If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   NY Times public editor is "looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should" do their damn jobs   (publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 140
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

7038 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2012 at 2:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-12 04:48:57 PM
Except it IS subjective.
A "weak foreign policy" to a Republican means "not demanding everything from everyone at gun point " just like "apologetic foreign policy" often means "not threatening nuclear annihilation for not giving us free oil".
 
2012-01-12 05:00:03 PM

KiltedBastich: Cybernetic: People seem to talk about "truth" when they are really talking about a difference of opinion, or a difference of interpretation. If Romney (to use an example from TFA) says that Obama has a habit of apologizing for America, that is his opinion based on his interpretation of Obama's words. Disagreeing with that opinion does not make Romney's opinion false, or Romney a liar.

Opinions are not facts, and facts are not opinions. This country is suffering from an overabundance of people who cannot distinguish between the two.

But it IS a fact to point out that Romney's statement is not supported by any direct quotes, that Obama has never used the word apologize, and that Romney's statement is purely a matter of subjective opinion, and should be taken as such, not as a fact.


Absolutely--and I would like to see more of that type of reporting applied to candidates of both parties. Over time, it might help to cut down on the hyperbolic rhetoric, or at least help people see the rhetoric for what it is.
 
2012-01-12 05:01:53 PM
Patrick767

4of11
What the paper should do is request a list of the specific instances where Obama has publicly apologized for America. Then, they can write "Romney claims that Obama has repeatedly apologized for America. The NY Times has requested specific citations for this claim from the Romney campaign." Then either "We have received no response at this time." or "They cited the following statements Obama has made:" and list them, and possibly provide context as needed to present a clear picture.

Absolutely. Most of the time news outlets don't bother though.

Delawheredad
Reporters are just that reporters their job is Who, What, When, Where, and Why and NOTHING else!
Editorials, columnists. and investigative journalists cover the issues of "truth."


Yes those are facts but they ARE NOT interpretation or editorial content. If X says "such and such" you report what X said. If X is lying the EDITORIAL page and Investigative reporters ferret those out.

You have a pathetic understanding of the function of news outlets. If Joe Politician says "the President is a Nazi lizardman from Planet X!", a news source worthy of being called one will not just report what Mr. Politician said. They'll look into the basis for the claim and see if there are any actual facts behind it. Otherwise they're a waste of farking paper/airwaves/etc.

I shouldn't be surprised though. Your posts in this thread indicate that you have delusions of "omg! liberal media!" and probably love Fox News.

--- You Could not be further from the truth. I never watch Fox News. I resent sloppy reporting no matter who does it. There is no question that the Times has fallen a great deal in the last decade.
They don't seem to understand the difference between reporting and editorializing. They have sat on stories at the request of the Bush administration and they have sometimes carried water for Obama. THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB! Just have your reporters do basic work. Columnists comment on fact and opinion. There is also a lot of news that the Times neglects to cover which effectively decides what the public record of that story will be and how it will be recalled by future generations.

Look at their non-reporting of the Soviet famine of the 1930's? Any kid looking for information on that who starts with the times is sore out of luck. There are any number of stories that the Times has soft pedaled. That a simple fact.

I have been of the opinion for a long time that the best and most objective reporting in ANY newspaper is in the sports page. I have yet to see that opinion be disproved. The Times reporters covering the Yankees and Mets do a MUCH better job than the Times reporters covering events in Washington and that is a very sad circumstance.
 
2012-01-12 05:06:30 PM

someonelse: Cybernetic: People seem to talk about "truth" when they are really talking about a difference of opinion, or a difference of interpretation. If Romney (to use an example from TFA) says that Obama has a habit of apologizing for America, that is his opinion based on his interpretation of Obama's words. Disagreeing with that opinion does not make Romney's opinion false, or Romney a liar.

Opinions are not facts, and facts are not opinions. This country is suffering from an overabundance of people who cannot distinguish between the two.

I don't know why the NYT used this example, because seems like a terrible example of the idea that they're addressing. But in this thread it is serving as a good example of how easy it is to criticize journalists when you don't have to do their job. President Obama has made comments acknowledging some of the dark, shameful parts of America's past. Mitt Romney interprets this as apologetic. If you're upset that the NYT is even bringing this "truth" issue up, you are obligated to answer for yourself: If you were writing the article, would you contradict Romney's claim or not?


Is it the reporter's job to contradict Romney's claim? Or is it his job to present facts and let the reader decide whether or not Romney's claim is borne out by those facts?

A journalist who contradicts Romney's claim is writing an opinion piece, not a news article.
 
2012-01-12 05:12:57 PM

Cybernetic: People seem to talk about "truth" when they are really talking about a difference of opinion, or a difference of interpretation. If Romney (to use an example from TFA) says that Obama has a habit of apologizing for America, that is his opinion based on his interpretation of Obama's words. Disagreeing with that opinion does not make Romney's opinion false, or Romney a liar.

Opinions are not facts, and facts are not opinions. This country is suffering from an overabundance of people who cannot distinguish between the two.


unless of course Romney is demonstratably wrong and no reasonable person could interpret any speech that Obama has given as "apologizing for America".

/just because something is subjective doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid
//perhaps alongside that quote the Times could have published additional quotes where Romney points out specific instances where he believes Obama was apologizing, you know, if they had bothered to ask him
 
2012-01-12 05:22:41 PM

Cybernetic: Is it the reporter's job to contradict Romney's claim? Or is it his job to present facts and let the reader decide whether or not Romney's claim is borne out by those facts?

A journalist who contradicts Romney's claim is writing an opinion piece, not a news article.


I disagree on a somewhat technical point. There's two ways to discredit an argument.

The first is to directly contradict it, and offer your own grounds for your contradiction. That would certainly be an opinion piece.

But the second means is to discredit the grounds of the argument, to show that it is not a valid argument because it does not have support from facts or logic. That sort of attack on an argument can be levied by journalists who are purely sticking to the truth and facts as they know it, and this was in fact commonplace in the golden age of investigative journalism.

Let the facts speak for themselves, but present them in such a clear, eloquent and forceful manner that one's readers immediately grasp why these facts dispute and discredit the other position.

Journalistic objectivity does not mean being neutral or impartial. It means that that you are very much a partisan, but of the truth itself, not of any particular individual or ideology, political or otherwise. It means pursuing, revealing and defending the truth to the best of one's ability, regardless of pressure and opposition to do otherwise. It does not mean balance, or a disinterested repetition of all claims and statements made without critical evaluation. It means following the facts and the evidence whereever they take you. It is an active role, one of advocacy, not a passive one no better than a stenographer, and I think all too many people forget that these days.
 
2012-01-12 05:32:35 PM

Cybernetic: A journalist who contradicts Romney's claim is writing an opinion piece, not a news article.


It's not really a matter of opinion. An apology is definite thing with a clear definition. Obama has never given a speech or press conference in which he has apologized for America. So when Romney says that Obama has been "apologizing for America," he is not stating his opinion, he is lying.

A journalist who corrects Romney's falsehood is no more editorializing than one who corrects a claim that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese.
 
2012-01-12 05:46:17 PM

weeha: But you KNOW what the NYT is going to do if they run with this don't you?

Everything Obama and the Democrats say is written in stone truth.
Everything any Republican, religious, or conservative says will be a "COLD BLOODIED LIE"

/Not slanted news not at all.
//Slanted like Chairman Mao's eyes


So you're a bigot and in fantasy land. Thanks for the heads up.
 
2012-01-12 06:11:21 PM
No. Just keep regurgitating whatever BS your "reporters" are being told.
 
2012-01-12 06:34:12 PM
i guess just repeating what you're told is at least a step up from making shiat up. so they're moving in the right direction.

/yes, they should call bullshiat when bullshiat is said.
//that's their farking job
 
2012-01-12 06:41:37 PM
Part of the problem is the media's pants-wetting fear of being called librul by right wing mouthbreathers who can't handle their bullshiat being called bullshiat.

However, I'm pretty sure another part is just plain laziness. More and more, I see news articles that have no primary sources at all...forget actually challenging those sources. Instead, they simply cite an article by another news outlet, and never talk to the actual sources or go to the sites at all.

Welcome to the world of modern media, where news articles are written the same way as freshmen college essays...never having dome more than go to google or paraphrase a press release the author was emailed.
 
2012-01-12 06:58:16 PM
I don't need anyone to tell me the sky is not green when a politician or other twit tells me it is. Tell me the idiot said it, and I'll determine if he's a Bad Guy™.

If you think that "Journalist Good Guy" is going to give you an unbiased review of the facts, you're shiatting yourself. He will be happy to quote whatyouwanttoproveyourright.org to tell you exactly what he wants you to hear. That's it.

Facts are all I want. My truth is Mine.
 
2012-01-12 07:02:15 PM

nicoffeine: Facts are all I want.


You're secretly a Jesuit, aren't you?
 
2012-01-12 07:02:42 PM

Cybernetic: Is it the reporter's job to contradict Romney's claim? Or is it his job to present facts and let the reader decide whether or not Romney's claim is borne out by those facts?


It's the reporter's job to ask Romney, "To what speech do you refer, in which President Obama apologized?" - and then report the answer. Romney would then be arguably right, arguably wrong, or arguably fuddled - and then we'd have a story rather than a sound bite.

But heaven forbid a mere journalist pose a truth-seeking question to one of our noble public figures.
 
2012-01-12 07:02:50 PM
Meant to quote "My truth is Mine."

FTFM
 
2012-01-12 07:05:10 PM

someonelse: ykarie: Truth is not subjective.

Has President Obama apologized or not?


Beats the hell out of me. I don't follow his speeches closely enough to know what Romney is whinging about, "journalists" are too busy just repeating what Romney and Obama say to them instead of figuring out whether any of it is true, and I don't get to see Jon Stewart every night anymore.

But I stand by the simple statement that truth and facts are not subjective. People's opinion of those truth and facts may be. Obama said something that Romney thought was an apology, fine. Romney should say what that incident was, and a reporter should have the balls to ask for specifics instead of just being a mouthpiece. If Romney doesn't care to reveal what the President said that upset him so much, fine, then I stand by my opinion that he's a whinging, two-faced, asswipe.
 
2012-01-12 07:06:03 PM

2wolves: nicoffeine: Facts are all I want.

You're secretly a Jesuit, aren't you?


Um, wow. I don't believe everything I'm told. I don't believe everything I'm told not to believe. It's not that hard to think for yourself.
 
2012-01-12 07:08:48 PM

nicoffeine: Facts are all I want. My truth is Mine.


Your opinion is your own. The truth is made up of facts and, like them, not likely to be claimed by anyone.
 
2012-01-12 07:10:03 PM

ykarie: nicoffeine: Facts are all I want. My truth is Mine.

Your opinion is your own. The truth is made up of facts and, like them, not likely to be claimed by anyone.


Exactly.
 
2012-01-12 07:10:41 PM
If the "news" lowered itself to our level - that of the 99% majority - and actually reported the NEWS, the today's GOP would not exist.
 
2012-01-12 08:10:11 PM
It's farking pathetic that so-called conservatives, after 20 farking years of pissing and moaning about "cultural relativism" and the abandonment of a fact-based view of the world, are themselves hiding behind relativism and the claim of universal subjectivity simply because theirs have gotten so farking crazy that they are literally lying out of their asses constantly.

fark you farking morons. Grow the fark up. Tell the farking truth. I'm talking to both conservatives and the NYT here (and frankly, aside from Krugman, there's not much daylight between the NYT and country club Republicans).
 
2012-01-12 08:16:27 PM

steveGswine: Cybernetic: Is it the reporter's job to contradict Romney's claim? Or is it his job to present facts and let the reader decide whether or not Romney's claim is borne out by those facts?

It's the reporter's job to ask Romney, "To what speech do you refer, in which President Obama apologized?" - and then report the answer. Romney would then be arguably right, arguably wrong, or arguably fuddled - and then we'd have a story rather than a sound bite.

But heaven forbid a mere journalist pose a truth-seeking question to one of our noble public figures.


It's farking pathetic that this has to be explained to the mouthbreathers and Fark Independents(TM). That it has to be explained to an ombudsman at a major journalistic institution is positively disgusting.
 
2012-01-12 08:24:36 PM
The fact that the so-called "paper of record," one of the most respected journalistic institutions in America, is uncertain about whether or not it's appropriate to call out lies as lies...well, I think that illustrates better than ever why Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have the following they do.

The press has failed, miserably. It is derelict in its duty to the American people.
 
2012-01-12 09:02:33 PM
I'm just not understanding either their arguments, or the dimwitted "examples" they or their readers have cited, since they don't give the actual stories for some context.

Example: a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had "misunderstood" a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife's earnings from the Heritage Foundation. Is that the actual quote from the original story? The actual quote from the spokeswoman? Did it come from the press release from Thomas's office? Was it a straight fact-piece or an op-ed? And what did the reader who cited it expect to see instead?

In a straight news piece, the reporter should ONLY report what was in the official release: "According to an official spokeswoman, Thomas misunderstood the disclosure form." The reporter has no business either editorializing on the statement or speculating on whether Thomas was lying or not. That was the official statement, the reporter's job is to relay it to the public.

If it was a pure opinion piece, the reporter might be able to interject her own thoughts on the matter: "...Thomas misunderstood the disclosure form. This might be odd, considering Thomas never misunderstood any other forms." In that case, the reporter's job is to theorize on alternatives for the readers' benefits.

If it was an investigative piece, the reporter's job would be to provide other examples that would prove or disprove the official report: "...Thomas misunderstood the form. The Times has found seventeen other cases where Thomas was unable to fill out basic preprinted forms, including one where he couldn't even spell his own first name." This time, the reporter's job is to take the statement, and either verify it or show its falsity because the public cannot.

It is NOT the reporter's job to comment on everything that he or she reports on as if every story was a blog or a tweet. An official press release or statement isn't some kind of opportunity for Jane Doe to say "Here's the statement. Personally, I think he's a liar (based on no evidence except my own opinion, because I'm not an investigative reporter) but you all wanted more." It's important for papers to fact check; but they don't have to "fact check" every comment that someone makes if it's not fact specific. Thomas might well be lying about "misunderstanding" his tax forms, but that's not the kind of thing you can "fact check" for a quick article on a press release; and it's not something that warrants a quick "I think he's lying" comment from the reporter.
 
2012-01-12 09:32:08 PM
At first I was looking for the Onion link, but then I realised this guy is serious. This is so much doing their basic job like subby says. Gyrfalcon is taking an extremely narrow view of the role of a reporter. If the official report of the accident is 'no one was hurt' but everyone can see the bodies lying around In a straight news piece then saying the reporter should ONLY report what was in the official release is just nonsense. The news is what someone, somewhere doesn't want you to know, the rest is just advertising. If Romney says the President has a habit of apologising for this country, and it's not true and the reporter knows it, then it is the reporters duty to point out that it is a lie. If you can't bring yourself to do that you may as well go and work for Fox.
 
2012-01-12 09:33:39 PM
I'm pretty sure the mere existence of the Op-Ed section covers that.
 
2012-01-12 09:52:17 PM
You want a good example of modern journalism, look at Herman Cain.

Of the five slutty bimbos women who accused him:

---One has been sued six times, has filed for bankruptcy twice, has recently been kicked out of her apartment for non-payment of $7500 in rent, sued a guy for paternity and lost because he was not the father (if you can't remember which one, that's too many, chick);

---The second is a serial lawsuit filer, who has filed suits against every one of her previous employers;

---Three more will not come forward and show their faces, give their names, or say what allegedly happened.

And I bet you didn't read that in any newspaper, along with the fact that Herman Cain was the favorite of the Tea Party by a margin of over 2 to 1, even though the Tea Party is falsely described as "racist" by the libtard press.

I also bet you never read that Jesse Jackson was being sued at the same time by some gay guy, who was claiming sexual harassment (liberal black preachers don't do that sort of thing, don't you know).

But of course if some golfer wrecks his car and has a fight with his wife, that's front page news.
 
2012-01-12 09:54:01 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Truth is rarely cut and dried. The example cited by the article's author illustrates this very well:

"The president has never used the word 'apologize' in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president's words."

In this hypothetical example, not using the word "apologize" does not necessarily mean he wasn't apologizing, and for the reporter to insert the phrase "misleading interpretation of the president's words" just means that we're getting the reporter's interpretation instead.


I'm not exactly sure where he was going with this. If Obama had said "I'm sorry the US did..." then he HAS apologized, he just didn't use the word "apologize". So it's a factual statement, but so is Romney's claim that Obama "apologized" on behalf of the US.

Note: I don't have any idea if Obama has apologized for US actions or not. I just wanted to point out that's a terrible example of a disclaimer.
 
2012-01-12 10:16:04 PM
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE SHAME OBAMA HAS BROUGHT ON THIS COUNTRY
 
2012-01-12 10:21:56 PM

ykarie: Truth is not subjective.


We have a winner.
 
2012-01-12 10:27:55 PM
"Are you trying to put The Onion out of business?"


How much you wanna bet at least 20% of readers checked the URL to make sure that wasn't what they were reading? Also, this comment made me laugh out loud so hard my pets are staring at me.
 
2012-01-12 10:28:44 PM

sweet jeez: THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE SHAME OBAMA HAS BROUGHT ON THIS COUNTRY


Your caps lock key is very persuasive.
 
2012-01-12 10:31:03 PM

tomcatadam: Except it IS subjective.
A "weak foreign policy" to a Republican means "not demanding everything from everyone at gun point " just like "apologetic foreign policy" often means "not threatening nuclear annihilation for not giving us free oil".


No, proper reporting on that would be something along the lines of "foreign policy decisions/changes from past administrations that some believe/feel could be weakening the US' position globally."

It's accurate and objective without sensationalizing.
 
2012-01-12 10:44:44 PM

Aigoo: tomcatadam: Except it IS subjective.
A "weak foreign policy" to a Republican means "not demanding everything from everyone at gun point " just like "apologetic foreign policy" often means "not threatening nuclear annihilation for not giving us free oil".

No, proper reporting on that would be something along the lines of "foreign policy decisions/changes from past administrations that some believe/feel could be weakening the US' position globally."

It's accurate and objective without sensationalizing.


A phrase like "some believe", or "scientists say", etc. are weasel words. They're a passive-aggressive way for the writer to sway the opinion of the reader without actually having to produce any facts. The argument is that someone, somewhere in the world must say it, so it's obviously true. I've seen style guides that specifically forbid this type of thing.

My point is that even when you're not trying to inject your own opinion or agenda into an article, it's virtually impossible to avoid it. This is why "truth is subjective", because truth is colored by the mind of the person perceiving it. Facts, however, are not subjective.
 
2012-01-13 01:38:24 AM

olddinosaur: You want a good example of modern journalism, look at Herman Cain.


You then go one to editorialize and make suppositions.

Of the five slutty bimbos women who accused him:

---One has been sued six times, has filed for bankruptcy twice, has recently been kicked out of her apartment for non-payment of $7500 in rent, sued a guy for paternity and lost because he was not the father (if you can't remember which one, that's too many, chick);


Although I don't remember the specific details, I was aware that one of the women was of low character as you describe. But I don't know how accurate the claims against her were.

---The second is a serial lawsuit filer, who has filed suits against every one of her previous employers;

This I didn't know. Again, I have no idea how accurate that information is.

---Three more will not come forward and show their faces, give their names, or say what allegedly happened.

These I do know about. But you leave out one important fact in your characterization. There are records of these three having reached out of court settlements. Those settlements include non-disclosure clauses. Saying that they "will not come forward" indicates that they choose not to speak. They are forbidden by law to give any information without violating the terms of their settlements.

Although they did accuse Cain of whatever it was back when, none of them accused him of anything recently. It was the records of the settlements that brought the issue up.

And I bet you didn't read that in any newspaper, along with the fact that Herman Cain was the favorite of the Tea Party by a margin of over 2 to 1, even though the Tea Party is falsely described as "racist" by the libtard press.

I did, in fact, read about those things in the msm. Although I don't know of any main stream libtard press that has called the Tea Party racist. It has been brought up ad nauseum in other places though.

I also bet you never read that Jesse Jackson was being sued at the same time by some gay guy, who was claiming sexual harassment (liberal black preachers don't do that sort of thing, don't you know).

That I had not heard of. But I admit that I don't pay much attention to Jackson.

But of course if some golfer wrecks his car and has a fight with his wife, that's front page news.

I will agree with you that these particular story received an obscene amount of coverage relative to it's importance.

/full disclosure, I am a libtard.
//I believe that a portion of the Tea Party is comprised of racists.
///especially those that jumped on the bandwagon after post 2008
////I believe significant number of Tea Partiers are not racist per se, but could be characterized as bigots.
 
2012-01-13 03:46:31 AM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Aigoo: tomcatadam: Except it IS subjective.
A "weak foreign policy" to a Republican means "not demanding everything from everyone at gun point " just like "apologetic foreign policy" often means "not threatening nuclear annihilation for not giving us free oil".

No, proper reporting on that would be something along the lines of "foreign policy decisions/changes from past administrations that some believe/feel could be weakening the US' position globally."

It's accurate and objective without sensationalizing.

A phrase like "some believe", or "scientists say", etc. are weasel words. They're a passive-aggressive way for the writer to sway the opinion of the reader without actually having to produce any facts. The argument is that someone, somewhere in the world must say it, so it's obviously true. I've seen style guides that specifically forbid this type of thing.

My point is that even when you're not trying to inject your own opinion or agenda into an article, it's virtually impossible to avoid it. This is why "truth is subjective", because truth is colored by the mind of the person perceiving it. Facts, however, are not subjective.


Stating a fact - some people do believe that the President's foreign policy choices are weakening the US position geopolitically - is passive-aggressive? Okay. You have, in my opinion, a strange idea of what is and is not passive-aggressive.

Perhaps you cannot help injecting your opinion into a factual article, but just because you may or may not have that issue (and just because many of today's journalists seem to), that does not mean that every person who states a fact does.

No one else is responsible for your perception but you.

In the case stated in TFA, no, the President has never outright apologized for this nation. Not one time. All of his speeches are available online to be read and parsed, and I don't recall ever seeing an apology for this country in any of them. It is, however, the perception and opinion of several people in the news industry (I won't call them journalists) that his behavior indicates that he does not place the nation on equal footing with other nations, and they have allowed their perceptions to color their reporting.

Mr. Romney is regurgitating bad reporting based on opinion and not on fact, but neither is he calling out the President on facts: the President's time spent overseas during the last campaign, the President's excessively deep bow to Emperor Akihito (one of equal stature, such as a world leader, does not bow so low as to indicate subservience--this is the fact of Japanese tradition.), the President appeared on the video to have bowed to King Abdullah... Romney - or any journalist - would be well within the scope of his candidacy (or a journalist his/her job description) to question the President regarding these incidents without commentary, because the facts are, the incidents did occur.
 
2012-01-13 07:13:29 AM

Paelian: Even with Google, it may be difficult to research the claims of a politician in enough time to scoop another news organization with the story.


So what exactly is so farking difficult in an interview to say "wait a minute", picking up a smartphone and using google or ixquick? What the hell is so difficult if X says person Y wants to do Z, pick up a farking phone and call Y right on the spot and confronting X with it right then and there, live? Why the fark do we have all this instant technology if we are never going to use it in the here and now?

It occurs to me if every member of the MSM started using Google or IXQuick in the here and now, a whole lot of politicians would suddenly find something else to do other than babble to a reporter.
 
2012-01-13 11:38:13 AM

Maud Dib: albatros183: FTFA "I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge "facts" that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."

Got as far as that and I don't have enough hands for the Facepalm needed

[g2.img-dpreview.com image 480x319]


Came for "there is not a facepalm big enough in the entire world", leaving satisfied.
 
2012-01-13 03:13:54 PM
Likely discussion: "Hey guys, maybe we shouldn't be taking it like a biatch every time a CEO from a fortune 500 company calls us up to get a story demoted or yanked....Maybe we should cover the *real* news so that people don't have to find out, through Twitter, that which we self-censor. Let's ask them."
 
2012-01-13 03:44:29 PM
Notice how he only uses examples from people right of center?
Why not call out the lies that Obama or Biden have said?

Heck, for that matter how about calling out Krugman on his lies?
Allah farking knows there are enough examples.
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report