Scheer Dishonesty: Where’s the Reaction?
Here I do this thoroughly researched post about Robert Scheer’s refusal to correct clear errors in his private archive of columns — and nobody seems to notice. There has been not one comment on that post. What’s the deal? Is it too much of a yawner that Scheer is being dishonest? Are you all reading the post and giving me silent clenched fists of approval? (With the emphasis on “silent.”)
What’s going on? Does anyone care about this blatant evidence of dishonesty by Scheer? Or is it just too damn predictable?
The Sun Riseth In the East!
John H. Costello (802ab8) — 12/14/2005 @ 11:42 pmJapanese is a SOV language!
Two dimes and a nickel = $0.25!
Robert Scheer is a sheer liar.
Your work is appreciated, but what more can I add? I am lucky enough to live under the Boston Glob regime here in Taxachusetts where we never see his commentary (we get other idiots.) Your work continues to open up a vast world of idiocy and duplicity for us, and we are grateful.
I’m more interested is his paper’s response.
Jal (a071ac) — 12/15/2005 @ 3:21 amI read the post and followed the links and thought it was well done.
For me though, Scheer isn’t a big concern. Although my local paper carries some LATimes news stuff I don’t think I’ve ever read one of his columns. He’s a dishonest boob, so is Krugman. Krugman (Dowd too) is carried in my paper though.
Moore is a lying sack-o too. Sometimes it just gets to the point where…I don’t want to say I don’t care, I do care…there’s just no point in saying anything about it. There seem to be so many like him on the left coast.
I dunno. Do people really believe him? I mean people that aren’t wetawded like Babs.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 12/15/2005 @ 3:26 amHey, Patterico, you can’t browbeat your readers into responding to your posts, man!
Uh, wait, I guess you can!
(Scheer’s a boob.)
fooltomery (ec29f2) — 12/15/2005 @ 4:23 amLately I’ve been too busy to argue with you Patterico.
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/15/2005 @ 4:48 amWho?
Toby928 (f6a7ec) — 12/15/2005 @ 5:02 amIs it too much of a yawner that Scheer is being dishonest?
Ummm, yes.
I think it’s important that stuff like this is pointed out, but it’s kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.
I tell people that I can find at least 3 mistakes (or lies if they’re repeated, like the plastic turkey) on the front page of the NY Times. I have yet to not find those three mistakes. And the “mistakes” always make Bush look bad, they never seem to go the other way.
The problem might be that you are preaching to the choir (except Tillman).
Veeshir (5f9b87) — 12/15/2005 @ 5:04 amSorry, Patterico. Frank Rich of the New York Times completely burned out my outrage synapses over what appears in the various fishwraps a long time ago.
nk (5a2f98) — 12/15/2005 @ 5:15 amDoes the Pope shit in the woods?
Xrlq (428dfd) — 12/15/2005 @ 6:51 amScheer is yesterday’s news. My guess is that traffic on his page is limited to people with Moore’s disease. Besides his gems appeared on the op-ed page. It’s the LAT’s dishonest news columns that upset me.
Stu707 (0b2aa6) — 12/15/2005 @ 7:07 amI live in Colorado and get all of my news via internet feeds. ^^;;; The only time I’ve ever even heard of Scheer is in your blog. So, er, good job on shooting at him. I’d have more to say about the subject if I actually read his BS.
Katsu (ac4529) — 12/15/2005 @ 7:25 amTo those of us who have come to the conclusion that the MSM is deeply, pathologically biased, there’s simply no outrage left for the antics of people like Scheer.
The usefulness of the exercise is being able to show friends and family who are open to the possibility — although they haven’t made the leap yet — that it’s impossible to get an unbiased view of the world through their daily paper, and the “analysis” provided by Scheer and his fellow travelers.
So, thanks for the continued work.
Mike (e9d57e) — 12/15/2005 @ 7:31 amFrankly, I’ve thought Robert Scheer was a lying blankety-blank for years. I’ve read his columns, and recall some of the write-ups on him from the past.
Reading your review, I:
1. Agreed.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/15/2005 @ 8:16 am2. Approved.
3. Was not surprised by any of it.
Agree with Mr. Costello above. That Scheer is a dishonest hack is clearly a dog bites man story. I also agree that editorial comment disguised as news is the greater evil and the one for which I am more appreciative of your vigilance.
Good piece though
Kent (6631f8) — 12/15/2005 @ 9:00 amThe LA Times has been printing lies by liars since at least the Mario Savio days of the Berkeley “Free Speech” movement.
Gbear (bbb176) — 12/15/2005 @ 9:25 amGbear
“Does anyone care…”
Sorry, Patterico, but it seems most folks really don’t care about yesterday’s news. Scheer’s out and no longer infests the LAT’s pages. Let him suck his thumb and cry.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/15/2005 @ 9:42 amDog bites man. Film at 11.
Al (2e2489) — 12/15/2005 @ 11:03 amyou could have written the same stuff about just about any liberal columnist. Off the top of my head, I can name three who don’t lie on a regular basis, Christopher Hitchens, Nat Henthoff and Richard Cohen. Cohen’s habit of ignoring obvious facts that don’t support his worldview doesn’t rise to the level of lying, but at least he doesn’t usually just make stuff up.
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/15/2005 @ 12:23 pmThere’s a level of burn-out, zone-out, that one achieves after a certain amount of exposure to leftwing media, commentator, blog and columnist dirty pool. You can only stand there and watch them shoot their rigged game for so long and then you want to either crack them over the head with a pool cue or walk away and have a nice quiet drink elsewhere. It’s Christmastime, a nice time, and I just want to go have that peaceful drink.
Exposing/documenting the likes of Scheer takes work and dedication and is always, always both necessary and appreciated. But sometimes there is just nothing left to say. Sometimes you just think, Well, there’s some more steaming manure to shovel out of the way. And you sigh and move on.
Somehow the hue and cry over murderer Stan Williams, whom the lefties nigh on moved to the realms of the saints at Christmastime no less, kinda did it for me.
Time to take a personal media exasperation break, till 1/1/06. Mental health break.
Laura (b21639) — 12/15/2005 @ 1:38 pmWhat’s the LA Times?
Addison (651a1b) — 12/15/2005 @ 1:54 pmWhat — you want a whole thread of, “Yup” comments? 😉
McGehee (5664e1) — 12/15/2005 @ 2:38 pmRobert Scheer has been a liar for so long (I was reading or being exposed to his junk in Berkeley in the late 60’s) that I just assumed everybody knew it. Unless you lived on LA’s Westside and had drunk the numb nuts Koolaid, in which event you could watch La Streisand get the warm and fuzzies over Scheer. Once Scheer floated into view again on the Los Angeles Times op ed pages, I adopted a simple rule. If Scheer said something was black, or recommended a course of action, I knew it was either white–or I should steer 180 degrees from his recommendation. Full of bull, lying sack of Bandini doesn’t begin to describe Bob Scheer.
Mike Myers (8440d6) — 12/15/2005 @ 3:18 pmOkay. I just wanted to make sure people had seen the dang post. If nobody comments it’s hard to know for sure.
Patterico (806687) — 12/15/2005 @ 4:26 pmNow that you have a couple dozen comments to the post, will you have a second post about how there were no trackbacks? 😉
Army Lawyer (43642a) — 12/15/2005 @ 6:35 pmMike Myers is close to the truth. His experience with Scheer is parallel to mine. The best thing we can do is to flush this Scheer turd down the crapper as soon as possible. He’s a liar, has always been a Stalino-Fascist liar, and will continute to be a Islamo-Fascist liar until we bury this lying SOB in the sewers of New York!
Mescalero (388cb7) — 12/15/2005 @ 8:47 pmOn Saturday Night Live David Spade would do the “Holllywood Minute” as part of the news. They would flash the picture of some brainless Hollywood celebrity on the screen and he would toast them with a verbal broadside. Rapid fire, one after another. One night in the midst of his routine they flashed a picture of Milli Vanilli on the screen and he said “Nah, too easy” and they went to the next picture. Scheer is a “Nah, too easy” kind of target. We love you anyway, Patterico.
tyree (0c5cc5) — 12/16/2005 @ 6:58 pmWhy my silence? I only just finished the post. My reaction? Typical of the leftist newsie.
On the other hand, someone has to keep revealing them to be the lying hypocrites they are, or else they get away with it.
So thank you for the work, and it was fun to read the result of that work.
Lloyd (c3f3cf) — 12/18/2005 @ 9:02 am