I'm serious. Haven't we been down this road enough times by now that for once we just rule stories like this out of hand before the fact? Do we have to always waste weeks and months on non issues and non stories?
Too often even the alleged liberals are too credulous about these fake scandals. Paul Waldman is better than he was on Hillary's email-did you know she has a sever?!! A server?!!! I mean, sure, Jeb Bush has a server too but obviously that's totally different as even a fool could see!
He's much improved and admits that we've seen this movie before and we have a right to be skeptical. Yet, this irks me here:
"Furthermore, the fact that Peter Schweizer is a conservative operative whose previous books include such classics of objective journalism as “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy” and “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less…and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals” does not, in and of itself, mean his charges have no merit. You can write a partisan book whose arguments are based on verifiable facts. But it does mean those charges should be checked and rechecked before they’re simply passed on to the public with the usual “questions are being raised” justification."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/21/getting-back-to-basic-facts-in-the-next-hillary-scandal/
Being 'partisan' by itself doesn't mean the charges have no merit. But the subtitle of "Makers and Takers' is so ludicrous that in itself it ought to make you very skeptical.
Furthermore, he's not any normal partisan. He's a very well paid GOP hack with a track record of getting these things very wrong.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#activist
Waldman is right that Americans probably give Hillary more benefit of the doubt as we've had literally countless numbers of such silly books and fake scandals during her 24 years in the public eye.
"There are obviously many conservatives who continue to believe that the path to defeating Hillary Clinton lies in uncovering some previously unrevealed scandal. The idea is that once Americans realize the true depths of her corruption, then they will at last turn away from her (and her husband) in disgust. That’s possible. But as I have argued, she may enjoy a presumption of innocence when it comes to scandal that other politicians don’t, precisely because so many supposedly shocking Clinton scandals have come and gone without producing evidence of serious wrongdoing. New allegations of quid pro quo involving the Clinton Foundation and the State Department might be something different, or they might be much like all the other faux-scandals we’ve seen."
Might be. Sure, but what are the odds that this will be something different? It's hardly the toss-up Nate Silver says 2016 will be.
To me, if Hillary is innocent till proven guilty, Schweizer is guilty till proven innocent.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/thinkprogress-report-schweizer-admits-he-cannot/203361
"As Media Matters has documented, Schweizer has a record of making inaccurate claims, factual errors, and retractions. Much of Clinton Cash also relies on previously reported issues. But the Clinton Foundation’s finances have come under scrutiny ever since President Obama asked the charity to discloseits donors as a condition of Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State. The foundation also agreed to stop taking contributions from most foreign governments during Clinton’s tenure. Still, media investigations have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interests stemming from the charity’s private donors."
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/21/3649392/clinton-cash/
I also have a real probem with Think Progress here:
"Clinton herself dismissed the book as a “distraction.” But the allegations may not go away anytime soon; in an unusual arrangement, several top media outlets have reportedly agreed to further investigate some of the issues raised in the book."
I'm sure the writer would just say their being honest, that it's not necessarily what they want, it's just descriptive, but, I worry that there is something self-fulfilling about saying that. I mean TP as a big part of the liberal media has some control about what the story is and what it isn't. If they take the attitude that this will be around a long time, there's a better chance it will be.
This is what Waldman and Sargent were saying during Emaligate. Liberals should demand that this not be a long term story.
I am going to put on my advocate hat here and charge that real liberals should resist this piece of yellow journalism with everything they have. To fatalistically accept it is absurd. This man, Schweizer is a paid liar and he works for lots of paid liars.
Real liberals should not for one moment dignify this piece of hackery with anything but what it deserves: contempt.
What's more, they must relentlessly shame the NY Times and Washington Post for crossing the line from journalism to aiding and abetting the Republican party's opposition research arm by working with Schweitzer.
The Times and W. Post are sullying the names of these fine institutions by doing any kind of business with such hackery.
Too often even the alleged liberals are too credulous about these fake scandals. Paul Waldman is better than he was on Hillary's email-did you know she has a sever?!! A server?!!! I mean, sure, Jeb Bush has a server too but obviously that's totally different as even a fool could see!
He's much improved and admits that we've seen this movie before and we have a right to be skeptical. Yet, this irks me here:
"Furthermore, the fact that Peter Schweizer is a conservative operative whose previous books include such classics of objective journalism as “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy” and “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less…and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals” does not, in and of itself, mean his charges have no merit. You can write a partisan book whose arguments are based on verifiable facts. But it does mean those charges should be checked and rechecked before they’re simply passed on to the public with the usual “questions are being raised” justification."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/21/getting-back-to-basic-facts-in-the-next-hillary-scandal/
Being 'partisan' by itself doesn't mean the charges have no merit. But the subtitle of "Makers and Takers' is so ludicrous that in itself it ought to make you very skeptical.
Furthermore, he's not any normal partisan. He's a very well paid GOP hack with a track record of getting these things very wrong.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#activist
Waldman is right that Americans probably give Hillary more benefit of the doubt as we've had literally countless numbers of such silly books and fake scandals during her 24 years in the public eye.
"There are obviously many conservatives who continue to believe that the path to defeating Hillary Clinton lies in uncovering some previously unrevealed scandal. The idea is that once Americans realize the true depths of her corruption, then they will at last turn away from her (and her husband) in disgust. That’s possible. But as I have argued, she may enjoy a presumption of innocence when it comes to scandal that other politicians don’t, precisely because so many supposedly shocking Clinton scandals have come and gone without producing evidence of serious wrongdoing. New allegations of quid pro quo involving the Clinton Foundation and the State Department might be something different, or they might be much like all the other faux-scandals we’ve seen."
Might be. Sure, but what are the odds that this will be something different? It's hardly the toss-up Nate Silver says 2016 will be.
To me, if Hillary is innocent till proven guilty, Schweizer is guilty till proven innocent.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/thinkprogress-report-schweizer-admits-he-cannot/203361
"As Media Matters has documented, Schweizer has a record of making inaccurate claims, factual errors, and retractions. Much of Clinton Cash also relies on previously reported issues. But the Clinton Foundation’s finances have come under scrutiny ever since President Obama asked the charity to discloseits donors as a condition of Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State. The foundation also agreed to stop taking contributions from most foreign governments during Clinton’s tenure. Still, media investigations have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interests stemming from the charity’s private donors."
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/21/3649392/clinton-cash/
I also have a real probem with Think Progress here:
"Clinton herself dismissed the book as a “distraction.” But the allegations may not go away anytime soon; in an unusual arrangement, several top media outlets have reportedly agreed to further investigate some of the issues raised in the book."
I'm sure the writer would just say their being honest, that it's not necessarily what they want, it's just descriptive, but, I worry that there is something self-fulfilling about saying that. I mean TP as a big part of the liberal media has some control about what the story is and what it isn't. If they take the attitude that this will be around a long time, there's a better chance it will be.
This is what Waldman and Sargent were saying during Emaligate. Liberals should demand that this not be a long term story.
I am going to put on my advocate hat here and charge that real liberals should resist this piece of yellow journalism with everything they have. To fatalistically accept it is absurd. This man, Schweizer is a paid liar and he works for lots of paid liars.
Real liberals should not for one moment dignify this piece of hackery with anything but what it deserves: contempt.
What's more, they must relentlessly shame the NY Times and Washington Post for crossing the line from journalism to aiding and abetting the Republican party's opposition research arm by working with Schweitzer.
The Times and W. Post are sullying the names of these fine institutions by doing any kind of business with such hackery.
No comments:
Post a Comment