavenscar: Liberal Media Wahhhhhh. Socialists waaaaaaaaa. Commie scumbags waaaaaaa.

Jesus Christ, you whiny conservatives (just the whiny ones, mind you) are so farking predictable in your stupidity. Have you ever paused a moment to think that life isn't black and white? Maybe not all liberal concepts are wrong and not all conservative concepts are right? For fark's sake, you're like a bunch of whiny teenagers. A knee-jerk lynch-mob who don't bother to think about anything. You listen to hours and hours of conservative propaganda a' la Rush Limbaugh and take it as gospel, not realizing that not even Limbaugh and his cronies believe the shiat they spout.

Not to say that left doesn't have Rush Limbaugh types or whiny bastards, but you guys really are kings of misinformed outrage.


Kings of? Care to quote your scientific poll or are you just pulling this out of your Ass? Yeah thot so. We're just "kings of" because your as deeply embedded in your own liberal religion and your new god seated in the oval office cannot possibly be wrong.

But here are some facts:

Since the election mysteriously the barrage of daily death tolls in Iraq/Afghan have all but disappeared, guess no American soldiers, Iraqi's or Afghans have died!

All the rabid, foaming anger at Bush over the deficit, no really it was liberal Armageddon that he spent so much money, after the election and your buddy has spent history making trillions and trillions we don't have. And he wants to spend trillions more on health care during a depression while simultaneously forcing the price of energy to skyrocket artificially, yet we've heard nary a word from your side about it.

Many of the most horrible presidential executive orders that Bush was vilified for ARE STILL IN PLACE. When is the anointed one in the oval office gonna take Chavez's skin flute out of his throat and admit Bush was right?

I could go on and on and on you dumbfark, but what your just pissed about is seeing the other side of the coin we dealt with for 8 years of unceasing attacks. So I hope you enjoy it. I for one shall continue treating Hussein Obama with the same respect your side showed Bush.

MightyRavenscar: Liberal Media Wahhhhhh. Socialists waaaaaaaaa. Commie scumbags waaaaaaa.

Jesus Christ, you whiny conservatives (just the whiny ones, mind you) are so farking predictable in your stupidity. Have you ever paused a moment to think that life isn't black and white? Maybe not all liberal concepts are wrong and not all conservative concepts are right? For fark's sake, you're like a bunch of whiny teenagers. A knee-jerk lynch-mob who don't bother to think about anything. You listen to hours and hours of conservative propaganda a' la Rush Limbaugh and take it as gospel, not realizing that not even Limbaugh and his cronies believe the shiat they spout.

Not to say that left doesn't have Rush Limbaugh types or whiny bastards, but you guys really are kings of misinformed outrage.



I haven't read the whole thread. Is this apparently contextless rant against "misinformed outrage" actually a response to something specific or did you just forget to take your Thorazine today?

abiigdog,

Precisely what I was talking about. I was very clear that the Liberals have their own problems. But you are in such denial that you can't even admit how cartoonish your response is.

MuadDib,

Funny you should ask that as your earlier post was one of the ones I was responding to.

MightyRavenscar: MuadDib,

Funny you should ask that as your earlier post was one of the ones I was responding to.


Your post makes even less sense after your explanation that it did before. Except that it does help to know you're an admitted barking moonbat.

It's odd that I am thinking exactly the same thing now (about your senseless explanation, not that I'm a barking moonbat, mind you).

You actually referenced the "barking moonbat" post to say that you don't understand what I was talking about. But that post (and the post you replied to) is what I am talking about. This was an article about the Washington Post, and the first thing you and the cleverly named abiigdog did was to start whining about liberals.

I honestly don't understand people who have that much anger in them. You were simply responding to the witty, frothing comment from abiigdog, so I can't lump you in with him entirely. But really, what's with the anger?

Neither liberals nor conservatives can claim that they have the right answer. Either side, when boiled down to its root, is whacked. To constantly rail against liberals is like Mac-nazis constantly railing against PCs. To constantly rail against conservatives is like Nikon-zealots railing against Canon cameras. You might as well complain about fat people, or rednecks, or yuppies.

Honestly, I don't think I could name three politicians that I have any respect for, Democrat or Republican. But you don't see me railing about politicians all the time. You would think conservatives would at least see the wisdom of keeping their mouths shut after the last eight years. Let the politicians screw things up again with a Democrat in the White House (and it will happen, I'm sure, because they are politicians), and THEN start talking. Which I guess in Fark-speak amounts to "You're doing it wrong."

That might not have clarified things substantially, Usul, but at least you can get a glimpse into that cracked-moonbat mind of mine.

Cheers

MightyRavenscar: It's odd that I am thinking exactly the same thing now (about your senseless explanation, not that I'm a barking moonbat, mind you).

You actually referenced the "barking moonbat" post to say that you don't understand what I was talking about. But that post (and the post you replied to) is what I am talking about. This was an article about the Washington Post, and the first thing you and the cleverly named abiigdog did was to start whining about liberals.

I honestly don't understand people who have that much anger in them. You were simply responding to the witty, frothing comment from abiigdog, so I can't lump you in with him entirely. But really, what's with the anger?

Neither liberals nor conservatives can claim that they have the right answer. Either side, when boiled down to its root, is whacked. To constantly rail against liberals is like Mac-nazis constantly railing against PCs. To constantly rail against conservatives is like Nikon-zealots railing against Canon cameras. You might as well complain about fat people, or rednecks, or yuppies.

Honestly, I don't think I could name three politicians that I have any respect for, Democrat or Republican. But you don't see me railing about politicians all the time. You would think conservatives would at least see the wisdom of keeping their mouths shut after the last eight years. Let the politicians screw things up again with a Democrat in the White House (and it will happen, I'm sure, because they are politicians), and THEN start talking. Which I guess in Fark-speak amounts to "You're doing it wrong."

That might not have clarified things substantially, Usul, but at least you can get a glimpse into that cracked-moonbat mind of mine.

Cheers



Would it help if I told you tere's no an ounce of anger in any of my posts in this thread (and rarely elsewhere, either; it's simply not worth it to get emotional over discussions on message boards)? radioshack pointed out that, unless FoxNews is involved, there tends not to be a lot of interest in MSM misfeasance around here. I replied to this (fairly justifiable) generalization with some sardonicism in the same vein. But I was neither whinging nor angry.

In truth, I assume anyone who wants power badly enough to go through what one must to get it has proven s/he should not be trusted with it, which isn't too far from your own view.

I sincerely hope this helps.

Alright. Any besmirching of your character on my part is officially withdrawn. Anyway, someone who names himself Maud'Dib can't be all that bad. ;)

MightyRavenscar: Alright. Any besmirching of your character on my part is officially withdrawn. Anyway, someone who names himself Maud'Dib can't be all that bad. ;)


Well spoken, sir (except for where you misspelled my name :-) ).