Dustup: Day Four
The L.A. Times Dustup, an online debate with Marc Cooper about the future of the paper, has been keeping me up late every night this week, leaving little time for blogging. But it’s been fun.
In our latest round Marc Cooper and I find much on which to agree. It will appear in this space sometime today. [UPDATE: Here is a direct link.]
The concepts of “crab grass” bloggers and “four experienced Times editors” make an appearance.
Previous installments: Part One here. Part Two here. Part Three here.
Between your day job and this, I’m not exaggerating when I say it’s like having two jobs. The only way to do that is to sacrifice sleep so I know you must be tired. I want you to know how much I appreciate what you do here, especially since I know you do it because you want to make things better.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:40 amI appreciate that. I am indeed tired. Tonight’s the last night, though, and then I can rest.
Patterico (2fd9a3) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:16 pmGive ’em hell some more, Senor Pat !!!!!!!!!!1
JD (75f5c3) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:29 pm#2
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:03 pmTonight’s the last night, though, and then I can rest
What are we talking about here? Or am I intruding?
His last night to write for the DustUp column.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:13 pmI just read Day 4 and Cooper is finding it harder to rebut your well-documented points. His sole talking point is that the Times isn’t that liberal. Good luck with that one.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:16 pmI think the basic way down deep reason the LA Times is in the toilet is that about twenty years ago somebody over there decided that LA “needed” a New York Times of the west. Being LA wasn’t good enough for the elite over there who felt when going to New York they couldn’t hold their heads up at the $500 per plate dinner at the 28 seat Masa. A reservation request for even a $300 per plate eatery would be denied if it was disclosed that they wrote for the provincial Los Angeles Times. The people I knew down there had an inferiority complex about the city and since neither USC nor UCLA was a $40,000 per semester Ivy League school, there was nothing here to be really proud of. Look at the paper. It’s not LA. It isn’t anywhere. The movie capital of the World, the birth place of surfing, and the home of the (then) World Champion Dodgers just branded us barbarians. Trust me, if I was in charge there the first thing I’d do was a Hollywood Scandal Sheet, the next would be to blow the doors off Variety, and after that I’d expand through all the real pastimes of SoCal and make the “news” a lot lighter….oh, and I’d also start telling the truth.
howard432 (cc8b85) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:44 pmHoward whinges that the L.A. Times “made us out to be barbarians.”
Patterico moans that the paper has been “arrogant.”
Why is Patterico’s whine about the media so self-referential, so paranoid? It’s as if he’s vexed mostly by perpetually losing arguments to liberals or always biting his lip and being made to feel intellectually inferior.
This is exactly how conservatives end up at dead ends like Rove and Nixon. Both these guys manipulated the movement toward suicide because they understood so well that that hottest button for conservatives is that liberals make them feel intellectually inferior. Grow up guys.
Get a life! Stop whining just because a particular group of editors and reporters doesn’t see the world the way you do. Maybe if your worldview wasn’t so narrow and paranoid, there would be a news organization capable of representing it to the masses.
bunkerbuster (e6849f) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:01 pmThey can’t even get their discussion area formated correctly. How are you supposed to carry on a discussion when the comments are displayed most recent to oldest yet are numbered in ascending numerical order?
Very confusing when see you’re reading them numerically and find someone referring to a comment you haven’t read. I thought they must have deleted it until I found it on the next comment page.
Well articulated Patrick. Unfortunately, I think most of senior people there are going to continue doing things the same as always and hope retirement comes before the demise of the paper.
Bob Koss (573e6b) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:10 pmI would love to be a fly on the wall at the daily editorial meetings when each new dust-up is posted. heh.
Well done, again.
Dana (aec96d) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:18 pmThe proof Cooper offers that the LA Times doesn’t lean Left? The LAT fired Robert Scheer! Never mind that the LAT employed Scheer for 29 years previous to his firing.
Then there’s also this strange comment, which I believe betrays Cooper’s own personal biases:
“The problem with The Times is hardly that it isn’t sufficiently fair to Republicans in an
overwhelmingly and increasingly blue city and state.”
What does the make-up of the population have to do with a reporter’s obligation to report the news accurately?
DubiousD (97e42d) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:32 pmCooper swipes at anti-Atzlan commenters (which I have never seen here), yet I remember him crowing on his blog when Villaraigosa was elected, simply because he was Hispanic. How is that position any more intelligent?
I read what LAT supporters say, and it’s sad–they still don’t get it. They are right, and everyone in the center or the right is wrong, paranoid, stupid, racist, blah, blah. Just like bunkbuster up there.
One day they will change or the paper will die. Another one will follow, though, because people basically like newspapers. They’re just tired of the now 40-year-old “New” Left.
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/10/2008 @ 8:51 pmRiddle me this, Patricia, why doesn’t the anti-Aztlan set or the right-wing in general already have a newspaper it likes?
You say the L.A. Times needs to “change or die” but the anti-Aztlan or pro-right newspaper you seem to want is so dead it was never even born.
You’re certainly entitled to hold any opinions you like, but simple logic dictates that, if anything, the L.A. Times should be moving to the left, given that the track record of right-of-center newspapers in L.A. is one of total, absolute failure.
bunkerbuster (e6849f) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:59 pmYeah, because that has always worked.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:00 pmRiddle me this, Patricia, why doesn’t the anti-Aztlan set or the right-wing in general already have a newspaper it likes?
We do–The Wall Street Journal.
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:23 pmThe Wall Street Journal is primarily a financial newspaper with virtually zero coverage of Los Angeles news. It’s national coverage is very good and in terms of tone, priorities and framing, tracks the New York Times and Washington Post very closely.
In fact, the WSJ has a news sharing tie-up with the Washington Post, primarily because it knows its readers appreciate the Post’s political coverage and because the quality levels are there.
Interestingly, the WSJ editorial page is stridently pro-immigration — far and away more so than the L.A. Times has ever been, by any measure.
The WSJ appeals to right-wingers only in that its editorial page echoes their narrow, strident agenda. Except on immigration and, in some cases, on legalizing drugs.
We could ask why the WSJ hasn’t started any local papers. You know, ones that would suit the emotional needs of people like Patterico and not allow them feel like they were being talked down to. But now that they’re owned by Murdoch, we can say that, indeed, they have started just such papers, but none has yet to become anything better than a commuters’ tabloid packed with gossip, pinup girls and, yes of course, strident right-wing commentary.
Stop whining kids. If a right-wing newspaper was a viable idea, there would be one by now. Your adamance in asserting that the L.A. Times should try to become that non-existent beast — without even acknowledging that all others have failed — is evidence only of how long and how far you’ve had your head buried in the echo chamber of talkradio-FOX-blogland.
If there was a market for a newspaper based on your ideology, surely one would exist. Case closed.
bunkerbuster (e6849f) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:39 pmWhy should they have to resort to the same kind of dead tree media that is already on the way out?
Welcome to the Bridge to the 21st Century, pal. This here’s the Internet.
I imagine more than a few sites have better “circulation” than the LAT…
Furthermore, your argument points out (through failing to include it) the obvious fact that the LAT circulation has been dropping like a homesick rock, which means what little market the LAT used to have is shrinking by the day. Which means, in turn, that your so-called “left wing” newspaper isn’t actually filling the needs of the mass market you claim is so supportive.
When the overall population is climbing, yet circulation is down, that means that the relative market is shrinking worse than an Olympic swimmer’s package in winter. And you are bragging about this?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:50 pmIf there was a market for a newspaper based on your ideology, surely one would exist. Case closed.
If there were a market for a newspaper based on *your* ideology, surely it wouldn’t be cratering in front of our eyes. Case closed.
Oh — and re talk radio?
If there were a market for a talk radio program based on your ideology, surely one would exist and flourish. Case closed.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:15 pmYour entire argument is based on the wild pretension that the Times is failing because it is losing readers, when anyone with 3rd grade math skills can see that its failure is directly related to losing classified advertising to the Internet.
It’s a simple question, Patterico, yet you haven’t even thought to ask it: Why is there no right-wing daily in Los Angeles?
If there were, and that paper were thriving at the Times’ expense, you might have an argument. But the data are in, no one is dumb enough to even imagine that such a newspaper would be successful, let alone to throw away their own money on it.
Readers are leaving the Times primarily because they know they can get enough news absolutely free on the Internet. Sure, there are always some identity-politics people who demand ideological correctness from their newspaper, and that would come from both the le
Do the math.
It could lose 90 percent of it’s readers and still be beating the right-wing competition.
Good point about talk radio. Liberals aren’t interested in hours of unopposed opinionating. Therefore, liberal talkradio isn’t viable.
Conservatives do want hours of sensational, unupposed opinionating, therefore a conservative daily newspaper isn’t viable.
Rush Limbaugh’s a gazillionaire precisely because so many conservatives not only don’t read a daily newspaper but don’t believe they should need to.
Ninety percent of what Rush delivers is culled directly from daily newspapers. If you’ve already read a decent paper, there would be virtually nothing Rush would be informing you about — other than his bombastic spin and ad hominem.
When Rush fans do deign to sit down and read, they discover, lo and behold, the tone and presentation are quite at odds with the narrow, simplistic diatribes on Rush and Fox, so they must have a “liberal” bias.
Go ahead. Pretend the L.A. Times is failing because they look down on you and your ideology. Hope you like getting your “news” from Rush…
bunkerbuster (e6849f) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:33 pm“Archie” Bunkerbuster, You ever look in the mirror concerning your biased blather? You think you are going to convince people that the LATimes liberal bias is good for us? How “Big Brother” of you.
PCD (5c49b0) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:03 amOoooookay.
Wait, I thought the problem was losing classified ad revenue and not readers? Cognitive dissonance much?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:21 amYour entire argument is based on the wild pretension that the Times is failing because it is losing readers, when anyone with 3rd grade math skills can see that its failure is directly related to losing classified advertising to the Internet.
bunkumpusher,
If only I had acknowledged the impact of the Internet as the primary cause of the paper’s economic challenges. Oh, wait. I did, multiple times, over the course of the past few days.
Then I noted that the LAT does worse than other papers on circulation, and discussed possible reasons for that.
Yes, the arrogant, dismissive, and complacent attitude is indeed part (a large part) of what is killing newspapers. There is a revolution going on around them and they are reacting to it like lumbering dinosaurs, convinced that if they only continue with their historic attitude of giving readers the voice they decide to give, etc., that somehow everything will work out. Because of The Quality.
You seem to think I am pushing for a right-wing newspaper. I addressed that, in a passage you didn’t read. Here’s you from Cooper’s site:
And here’s what I wrote, in the very piece you were commenting on:
Read the bolded parts again.
You’re looking a little dishonest there, buddy.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:32 amOut of the big talkers, Limbaugh is the only one I can think of that doesn’t have guests with opposing views on regularly. Fox News does it constantly and they do it far more than any of the other networks. You don’t hear that on Air America. You rarely see it on PMSNBC. You don’t see that on liberal blogs where in most cases any hint of dissent gets you deleted/buried/banned. But you do see it on Patterico’s Pontifications.
Please, point me to a liberal forum in any media that regularly allows the opposite POV a podium and regularly engages in open debate.
PCD,
As if on cue, the LAT gives us this, front page, above the fold. Heh.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:35 amPablo,
I guess the LATimes is just pure stupidity that keeps on being stupid no matter what.
PCD (5c49b0) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:14 amThere used to be one, it was called the Los Angeles Times.
With the post WWII population immigration from the East Coast (particularly New York City) to California for the then “free” college education, the LAT began to cater to these pretentious “Brooklyn” tastes. To this end, the LAT had to go “New York” in the editorial offices. LA is not Manhattan. Never should be, never will be.
Lyndon Johnson did not make me feel that Barry Goldwater was “intellectually inferior” to LBJ, nor did Jimmy Carter make me feel that Ronald Reagan was his “inferior”. Quite the contrary. I have never met a liberal that I did not consider myself to be their superior in many ways. Including you.
C. Norris (943b68) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:21 amPat writes: “The critics don’t want an ultraconservative paper that licks Bush’s boots. We just want a newspaper that gives us the facts from all sides — a newspaper that talks with, and not at, its readers. Simple as that.”
That’s what the Times is: a newspaper that gives facts from all sides. Does that mean they are perfect? Of course not. But if you want to be a credible critic, rather than a crank, you’ve got to start by comparing the Times to its peers, not some imaginary perfect newspaper that never existed.
The Times is far and away more factual than the right-wing New York Post or Washington Times and, really, we can’t really even compare them, as the Post doesn’t even strive for factuality. The Post’s coverage relies far more on broad generalities and is intended to provoke emotional responses, primarily. It’s not just that the Post gets stuff wrong at a higher rate than quality papers like LAT, it’s that they don’t deal primarily in specific fact, so they incur a much, much lighter burden of evidence in the first place.
That goes a thousand times for talkradio.
Do you really want to be arguing that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are more factual than the L.A. Times? No, of course you won’t make that argument, because even you know it’s ludicrous. Rather, you target the L.A. Times with some imaginary standard of absolute perfection that you decline to apply to any conservative sources of information.
It’s not just that you provide no credible evidence that the Times underperforms its peers in factuality, it’s more that it doesn’t even occur to you that such a comparison is necessary. You seem to believe that if you find an error in the Times, that means the newspaper isn’t factual.
Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, your factual challenges to the Times are consistently of an ideological nature and inevitably linked to an allegation that the problem is “liberal bias.” That’s why claim that your primary concern is factuality and not ideological correctness is transparently bogus. Talk about dishonesty.
Fess up Pat. Is it really factuality you’re on about?
You and I both know that Rush Limbuagh’s factuality isn’t even close to one-tenth that of the Los Angeles Times. With Limbaugh, we can’t even call the distortions “errors” because they are so obviously deliberate. When called on it, he inevitably claims to be a comedian, not a reporter. Indeed.
If you really want a factual news media, why not start your critique where the errors are most rife: blogs, talkradio and Fox News Channel.
I mean really. You’ve got blog after blog going around saying Obama’s a Muslim. You’ve got Fox News Channel photoshopping NY Times reporters to make them look ugly and calling Obama’s handshake a “terrorist fist pump.”
Bias?
How about a little honesty from you, Patterico. Anyone who reads this blog knows you’re about slaging liberals and salving conservatives. Your claim that you just want factuality has no substance.
If you’re really concerned about bias and factuality, all you have to do is admit that it’s rife on the right as well and complain about it there as well.
Every story is biased. In fact the key skill of journalism is “news judgment.” People read LAT, NYT and Wapo because they respect the news judgment of its journalists and acknowledge the long track record of it. Not that it’s perfect, but that it’s the best on offer.
Lastly, let me restate my wager. I’ll find more factual errors in your blog on a per-word basis than you — and whomever you want to recruit — can find in the L.A. Times, over any period you want, long or short. Case of beer? Subscription to The Nation or The National Review? Put up or…
Getting the facts straight is very difficult on deadline, under a budget, etc. All newspapers make mistakes and I’ve yet to see any evidence
You have never even attempted to make the case that the Times is less factual than other newspapers of its size, or, even, that it is less factual that it used to be.
The Times has many, many factual errors. But so does the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Channel. (Virtually everything Rush Limbaugh says
Read the bolded parts again.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:31 pmFTFY.
With the massive and ongoing decline of said readership, wouldn’t that also mean the point of view you are advocating is similarly declining in relation to the public at large?
If not, why isn’t there a market for such a POV? (The circulation seems to be dropping faster than the population is growing, so not only is the LAT not gaining any readers from that population growth, it is chasing away the few readers it used to have.)
Erm… maybe you should start checking this site’s archives. I haven’t been hanging out here all that long and even I know that Pat has spent the last five years chronicling the factual decline of the LAT.
And since you can’t even use a valid basis for your arguments, what does that say about the arguments themselves?
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:40 pmPablo asks: “Please, point me to a liberal forum in any media that regularly allows the opposite POV a podium and regularly engages in open debate.”
Easy:
NPR/KCRW’s “Left, Right and Center”
The regularly feature and give equal time to moderates, conservatives and liberals. From the sharp and witty, if misguided, Tony Blankely, to the editor of the National Review.
The New York Times just hired Bill Kristol, the pre-emminent neo-conservative, and also employs long-time conservative David Brooks as a regular columnist, along with Iraq War cheerleader (of late repentant) Thomas Friedman.
The Los Angeles Times has regularly featured the work of conservative columnists from George Will to Charles Krauthammer and now has even started a wingnut welfare program by employing Jonah Goldberg as a regular columnist.
Newsweek just hired Karl Rove as a regular columnist.
PBS nightly features a debate between a conservative and liberal — the regulars being David Brooks and Mark Shields.
I agree with you that Air America is too strictly liberal. The would definitely be more interesting if they brought in some conservative voices. But they are a rare exception.
Not most, but EVERY, mainstream media outlet includes a variety of well-known conservative voices.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:42 pmbunkerbuster,
There is the WSJ, the Washington Times, and partially there is the OC Register for conservatives, plus the monthlies. I’m moderate. I want truthful photos and no political agenda, right or left, in straight news or even movie reviews so I feel I cannot support the LAT.
The move to the left has been building for 20 years, in media and in J school. And as the LAT moves left, people drop their subscriptions. That’s not a coincidence. Most people don’t care enough to leave their professions and start a newspaper; they just drop the LAT and get their news, ads, and coupons from other sources.
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:55 pm“The Los Angeles Times has regularly featured the work of conservative columnists from George Will to Charles Krauthammer and now has even started a wingnut welfare program by employing Jonah Goldberg as a regular columnist.”
Could you explain to me, please, the meaning of the phrase “wingnut welfare” as a reference to the employment of Jonah Goldberg by the Los Angeles Times.
I mean, I understand that leftists find it impossibly clever to refer to writing jobs held by leftists as “writing,” and writing jobs held by conservatives as “wingnut welfare.”
I actually enjoy the phrase, for different reasons than leftists. I see it as drawing a distinction between how liberals collect “welfare” (they pocket it as compensation for sitting on their asses) and how conservatives collect theirs (they work for it).
By the same token, you describe paying for an item “wingnut robbery,” or telling the truth as “wingnut lying.”
But I thought the idea with “wingnut welfare” was that a *conservative* organization pays a writer to work (as opposed to when a leftist organization pays a writer to work, which you call a “job.”)
How does this apply to the LAT employing Goldberg?
Patterico (a62849) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:56 pmA better definition of “wingnut welfare” was when Robert Scheer, fabulist and nutjob extraordinaire, was on the payroll – mainly because of his wife’s influence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:59 pm“Its not just that you provide no credible evidence that the Times underperforms its peers in factuality, its more that it doesnt even occur to you that such a comparison is necessary.”
Which you know, because you’re such a longtime reader of this blog. (Which you read for the first time this week.)
Put your money where your mouth is, pal. You say it never occurred to me to compare the L.A. times to other publications. I assume, then, that you’ll have no problem agreeing to pay me $50 for every link I provide from my blog where I have done just that.
Let’s go! You agree?
Patterico (5d58d4) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:05 pm“Lastly, let me restate my wager. Ill find more factual errors in your blog on a per-word basis than you and whomever you want to recruit can find in the L.A. Times, over any period you want, long or short.”
The most galling disregard for facts is when a publication is *told* about its errors and refuses to correct them.
So here’s the wager I’ll make. I’ll find more *uncorrected* errors at the L.A. Times in the last five years than you’ll find in the history of this blog. But I get a chance to correct any errors you find, and you get a chance to try to persuade the L.A. Times to correct any that I find.
Of course, it’s a pointless wager because you would play the same dishonest word games.
So let’s stick with a more objective wager: my$50 wager mentioned above. I’ll put skin in the game, too: I’ll pay you $100 if I can’t find such a post. (I haven’t looked.)
You’ll never, ever take this bet, because you know you’re wrong.
Prove me wrong. Put up or shut the hell up.
Patterico (989490) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:17 pmConfess, Patterico, the last time you told a troll on this blog to “put up or shut up”, when did they do either one?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:19 pmbunkerbuster writes:
Do you really want to be arguing that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are more factual than the L.A. Times?
Yes.
Ever think about this: if they weren’t factually accurate, don’t you think they’d be metaphorically bludgeoned to death over ever error? That every such error would be broadcast and written about? That we’d hear about them 24/7?
No, their opponents resort to ad hominem attacks because that’s all they have to throw at them.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:31 pmWhen I said it “never” occurred to you, I meant in the “Dust Up.”
You are correct that I have no idea what you may have said over the years on your blog. But hey, if you have done the research that shows the Times is less factual than its peers, direct me to it and I’ll be more than happy to withdraw my claim and to admit that I’m wrong about the Times’ track record.
Can you be equally concrete about what it would take to get you to admit the Times ISN’T any less factual than its peers?
Now, if you what you’ve done is simply made rhetorical declarations that you THINK the times is less factual than, say, Rush Limbaugh or the Daily Breeze. That’s another story. Of if what you’ve done is shown that the Times made an error on a particular story, when the Arizona Republic didn’t, that’s not a comparison of factuality of the newspapers, it’s a comparison of a single story.
I’m pleased that you’d consider a wager over the issue of factuality, but disappointed that you feel you have to move the goalposts so far away from your central claim that the Times isn’t factual.
Nevertheless, I’m happy to accept your wager.
You list the uncorrected errors in the Times over the past five years, and I will list the uncorrected errors in this blog over the same period. We will divide the number of errors by the word count in the Times and in Patterico.com and I’m willing to bet cash or charitable donation in the agreed amount that your error rate is higher. (I have an inkling that it’s much, much higher, so if you want to pro-rate the wager, I’m happy to agree.)
Let’s agree on a neutral “moderator” to rule on any “wording” disputes and get it on!
As for wingnut welfare, it refers to the fact that Goldberg is widely perceived as having had his career handed to him through connections his parents made. Also, there is a perception that he was hired specifically as a sop to wingnuts, who don’t think people like George Will and Charles Krauthammer are right-wing enough.
For the record, I’m well aware that there are many, many excellent conservative journalists and columnists. Will is a superb writer and highly skilled rhetoritician. I only occassionally agree with his views and I believe he often twists the truth, but he does so extremely skillfully and in a way that brings insight. I’m happy to read him.
Goldberg, on the other hand, is resolutely unoriginal, shallow and self-contradicting. He brings zero insight. Perhaps he is better at packaging and selling his work than he is at creating it. That’s one theory that would explain how he got such a plum job with the Times. Another explanation is that corporate American and its media, which would certainly include LAT, lowers the bar for conservatives like Goldberg. They can get their claptrap published because it suits the views of the owners, not because it meets professional standards.
I could well be wrong about Goldberg. I’ve known plenty of journalists whose skills are mediocre but who, through salesmanship and tenacious networking, manage to sell their work a lot. I’ve also know superb writers and reporters who don’t get the exposure they deserve because they are poor salesmen and don’t network well.
Point taken, though. I probably shouldn’t be casting the “wingnut welfare” aspersion. It’s a little too cliche and too self-evident.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:11 pmWhen I said it “never” occurred to you, I meant in the “Dust Up.”
Oh look! An out!
You are correct that I have no idea what you may have said over the years on your blog. But hey, if you have done the research that shows the Times is less factual than its peers, direct me to it and I’ll be more than happy to withdraw my claim and to admit that I’m wrong about the Times’ track record.
Read the archives under “Dog Trainer.”
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:18 pmYou are correct that I have no idea what you may have said over the years on your blog.
Then I am correct that your statement about what I “never” considered is bullshit. I have over five years of evidence of this paper’s shortcomings. You? You have bluster.
Can you be equally concrete about what it would take to get you to admit the Times ISN’T any less factual than its peers?
Simple. Here’s my evidence of slipshod reporting by this paper, including several examples where the LAT was demonstrably worse than other papers: here. Simply follow every single link, and every single link contained in every single link, and enjoy. Then, pick a paper of your choice and demonstrate worse reporting. Let me know when you have your results.
Since you haven’t bothered and won’t bother, my readers and I will stick with my overwhelming mountain of evidence, versus your evidence-less yapping.
Nevertheless, I’m happy to accept your wager.
Nevertheless, you’re happy to change the terms of my wager.
Let me repeat what I proposed, which you changed in at least two respects:
You added something about word-count, but that’s OK; it doesn’t really matter, because I’ll point to several uncorrected errors, and you won’t find a single one that I won’t correct.
Which leads me to a crucial detail, bolded above, which you pointedly omitted: I can correct my errors, and you get to try to convince the LAT to fix theirs.
If we got a good moderator, I will win, regardless of word count, because if you find any errors I made, I will correct them. Meanwhile, I have found several errors by the LAT over the years that they have refused to correct. And you won’t convince them otherwise.
So the equation will look something like this:
uncorrected errors/number of words
Patterico: 0/200,000
LAT: 18/3,450,000,000
You can make that denominator as high as you like for their word count, and I’ll still win — if we have a truly fair moderator.
I nominate DRJ.
I repeat: put up or shut the hell up. Pretending to accept while you change the terms of the wager is not acceptance.
And feel free to get going on that project of showing worse errors at another paper. See you in five years. kthanksbye.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:33 pmYou have never even attempted to make the case that the Times is less factual than other newspapers of its size, or, even, that it is less factual that it used to be.
Wrong. The case you claim I would have to make would run several hundred thousand words, and I got about 500 a day. What can a person do in such a situation? Link their extensive evidence. So, twice!, I linked the very link I just gave you, which contains links to all the criticism I did of this paper from 2003 through the end of 2007.
So, once again, you state a falsehood.
Plus, never means never. Not “never in comment 37” or “never in that one sentence over there.”
Now, get back to dodging my wagers!
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:40 pmPatricia writes:
“There is the WSJ, the Washington Times, and partially there is the OC Register for conservatives, plus the monthlies.”
Very good point, Patricia.
The right is well-served by the biggest, by far most influential national newspaper, a major metropolitan daily in the nation’s capital and the second-biggest metro daily right here in Greater Los Angeles. Plus various weeklies and monthlies.
Why in the world, then, do you insist on harrassing the L.A. Times? If LAT is a leftist rag, why can’t you just not read it and leave it at that? Why all the vehement insistence that the times should do more to please conservatives?
And more to the point, if the problem with the big dailies is that they are losing readers because they are too liberal, why hasn’t the Washington Times overtaken Wapo? Why isn’t the OC Register riding high by scooping up all the disgruntled Times cancelers?
The data are in. The papers you cite — with WSJ as a specialist exception (no one considers it comparable to a metro daily) are doing WORSE than the Times, not better. The OC Register is has had three rounds of layoffs this year and is cutting coverage right and left. Its credit rating was cut in May for the second time this year. It’s also hemmoraging readers, regardless of how reliably right-wing its coverage is.
I haven’t checked up on the Washington Times in a while, but for decades, Rev. Sun Young Moon has been dumping 10s of millions of his cult followers donations into the paper a year as a subsidy. And it still lags Wapo in both readers and prestige.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:45 pmSPQR called it with this question:
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:49 pmConfess, Patterico, the last time you told a troll on this blog to “put up or shut up”, when did they do either one?
Goldberg, on the other hand, is resolutely unoriginal, shallow and self-contradicting. He brings zero insight. Perhaps he is better at packaging and selling his work than he is at creating it. That’s one theory that would explain how he got such a plum job with the Times. Another explanation is that corporate American and its media, which would certainly include LAT, lowers the bar for conservatives like Goldberg. They can get their claptrap published because it suits the views of the owners, not because it meets professional standards.
Maybe they just like making money. Evidently people like to read Goldberg. His book made #1 on the NYT best-seller list.
Go ahead and discount that. Make sure you simultaneously make some argument about how important it is that conservatives can’t find a market for a paper with conservative bias.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:58 pmThere’s a wager you’re still dodging, bunkumpusher.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:58 pmWhile you’re busy dodging, show me how easy it is, and find me just one uncorrected factual error on this blog.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:59 pmHow can anyone say that a “bar” has been lowered at a newspaper that printed Robert Scheer? Did they ever correct his 2001 lie about the Bush administration funding the Taliban?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:00 pmPatterico: As a tennis player, I gladly play over any point when my opponent disputes a line call. Roger Federer doesn’t do that. When his opponent disputes a call, he almost always ignores it and lets the judge’s ruling stand.
Does that make me a better sportsman than Federer?
Your essential claim is that the L.A. Times isn’t factual enough. But you know you can’t back that up — by comparing against its peers — so you try to shift the discussion to the willingness to correct errors. But hey, I can go there. If you want to shift the discussion to whether the Times is willing enough to correct itself, lets do that. (Your blog is a totally unfair comparison, because you’ve little to nothing at stake and have an obvious interest in correcting errors to win the bet. I’m always surprised that you don’t seem to realize how transparently obtuse you are.)
I will wager you 100 to 1 that the Times has a better track record of correcting its errors than does Rush Limbaugh. I will give you 10 to 1 that its record is better than Bill O’Reilly’s and 5 to 1 odds that its better than the Fox News Channel in general.
But let’s make it real: I’ll wager straight up that the Times is no less willing to correct factual errors than is the Washington Times or any other right-wing newspaper you can name. If you want to discuss the Times’ performance as a newspaper, you must compare it to its peers, simple as that.
For every correction denial you can get from the Times, I can find a refused correction at, say, the O.C. Register.
And, as I said, I’m sure you have pointed to specific stories where the LAT underperformed rivals. But you are not claiming that LAT sometimes gets beat by rivals. You are claiming that they are measurably less factual. To support that, you need to measure the error rate at their rivals which, apparently, you haven’t even attempted.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:02 pmbunbuster – What information do you have about Limbaugh and Hannity being nonfactual? You are not perhaps making the common liberal mistake of confusing fact with opinion are you?
It sounds like you do not listen to either Limbaugh or Hannity to make vacuous unsubstantiated statements such as you did? Have you any back up?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:07 pmThe record shows, Patterico, that you “dodged” my wager first.
Fine. I didn’t complain, I accepted that you didn’t feel it was a reasonable wager. You made a counter-offer, then I explained why the counter-offer you made doesn’t track our competing claims.
If you’re serious, you’ll keep at it until we arrive at agreed terms. It could be a very good thing if you’re serious about it. Let’s compare media factuality on an equitable basis and settle the question. We can even set up a separate blog to carry it out. Who knows, people might actually be interested in the outcome.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:09 pmNo put up … no shut up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:11 pmDaleyrocks: You bring up a good point. What Hannity and Limbaugh do is opinionate. They deliberately avoid dealing in fact. They are massively popular with conservatives. Explains a lot, doesn’t it?
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:13 pmC’mon, daley, he hasn’t yet managed to avoid proving Patterico wrong, so how can he be expected to not be able to prove you wrong at the same time.
Let Pat slap him around for a bit, and then it can be your turn.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:14 pmYou’re going to have to let Pat finish befor eyou pick another fight you’re gonna lose.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:16 pmWhat Hannity and Limbaugh do is opinionate. They deliberately avoid dealing in fact.
Prove it.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:17 pmOkey Doke. I’ll let Patterico have fun with him for a while. It shouldn’t take long, although the level of dishonesty is high. We need better quality trolls anyway.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:20 pm“bunkerbuster”:
Your claim is, to put it kindly, idiotic.
You are busy defending the argument that I can’t say this paper has a problem with getting the facts right, because it’s not good enough to do what I’ve done — show dozens, perhaps hundreds, of examples of them mucking up the facts.
No, I can’t make any claim about the LAT mucking up the facts unless I have done a fully comprehensive study, comparing every story in every major newspaper in every city over the past umpteen years, applying scientific controls, and writing a peer-reviewed paper on error rates.
That would be a reasonable demand on your part if I had made the claim that, scientifically, it is provable that this newspaper engages in a larger error rate than every other newspaper in the country.
But I didn’t say that. Only an idiot would make such a sweeping claim. (Like you, for instance. You said: “The Times is far and away more factual than the right-wing New York Post or Washington Times.” OK, prove that. Scientifically.) I said the paper mucks up the facts. And I have been proving THAT for years.
So you come along and set up some task that would take a lifetime to complete, and claim that if I can’t complete it, why then, I can’t say this paper mucks up the facts.
Idiotic bullshit.
So, you impose an idiotically unfulfillable task, I’ll impose a much more reasonable one on you.
I have given you the evidence for this paper. You pick the paper of your choice and find worse coverage and document it. We’ll see who found more crappy journalism. I’ve got a head start on ya, sure. But I’m willing to wait 5 years if I have to. (And I would.)
That’s challenge #1 you have dodged.
(Your blog is a totally unfair comparison, because you’ve little to nothing at stake and have an obvious interest in correcting errors to win the bet. I’m always surprised that you don’t seem to realize how transparently obtuse you are.)
Asshole, you brought up my blog. You. Having brought it up, you’re stuck with it.
That’s challenge #2 you’ve dodged.
You said I never consider doing comparisons to other papers. I gave you a bet that would allow you to collect $100 if you were right.
That’s challenge #3 you’ve dodged.
While you’re busy dodging, show me how easy it is, and find me just one uncorrected factual error on this blog.
Gonna make that #4?
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:21 pmI need to dump the “Esq” until Mary Kate and Ashley show up again…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:26 pmThe record shows, Patterico, that you “dodged” my wager first.
Your wager was a bullshit wager. Let’s review it again:
Ill find more factual errors in your blog on a per-word basis than you and whomever you want to recruit can find in the L.A. Times, over any period you want, long or short.”
That’s not a serious wager and you know it. The reason is that I can’t read every word of the paper every day, and you can read every word of this blog.
Let’s look at a wager of yours that might be realistic:
But let’s make it real: I’ll wager straight up that the Times is no less willing to correct factual errors than is the Washington Times or any other right-wing newspaper you can name. If you want to discuss the Times’ performance as a newspaper, you must compare it to its peers, simple as that.
For every correction denial you can get from the Times, I can find a refused correction at, say, the O.C. Register.
The issue is not refused corrections, but refused corrections where there should have been a correction.
You want to do that one? Done.
DRJ is the moderator. We’ll submit a series of proferred corrections since February 2003 — me citing proferred corrections to the LAT, and you citing proferred corrections to the OC Register.
My reasonable commenter DRJ is the referee and determines who has shown more corrections that should have been made, but weren’t.
I bet $500 straight up.
We’ll call that challenge #5 that you will dodge.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:29 pmYou can hardly weasel out of this one. You suggested it. The ONLY way I modified it was by insisting that it be, not just refused corrections, but refused corrections that should have been made. To reject that modification, you have to be arguing that it shows meaningful bias to reject corrections that should have been rejected.
So there ain’t no weaseling, bunkerbuster — if that IS your real name. I’m putting $500 on this. If you don’t accept, it’s prima facie evidence that you are a troll trying to waste my time, and I won’t waste one more keystroke on you.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:32 pmAlso, if you don’t make a convincing argument as to why you’re rejecting the offer, I’m putting it to a vote whether to ban you. (I don’t like trolls.) Majority of votes cast in this thread will rule.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:33 pmPut up or shut the hell up.
$500.
Do you mean what you say?
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:34 pmSmack! Smack! Smack! Smack!
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:35 pmYou know what I think of trolls, Patterico.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:39 pm(holds out right hand with thumb pointing down)
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:41 pmAre you pre-voting, Paul? But he hasn’t even rejected yet!
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:42 pmI think he’ll try to delay the vote by going silent all of a sudden.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:43 pmAre you pre-voting, Paul? But he hasn’t even rejected yet!
True. I am.
I don’t expect him to actually accept any of the wagers or come up with a solid argument why after The Artful Dodger performance above.
I think he’ll try to delay the vote by going silent all of a sudden.
That wouldn’t surprise me, either.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:47 pmYou ate just scared b’cuz it is speaking twooooth to power.
Racists
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:53 pmI pledge that even if he’s banned, I’ll publish comments that point out factual errors (unless they violate the standards of the site. I mean, he can’t couple a factual error with a racist and profane threat to my life and then say “But you pledged!”)
So, I’m still waiting for a single factual error.
Actually, I’m waiting for a whole lotta crap I’m never gonna get . . .
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:53 pmWasn’t this proved factually inaccurate? I remember reading that the “death gesture” was with the thumb pucked inside the fingers, supposed to imitate the sword buried in the chest of the victim, and the thumb’s up would be the “let him live” gesture, because the sword would not be jammed into somebody’s belly…
Either that, or it was the thumb sticking out parallel to the ground, but in a jabbing motion…
(Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?)
{/Captain Oveur}
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:01 pmIt would take a bunkerbuster to break thru teh krazy of Petranos Esp and MPDK.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:02 pmActually Drumwaster, I was using the Roger Ebert hand signal to a disliked movie.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:03 pmDid anyone ask where he is on his blog? He’s got such an impressive blogroll. Pure derangement.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:23 pmDespite bunkerbuster’s being gone, I’m compelled to point out that his examples didn’t satsify the request. Dead tree media isn’t capable of that level of interactivity.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:31 pmI think I drove him away forever. Probably he’ll whine on another blog about how I threatened to ban him — you know, because I CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! — and *that’s* why he left.
Not because, you know, he opened his yap and said things he was unwilling to back up with cold, hard cash.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:33 pmI have left the Times. I couldn’t care less what they do from here on and have told them so. If they want me to subscribe again, that’s a different story.
The reporters at the OCR are all left leaning; all the righties are on the editorial page only on Sunday. Their errors, ommissions, and lies in hard news are just as bad as the LAT.
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:26 pmbunkerbuster will return when he’s finished filming the Extenze commercial.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:37 pmI’m going to start calling myself: “bunkerbusterbuster.”
“Esq.”
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/11/2008 @ 10:50 pmTo quoth the Puppy Blender: Heh.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 11:04 pmI’m happy to take up your challenge, Patterico.
We have to agree on the ground rules, though.
The record shows I was the first to offer a wager and you refused it because you didn’t like the ground rules.
The record shows that my wager was by far the simplest and most objective: compare the number of factual errors in LAT and a similar major metro daily. Simple, verifiable, objective.
But you rejected that offer and we both know why. It’s more that a little rich for you now to try and make me out to be the one dodging.
You’ve left me no choice but to try to come up with something YOU can accept. In every instance in which I’ve tried to modify the wager to make it more suitable to you, you’ve asked for further modifications.
But I’m flexible and can afford to be, given the facts, so I’m perfectly willing to compare the LAT with the OCR on willingness to correct errors, if that’s a comparison you can accept.
I think its more than a little ludicrous, however, that you offer your blog buddy DJR as the moderator. Isn’t it obvious that the moderator should be someone with nothing invested in either of us?
A journalism prof at Columbia (I’ve no affiliations to the faculty there), a news editor at the Wall Street Journal, a pair of senior eds from the LAT and OCR?
Any of those would do for me, and I’m open to discussion about other suggestions of yours.
If we’re going to bet real money — which I’m happy to do because I think it adds meaning — we need to have a real judge. Sorry, but some guy who, apparently, has managed not to be banned at your stridently right-wing blog can hardly be accepted face-value as a neutral observer.
Secondly, we need to nail down the time frame. You have found time over the past five years to catalogue mistakes at the Times. I haven’t done that for the OCR, as I don’t even read the paper. I mention it merely becuase it is the closet thing LAT has to a direct competitor.
So, obviously, it would take me a rather long time to review the past five years of OCR stories. I’m not even sure if the archives are available, but I am sure I don’t have time to sift through their entirety.
So there are a couple of options to solve that problem.
One: let’s compare the correctability of the LAT to that of Fox News Channel.
Why not let conservative and liberal standard bearers go head to head on this issue? What have you got to fear? If there were a right-wing newspaper, I’d recommend that for comparison for the same reasons, but there is none that I’m aware of. (Patricia, in this thread, said OCR was right-wing, (“partly”) then later claimed its reporters are liberals. So there seems to be some confusion among you supporters on this point, but, suffice it to say that I’m flexible as to where we make the actual comparison, but my perference is to compare the LAT to a media organization that has a similar level of public exposure and one that has searchable archives.
I’m not insisting on that, but merely suggesting it. If you insist that the best comparison is between LAT and OCR, I can accept that and if we can find a way to access the past five years of archives and take the time to do so (several months, at a minumum). If you expect me to read through five years of OCR in 10 days or somesuch, then I’ll have to assume you’re not serious.
You should know, Patterico, that newspapers like LAT and OCR take corrections very, very seriously. Management maintains detailed records of what errors were made, who made them and how there were corrected. In cases where they weren’t corrected, that should be part of the record as well.
They do this not as any kind of a response to critics, but as an internal matter of professional development. Accuracy is the most important aspect of journalism and all serious journalists take it seriously. As with everything, there are exceptions. But as rule, any newspaper that has invested the time and money to become No. 1 — as LAT undeniably has — will have very, very exceptions to the rule that accuracy is pursued as rigorously as possible.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 5:05 amDodge. Parry. Thrust.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 5:25 amThat guy is a woman and is as rational and fair-minded a gal as you will ever encounter, though I gather you’d have a bit of a problem recognizing such a thing.
Apples and oranges. Controlled, edited and daily published content versus 18 hours a day of live discussion, much of it extemporaneous, is a silly comparison. Pick a day where Leo Terrell appears on Fox and you’ll have a day with at least half a dozen errors, most of which will not be “corrected”. Add graphics screwups and whatnot and you’re got far more opportunity for error, much of which doesn’t really bear correction.
Patterico has been documenting a disturbing number of exceptions to such a rule for years now.
Was there an option two?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:13 am“Your entire argument is based on the wild pretension that the Times is failing because it is losing readers, when anyone with 3rd grade math skills can see that its failure is directly related to losing classified advertising to the Internet.”
bunbuster – Could you use your third grade math skills to prove your point to the rubes on this blog please?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:42 am“Do you really want to be arguing that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are more factual than the L.A. Times? No, of course you won’t make that argument, because even you know it’s ludicrous. Rather, you target the L.A. Times with some imaginary standard of absolute perfection that you decline to apply to any conservative sources of information.
It’s not just that you provide no credible evidence that the Times underperforms its peers in factuality, it’s more that it doesn’t even occur to you that such a comparison is necessary. You seem to believe that if you find an error in the Times, that means the newspaper isn’t factual.
Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, your factual challenges to the Times are consistently of an ideological nature and inevitably linked to an allegation that the problem is “liberal bias.” That’s why claim that your primary concern is factuality and not ideological correctness is transparently bogus. Talk about dishonesty.
Fess up Pat. Is it really factuality you’re on about?
You and I both know that Rush Limbuagh’s factuality isn’t even close to one-tenth that of the Los Angeles Times. With Limbaugh, we can’t even call the distortions “errors” because they are so obviously deliberate. When called on it, he inevitably claims to be a comedian, not a reporter. Indeed.”
bunbuster – Still waiting for backup on your assertions about the factuality of Limbaugh and Hannity. What have you got big guy?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:47 amDaleyrocks: what would it take to demonstrate to you that the L.A. Times is more factual than Rush Limbaugh?
If you can tell me specifically what sort of evidence you’re looking for and, specifically, what it would take to make you concede the point, I’ll try to provide it.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:53 am“A journalism prof at Columbia (I’ve no affiliations to the faculty there), a news editor at the Wall Street Journal, a pair of senior eds from the LAT and OCR?”
bunbuster – Right. Let’s add another layer of dodging because we can’t guarantee the participation of the people you suggest, whereas you have a willing participant here and can always appeal unfair treatment.
Why don’t you just suck it up and accept if you are so sure of your position? What are you afraid of?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:53 am“Apples and oranges. Controlled, edited and daily published content versus 18 hours a day of live discussion, much of it extemporaneous, is a silly comparison.”
Sorry Pablo, but I don’t follow your logic. I can see how a TV station would make more factual errors than a newspaper. But you seem to forget that I tried to get Patterico to make a wager on number of errors, and he dodged that. Instead, he wants to compare the WILLINGNESS TO CORRECT ERRORS.
So this would give a TV station like Fox an advantage, actually, in that they have more errors, thus more opportunities to demonstrate they they are willing to correct themselves.
“Pick a day where Leo Terrell appears on Fox and you’ll have a day with at least half a dozen errors, most of which will not be “corrected”.
So you’re conceding that Fox is reluctant to correct itself. Good. It’s good to see someone who’s ostensibly a regular here taking my side in this debate.
“Add graphics screwups and whatnot and you’re got far more opportunity for error, much of which doesn’t really bear correction.”
Well, what “bears correction” and what does not should be up to an objective judge.
As for the identity of the person Patterico suggested as a neutral party: I noted in a recent post she made fun of Obama. Fine, she’s entitled to any opinion she likes, but it’s hardly evidence of a neutrality.
If Patterico wants to accept the wager, he needs to accept a neutral party to hold the cash and rule on any disputes. That he’s suggested one of his own regulars here is surprising. If he insists on it, it’s evidence that he’s not serious.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:01 amDaleyrocks asks: “What are you afraid of.”
My main concern is that using an anonymous regular poster here would create the indelible impression of a biased judge. The credibility of the wager would be lost and few, if any, objective observers would take stock in the outcome.
Patterico had no problem setting out conditions for his participation. I have no problem doing the same and no one can say it’s unreasonable to insist on a demonstrably impartial judge/mediator.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:05 amblubberbluster will never agree to any terms that could ever actually be enforced, and even if he/she/it did, it would then argue that the LA Times errors were not actually errors, but ideological complaints.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:32 am“So this would give a TV station like Fox an advantage, actually, in that they have more errors, thus more opportunities to demonstrate they they are willing to correct themselves.”
bunbuster – Do you have an available source for 18 hours of Fox broadcasts and the errors that were requested that they correct?
I thought not.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:39 amThe hard part with introducing a television channel to the comparison is that you have to figure out how many of the television channel’s errors come from reading LAT copy from the wire services.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:42 am“If you can tell me specifically what sort of evidence you’re looking for and, specifically, what it would take to make you concede the point, I’ll try to provide it.”
bunbuster – They were your assertions buster. Did you have any factual basis upon which to make them or were you just spitballing? You have all but admitted you don’t listen to the shows so I am guessing your assertions were pure ass pulls. Why don’t you see what you can come up with.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:44 amass pulls – Great phrase. It could also be used to describe the law practice of David Petranos Esp and MDKP’s posts.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:49 amWell, yes, because that’s the point. Mistakes are simply evidence of humanity. Unwillingness to correct them is evidence of arrogance and perhaps ideological blindness.
I take it that you’re not familiar with Leo Terrell. I’m pointing out that in a live media forum that includes so many participants, it’s going to be utterly impossible to correct every misstatement uttered. Many of them will be countered in real time, but not all of them will and if you think any TV news network ever will or ought to issue corrections for everything anyone on their air ever gets wrong, you’re kidding yourself. That said, I’ve seen plenty of occasions wherein a Fox anchor will offer a correction for a factual misstatement they’ve made. I’ve never seen them come back at a later time to correct something Bob Beckel or Kirsten Powers or Marc Lamont Hill has said, and I really don’t expect it.
Good journalism requires complete accuracy. When you move into debate/discussion/opinion, that standard is virtually unreachable.
If you don’t like Patterico’s suggestion of DRJ as moderator, who would be ready willing and able, why don’t you offer someone who meets your standard and is also ready, willing and able?
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:56 amHe’d just link to Media Matters and/or Newshounds and call it good. For instance, he’d probably point out that Fox didn’t correct John Bolton despite clear evidence that he is indeed a bloodthirsty warmonger.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:06 amThe record shows that my wager was by far the simplest and most objective: compare the number of factual errors in LAT and a similar major metro daily. Simple, verifiable, objective.
But you rejected that offer and we both know why.
Flatly false, as is common from you. I made exactly that proposal in #38:
Oh, you just wanted to count the number of errors they acknowledge? Well, that’s not the same thing.
But you rejected that offer and we both know why. It’s more that a little rich for you now to try and make me out to be the one dodging.
It’s more than a little rich for you to pretend not to be. What is it, five proposals now that you’ve ducked? You’re talking about finding more errors on my blog than appear in the LAT, and you can’t even come up with one.
The only one I can think of that I rejected is the one that was patently stupid: making me read every word of the Los Angeles Times for the past five years, or else be tagged as having read them (because every word they printed counts against me).
We could take every single word of every single article I’ve ever linked and compare the word count. But that wouldn’t really be fair, because it skews the results to articles with errors. And I’m not going back and reading every paper cover to cover for the last five years, so I’m not getting tagged as though I have.
Your tactic is to set up impossible conditions — let’s get editors from the LAT and OCR to participate in our little blog contest! now that’s realistic! — and then shrug your shoulders if your impossible conditions aren’t met. You’re trying to waste my time.
I think its more than a little ludicrous, however, that you offer your blog buddy DJR as the moderator. Isn’t it obvious that the moderator should be someone with nothing invested in either of us?
A journalism prof at Columbia (I’ve no affiliations to the faculty there), a news editor at the Wall Street Journal, a pair of senior eds from the LAT and OCR?
Any of those would do for me, and I’m open to discussion about other suggestions of yours.
Sure. You’re open to endless discussion. You’re just not open to actually doing this, because you know you’d lose.
DRJ is the fairest person I know here. My second suggestion is Bradley J. Fikes, who is smart and fair-minded and disagrees with me and works in Big Media — and might actually agree. My third choice is aphrael, who everyone here will tell you is a lefty — Obama supporter, the whole nine yards — but who is honest. That would be a huge concession to you, because he’s a lefty,unlike Bradley, whose ideology I can’t pinpoint. But I still think aphrael is honest enough, though he might quibble with things that a truly neutral person wouldn’t.
Nope, that’s no good either. You’ve ruled out anyone who hasn’t managed to be banned at my blog (although I suppose you’d accept Levi if I were stupid enough to propose him). How convenient. Any of the people who might actually do this, don’t qualify.
Had you proposed someone realistic as a judge — someone who is willing to do it — I wouldn’t be doing what I’m about to do.
But I’m going to, because when someone is hellbent on weaselling out of something, it’s very frustrating to try to pin them down. And it’s not worth my time. You’re clearly just wasting my time, and no rational person could possibly believe you’re serious. Accordingly:
All in favor of a banning, say aye. As soon as we get 10 votes for a ban, you’re gone.
There’s two ways you can stop this:
1) If a single commenter I respect steps in to say no, this guy seems honest and serious to me, I’ll consider withdrawing the vote results. But then that commenter has to participate in the negotiations with bunkerbuster, so that someone else can do the work of dealing with this Dodger.
2) You find me five uncorrected factual errors on this blog. Since you can’t even find one — I’ve challenged you to and you won’t respond — you’ll never find five. So I feel on pretty solid ground. But find me five and I’ll discuss this with you for another week.
Let the voting begin! All in favor of banning this dishonest Artful Dodger, say aye!
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:19 amHe’d just link to Media Matters and/or Newshounds and call it good.
That’s what blunderbluster would do for everything. He would do no original research and present no actual errors.
If blunderbuster really thought he could outdo me on this, he would agree to it. Here’s proposal number 6: I put together my package, you put together yours, and I put both in a post. We submit the results to the collective judgment of the blogosphere.
We wouldn’t be able to get a ruling that we could accept, of course, so we couldn’t put money on it. But surely, if he’s right, he could embarrass me with how much better his examples are. Isn’t that worth something?
At the heart of all of this is the certain knowledge that THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN no matter how many proposals or concessions I make. Any error I come up with, blusterblunder would subjectively reject as biased. Any judge I can live with, blusterblunder will subjectively reject as biased.
(I bet he’ll even find a way to reject the lefty aphrael — he’ll say: “well, I’m not familiar with him, and there must be some sinister reason you’re proposing him.” Hell, I’m not even sure aphrael would agree with, say, the lie that the LAT made on the sixteen words that they refused to correct. Sugesting aphrael is a HUGE concession for me. I still think I’d win.)
Blunderbuss will never propose something objective that 1) actually addresses what we’re talking about, and 2) can realistically be done.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:28 amI vote “Present”.
{/Obama}
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:29 amAye- hasta la vista bunkerbuster. Do enjoy your life of deceit and obfuscation back in the fecal pits of barking moonbat land (see Seven Beauties).
RIP Tony Snow- what a great loss to humanity.
madmax333 (a37e41) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:29 amPatterico said about bunbuster:
“Your tactic is to set up impossible conditions — let’s get editors from the LAT and OCR to participate in our little blog contest! now that’s realistic! — and then shrug your shoulders if your impossible conditions aren’t met. You’re trying to waste my time.”
Oh rly, and I thought I was the only one who saw it that way. bunbuster, you are way more transparent than you thought, media genius!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:58 amCan’t we just troll rate him into oblivion? No?
Stupid capitalism.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:11 amI vote nay. I like trolls. Even ones like blunderbluster.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:25 amHe said this about DRJ:
Sorry, but some guy who, apparently, has managed not to be banned at your stridently right-wing blog can hardly be accepted face-value as a neutral observer.
I don’t care whether you ban him but I am not going to read any comment he makes, either.
nk (6a0113) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:32 amAnd, only half-jokingly, I just had deja vu. Is it me, or do all left-wing, poo-flinging monkeys sound alike?
nk (6a0113) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:35 am(once again, holds out right hand with thumb pointing down)
Told you, Pat.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:53 amI just saw this:
Blunderbuss
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/12/2008 @ 11:56 amJD,
OK. I won’t ban him if you agree to deal with his dodging.
Patterico (bc3dc7) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:05 pmAye, but …
I think bunkerbuster should be banned unless his next comment identifies, links and explains two uncorrected errors at Patterico.com that Bradley J. Fikes agrees are meaningful (i.e., reasonable and significant). I don’t know if Bradley will agree to do this but the benefit of asking Bradley to moderate is that bunkerbuster can Google him regarding his opinions and neutrality. Another benefit is that it’s not me.
I think this is a fair requirement because bunkerbuster has refused to recognize the extensive work Patrick has done documenting years of errors and problems with LA Times’ articles. It’s time for bunkerbuster to do some work and show his good faith in this discussion.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:12 pmPS – The errors have to be in a Patterico-authored post, not one of his guest bloggers.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:23 pmHere’s my compromise.
If DRJ’s condition is not met, I declare him bannable and I stop talking to him, since he will have demonstrated a lack of good faith.
But as long as JD wants to play with him he can. But JD, you have to actively stay on him. If you don’t, and I start feeling like his BS is not being addressed, I’ll ban him.
Patterico (56766b) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:24 pmI wish there were an /ignore switch. So bumplestiltskin could post, but he wouldn’t be heard or seen.
steve miller (724340) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:26 pmA famous quote by Johnny Storm comes to mind…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:33 pmI was hoping to vote at some later point here. I’ve just been waiting to see bunky’s next play.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/12/2008 @ 12:39 pmBoy, it sure got quiet in here.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/12/2008 @ 2:53 pmDRJ: You claim that I have failed to acknowledge the extensive work Pat has done on LAT errors. That is incorrect. I referred specifically to that work in my argument that it would take me some time to try to match it by going through OCR’s archives. I know that doesn’t count as finding one error, because it’s not one Pat made. But you did, DRJ, so I expect you to happily correct it.
Patrick:
1. The threat of banning me is unfair, but telling. Your attempt to intimidate me only shows that you’re not willing to go mano a mano using facts only. If I’m banned, I’ll consider it case-closing evidence that you weren’t serious about the wager in the first place.
2: Bradley J. Fikes. C’mon Patterico. Bradley lionizes you, and your mission against LAT, at his own blog. Here’s what he wrote about you and LAT:
“I often refer to this Web site, run by Patrick Frey, a Los Angeles county prosecutor. It’s grown from one man’s crusade against the error-filled and arrogant Los Angeles Times into a phenomenon.”
So let’s recap: you propose as a neutral observer a man who ON HIS OWN BLOG, calls LAT “error-filled and arrogant.” Then you threaten to quit the wager and ban me if I don’t accept it. I’d call that arrogance cubed.
2. I repeat. I proposed the first simple wager: errors at LAT versus errors at your blog proportionally. You rejected that and set about creating all manner of conditions (including the repeated risible suggestion of members of your fan club as judges), over which I have attempted to negotiate in good faith. When I offer conditions, you reject them and your fan club says I’m dodging. When you offer new conditions, you assert that they are an attempt to be fair.
Meanwhile, you throw down half a dozen camoflage challenges — like me finding two uncorrected errors on your blog — and declare that I’m banned if I don’t accept some of them. How arrogant is that?
Again, I made the initial wager. It was my idea. You keep both altering the conditions and throwing out new challenges (without agreeing to incorporate them into the wager).
I also note that you, apparently, rejected my suggestion of top eds at the papers in question, or a journalism academic unknown to both of us. How arrogant is that? Maybe my suggestion is a tad unrealistic, but it could be tried before rejected, if you were just a little less arrogant.
Lastly, I would agree this is becoming tiresome or, certainly, for me it is. The more I read your blog, the more clear it is to me that you are on a mission to show the media is “biased” against conservatives, not to show factual errors, wherever and whenever they occur. I don’t see anywhere where you complain about errors or bias that cuts against liberals.
I only note it to say that I think it’s obvious to all readers of this blog that your agenda is stridently ideological, not principled upon a sincere concern for factuality.
I think the discussion here between us reflects that same pattern.
However, I’m willing to stick with it and get this wager on. I think your ideological agenda actually handicaps you and makes you an easy mark for a fact to fact comparison. Let’s keep working on it, and I believe we can come up with a format we both agree on. Sorry, but Bradley J. Fikes is out, for the rather obvious reason that he’s joined your fan club and declared that he thinks the LAT is “error-filled and arrogant.”
How about this: let’s let Brad be your choice, and I will choose a second judge. They will have to agree on any dispute or the disputed item will be tossed.
There are probably other ways to do this. Maybe it doesn’t have to be about me versus you, but rather can be something more meaningful. There are plenty of academics looking around for things to study. And, as I mentioned, newspapers, especially No. 1 newspapers like LAT take corrections extremely seriously and have implemented strict rules on how they are handled. They may be willing to partcipate in a comparison among their peers. Again, just a suggestion, not a “dodge.”
Lastly, if you really can’t handle this and have to ban me, so be it. I’ll consider it your arrogant way of conceding.
You can’t expect me to continue the discussion with that threat hanging over my head. If you want me to continue, you have to lift the threat permanently. Otherwise, I’m at risk of doing a lot of research only to have you ban me before I can present it to your readers.
Your call. Concede by banning me, and let the echoes of your fan club defend your state of denial, or continue the discussion in a open, unafraid way without any threat of bans.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:37 pmYou haven’t even found a single factual error on this site, as opposed to the numerous errors at the LAT, much less any that haven’t been corrected.
As Patterico says in comment #38:
All he asks is that you find two. You haven’t found one yet.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:47 pmI also haven’t seen any complaints about space aliens coming down to vandalize the Washington Monument, either.
(There’s a point there, I promise.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:50 pmbunkerbuster #114 to DRJ:
bunkerbuster #36 to Patterico:
I’d be happy to apologize to bunkerbuster but I can’t because his statements do not add up.
Now where is JD?
DRJ (ec597e) — 7/12/2008 @ 7:55 pmSorry, Patterico. We were at a dinner party. The last arrogant mendouceous salvo from rubberbabybuggybumper makes me reconsider my opinion. There is nothing realistic that he/she/it would ever agree to, and he would claim semantic or bias when given evidence of actual error, or in the LA Times case, overt and aggressive lying.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:01 pmAsk, and you shall receive, DRJ.
Perfect example … DRJ and Senor Fikes are eminently reasonable people, and to suggest that either one could not be fair shows signs of either aggressive ignorance, or a lack of grey matter so profound so as to make this proposal impossible for him to participate in any sort of meaningful way.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:05 pmDRJ: I said I’m not familiar with everything Pat has written over many years.
That doesn’t in anyway contradict my subsequent recognition that he has, over the years, compiled a list of what he claims are uncorrected errors in the Times.
I think you should correct your allegation. I clearly acknowledged that Pat has amassed a file of Times errors. You said I didn’t acknowledge it. It’s obvious you are factually incorrect, regardless of anything I may have said before I clearly acknowledged Pat’s work.
I’m not asking for an apology, Dr. J, just a correction of your misstatement of fact. I’m not holding my breath…
Are you the one Pat initially offered to judge the wager? LOL!!!
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:09 pmLOL, indeed.
Change my half-a-vote to ‘Aye’.
He’s not even fun enough to be worth slapping around.
JD, he’s all yours.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:12 pmbunkerbuster,
Please save me the trouble of reading and parsing every statement you made here and state your position so I know where you stand: Is it your position that Patterico has “compiled a list of what he claims are uncorrected errors in the Times”? Or is it your position that Patterico has done “extensive work [documenting] LAT errors”?
You’ve said both. Which one is your position?
DRJ (ec597e) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:18 pmDRJ: Pat claims has compiled a list of what he claims are uncorrected errors in the Times and I believe him. As part of that, I have to assume he’s done extensive work. That much would be more than obvious to most readers.
I’m still waiting for you correction.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:24 pmJD Esq.: It’s more than a little silly for you to expect to accept your word, or Pat’s, that people are “eminently reasonable.”
It’s telling that you think I’m somehow unworthy because I don’t accept YOUR judgments about anonymous posters and bloggers who are on record supporting Pat’s attacks against the Times.
I think you guys have been living in echo chamber way too long. You simply have no way to respond to challenges other than ad hominem, banning threats and feeble sophistry.
bunkerbuster (da3978) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:28 pmStill waiting for a single error Patterico has made on this site…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:31 pmSorry, but Bradley J. Fikes is out, for the rather obvious reason that he’s joined your fan club and declared that he thinks the LAT is “error-filled and arrogant.”
How about this: let’s let Brad be your choice, and I will choose a second judge. They will have to agree on any dispute or the disputed item will be tossed.
You ignored my suggestion of aphrael, a leftist. Gee, I wonder why? I think it’s because you don’t want to lose $500.
I said I’d approve any comments of yours that demonstrates an error of mine, even if you’re banned. Offer still stands.
You’re banned, with two ways to undo the ban.
1) If you want to leave a comment accepting aphrael as the judge, I’ll fish that comment out of moderation and un-ban you. You can even choose your own judge to co-judge with him — as long as your judge is a mirror image of aphrael. In other words, your judge a demonstrated conservative (as aphrael is a demonstrated leftist) who has announced their determination to vote for McCain (as aphrael has, I think, announced his determination to vote for Obama), whom you nevertheless think is fair (as I think aphrael is fair).
For you to ignore aphrael is stone cold proof that you’re not serious. I picked a damned leftist voting for Obama as my judge!
2) Also, I repeat: I will fish any comment of yours out of moderation that finds ONE — COUNT ‘EM, ONE — error on this blog in a post I have written. If you find two, I’ll un-ban you.
So that’s two ways to un-ban yourself and show yourself to be serious.
Until then . . .
BUH-BYE!
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:35 pmbunbuster is a hoot – He has yet to back up a single one of his claims about the media in general yet he calls Patterico arrogant.
He proposes challenges with impossible conditions, comparing uncorrected errors on TV, with uncorrected errors in print media, and implies the challenge is being rejected due to arrogance.
Yes people, we have on our hands another whining, crying liberal victim of conservative arrogance.
Call the whaaambulance.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:36 pmThis article is currently featured over at Hot Air. The question is where are the trolls emanating from at this time? I love how liberals take umbrage at being called on their BS. The rest of the country is supposed to roll over because a small albeit vocal minority of moonbat malcontents want marxism for the USA? Liberals control the media and academia and still want to stifle any free speech from the right? Your tax dollars for PBS and NPR and the disagreeble Faux news and the $400 million man Limbaugh should be silenced? The NY Times in the guise of leadership from resident traitor scum Pinch can contribute to our troops deaths in the war on terror by violating national security at media’s whim with no retaliation at all? I’d pay to see the NY Times editorial board locked in stocks and horsewhipped.
madmax333 (c2acb0) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:42 pmEveryone pay careful attention to that last comment. Bunbuster claimed he could find all these errors on my site and never found one. Now he’ll go claim I banned him, and that’s the only reason he didn’t get to point out an error. If he says that, he’s a liar.
Also, note well that he didn’t respond to my offer of a leftist as the judge.
Also:
I proposed the first simple wager: errors at LAT versus errors at your blog proportionally.
I propose a simple wager: errors on the LAT in any given day versus every word printed on the Internet in any given day. I’ll read the LAT, you read the rest of the Internet. What? What’s that? That’s a bullshit wager because you can’t read the whole Internet? Correct — just as your wager was a bullshit wager because I can’t read every word the LAT has published during the life of this blog. Ergo, your wager was bullshit. So for me to reject a clearly bullshit wager doesn’t show me running away from anything. It just shows I’m not an idiot.
ONE error, blunderbusser. ONE error and you get another of your moronic comments published. Go ahead. You’ve been desperately searching my site during the past 24+ hours trying to find one, and you can’t, can you?
Moron.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:45 pmbunkerbuster #123:
My comment #107:
I stand by my statement. I think you should read the posts and recognize that Patrick has documented years of errors and problems in the LA Times or, alternatively, tell us why you don’t agree. Instead, the best you will do is “assume” Patrick has done what he “claims.” The former is based on reading the blog and making an informed decision that you agree or disagree with Patrick’s conclusions. The latter are weasel-words.
bunkerbuster, I enjoy talking with people who have differing views but here’s my problem with you: It’s useless to have a substantive discussion about the pros and cons of the LA Times when you admit you won’t read any of the detailed blog posts Patrick linked here and in the DustUp column.
One reason I suggested that you look for two errors and explain why you think they are errors was so you would read the blog, and then we could talk knowledgeably about the subject. You refuse to do that so I don’t see the point of discussion when you won’t read the information with which you reflexively disagree.
DRJ (ec597e) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:46 pmI’ve got a potential Patterico error.
When Patterico first started blogging about the L.A. Times’ story about the ‘stuff’ on that judge’s hard drive, Patterico definitely just regurgitated what the story said, about the beastiality and the porn and all that. I believe he even had a subsequent post where he admitted that he got fooled.
Does that count?
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:51 pmHere’s that post:
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/12/2008 @ 8:54 pmLevi blunders in, failing to note that Patterico corrected his original position in light of the new information that came to light.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:05 pmLevi’s argument is that I messed up . . . by trusting the LA Times.
But I fixed the error, by developing information that came to light . . . on this blog.
Which proves what, again?
Patterico (059676) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:08 pmAlso, the post Patterico made about Bush being wrong on the wiretaps from a few weeks ago, I believe he was making some errors. Specifically, he was chalking Bush’s warrant-less wiretapping up to innocent, good-intentioned, excessive caution, akin to beat cops fudging an arrest here and there, and that he should therefore not be arrested or charged with anything.
I think that’s an error.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:08 pmYou’d make a pretty crappy watchdog, Levi.
Patterico (059676) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:10 pmOkay, uncorrected errors, just trying to catch up.
It is odd though, that you’d rail against the L.A. Times for being a terrible newspaper rife with inaccuracies and false information, then seize on a story as vague and unsubstantiated as that one and run with it.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:12 pmWell you fell for it, didn’t you? I mean it does say something about your facilities as a news consumer that you went for that story initially, doesn’t it?
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:13 pmYou also believe in unicorns, Levi. Your belief does not do much for the proposition in question.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:14 pmIt is odd though, that you’d rail against the L.A. Times for being a terrible newspaper rife with inaccuracies and false information, then seize on a story as vague and unsubstantiated as that one and run with it.
It wasn’t vague. It was pretty specific. It just wasn’t completely honest.
But as to your general point: it is, indeed, shocking that I wouldn’t criticize this paper, and still trust it to the extent that I did. I have already acknowledged that in a post you fully quote.
Michael Crichton called it the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect:
Then again, Levi, do you automatically question every report from the LAT now, after reading that?
No, you don’t.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:18 pmThat’s like blaming the consumer of food for getting salmonella…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:18 pmLevi is still around demonstrating his silliness.
Imagine that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:36 pmI actually had a story in the LA Times in the ’90’s about a client of mine. The reporter in the local bureau, who I actually knew, called me up and asked for my side of the story. I carefully described the facts of the incidents for which my client was being investigated ( a professional licensing hearing by the appropriate state licensing agency ). I corrected several incorrect “facts” that the reporter had collected. I also gave our position on the interpretation of the facts. I knew what the board’s investigator’s positions were.
The story that came out bore no resemblance to either what the state was claiming against my client, nor our position. The reporter had created yet a third point of view on the story. That would be fair enough if it sort of split the differen to be objective, but instead, the reporter had literally invented events and “facts” that could not have come from either the state nor me. Apparently to fit some weird preconceived notions of the reporter that had nothing to do with the case.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2008 @ 9:43 pmSo bumbleman couldn’t state his position cogently or honestly, and then has to pretend that “banning him” is concession?
I like that!
I’ll try that next time I’m stopped by a cop for speeding: “If you write me a ticket, then you’re conceding that you beat your wife regularly. I win.”
steve miller (724340) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:11 ambunkerbuster,
I see you’re trying to leave a comment that doesn’t qualify. It does not have even one factual error, much less two.
Maybe you don’t get the concept of being “banned.”
I gave you two ways to get unbanned.
Hey, if you can’t 1) find two errors on the site, or 2) accept left-wing commenter aphrael as a judge, I’ll give you a third way to get unbanned: 3) admit that all those wagers were a deliberate B.S. attempt to distract me, pledge not to do anything like that again, and merely make serious points.
Your call, buddy.
Meanwhile, any comment that points out a factual error will be approved.
Other ones, won’t. That’s kinda how being banned works.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:40 amGeez, even more weaselly than I thought when I gave him thumbs down.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:10 amAlso, the post Patterico made about Bush being wrong on the wiretaps from a few weeks ago, I believe he was making some errors. Specifically, he was chalking Bush’s warrant-less wiretapping up to innocent, good-intentioned, excessive caution, akin to beat cops fudging an arrest here and there, and that he should therefore not be arrested or charged with anything.
Mr. Sunny, Pat said uncorrected factual errors, not the errors that only exist in your mind.
Don’t you ever tire of making undocumented assertions?
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:16 ambunbuster so far has not offered up anything on this blog to demonstrate he has any credibility on the matters being discussed. He has repeatedly used sweeping generalizations without any backup. He has offered challenges with impossible to meet conditions. In general, he has been a waste of pixels, yet he is claiming to be a victim when called on his bullshit. It’s a great act if you can get away with it.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/13/2008 @ 12:04 pm