Patterico's Pontifications

4/18/2009

Dean: This Ziegler Guy Tried to Interview People Outside a Journalism Event

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:40 pm



Yesterday I linked to Marc Cooper’s site regarding the John Ziegler/Annenberg fracas, as Marc had some additional information and quotes from people. I want to highlight this portion of the statement by Ernest Wilson, the dean of the journalism school, because I enjoy the loaded way that he describes someone trying to conduct interviews:

After being told repeatedly that the event was by invitation only, he contended he had a right to range up and down the entryway with his cameramen, sticking a microphone in other people’s faces, questioning them on camera. He persisted in refusing to comply with the University’s request that he stay within a designated area.

Imagine the gall: he wanted to range up and down an entryway (i.e. walk around the entryway) and stick a microphone in people’s faces (i.e. try to interview them).

He tried to interview people! Outside a journalism event!

No wonder they put him in handcuffs!

P.S. Do they teach budding TV interviewers at Annenberg never to stick microphones in people’s faces? Just curious, Dean Wilson.

163 Responses to “Dean: This Ziegler Guy Tried to Interview People Outside a Journalism Event”

  1. interesting they insist it was invitation only. marc cooper said he wasnt invited and attended and that he saw them letting in students to take up un-used seats. did any of them get arrested?

    chas (53215d)

  2. Ah, Patterico… Don’t you see? Free speech and such is only for the right kinds of people.

    Again, you should view “Indoctrinate U,” particularly for the comments of the school administrators. They are jaw-droppingly authoritarian to the point where Jonah Goldberg smiles widely.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  3. They really don’t understand, and then Cooper links to a pitiful SC student who is supposed to be a Republican. Maybe he’s what we would call a “tame Republican” or maybe he’s just the product of four years of Cooper’s teaching.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  4. The Dean’s remarks make perfect sense to me. When the location is University property, the University has every right to insist on ground rules that make submission to interviews or questioning on camera a voluntary matter for their guests, rather than something forced on them.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  5. Tim,

    I agree USC has the right to make the ground rules but it it didn’t communicate or apply the rules consistently. For example, USC welcomes visitors and apparently let uninvited guests attend this event. At the same time, it ejected Ziegler and was unable to clearly articulate why it did so.

    Anon (b0f193)

  6. Keep that in mind, Tim, when someone is treated as Ziegler was, when the speaker is someone with whom you disagree.

    And do keep in mind that private institutions, again, are not as private as you suppose.

    In fact, I think you should try the experiment. Look for a right wing speaker on a local campus, and then act like Ziegler did. See what happens.

    Then try the same thing with a left wing speaker.

    And view “Indoctrinate U.” Regardless of your partisan identification, you should be chilled by the authoritarianism wielded on campuses.

    Also, the FIRE website (www.thefire.org) has a series of horror stories.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  7. Hey, Anon, you know very well why USC applied the rules they way they did. They are just embarrassed to be up front about it.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  8. “When the location is University property, the University has every right to insist on ground rules that make submission to interviews or questioning on camera a voluntary matter for their guests, rather than something forced on them.”

    Accepting that as true for the sake of argument, the University may also have the right to eject everyone who refuses to goose-step in a Hitler-like fashion.

    Having the right to do something doesn’t make it appropriate.

    Journalists interview people and stick cameras in other people’s faces, and it’s inappropriate for such a school to handcuff someone for doing that to journalists.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  9. Good point.

    Anon (b0f193)

  10. I disagree, Patrick. Establishing ground rules for press that make interview participation voluntary is as appropriate for a J-school as it is for any institution. It doesn’t resemble mandatory goose-stepping at all.

    Ziegler wanted to ambush some attendees in order to spice up his video and was counting on being able to intimidate USC staff into letting him do it. He failed.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  11. Tim McGarry,
    Double standards are the issue here. Does USC treat leftists the same way? Or did Ziegler’s political views factor into his treatment?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  12. #10 Ambush journalism is what made 60 Minutes so popular with lefties in the 1960s and 1970s.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  13. #11

    Bradley, I don’t know. I made a run at the LAT archives and found a few stories about union demonstrations against the University. Evidently they took place just off-campus. In one case LAPD made arrests.

    I agree with you that standards should apply across the political spectrum.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  14. Tim,

    Do you think ambush interviews are illegitimate?

    Are they automatically non-journalism?

    Why should Ziegler *have* to intimidate USC to allow interviews — ambush or otherwise — on a sidewalk that he is not blocking?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  15. My objection is to the distortions in the SC version of the story. For example: The demand that he stay seven feet distant seems a little rigid but reasonable. His refusal to comply was a direct provocation. The police responded poorly because he clearly represented no physical threat and was just being purposefully obstinate, hoping to goad the cops into action. I see no reason why the police could not have spent another 10 minutes persuading him to move before resorting to handcuffs. Though, my bet is that Ziegler would have held out as long as he needed to get himself detained.

    Did anyone see him within seven feet of the door ? Of course not.

    Then we get the nonsense about whether he notified them he was “demonstrating” or not. THis isn’t even a skillful dissimulation.

    Just crude lies and for a “communication” school. NO wonder “Communications” is the major most popular with marginal students.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  16. No, I think it’s perfectly legitimate for reporters to try to catch interview subjects by surprise or off-guard, but I also think institutions (including J-schools) are entitled to try to protect employees (or, in the USC case, guests) from this, when they can.

    USC evidently established ground rules for the press in connection with the event. I can understand Ziegler wanting to argue with them, but in the end, it’s not his house. To press his argument to the point of disruption is probably not legitimate.

    As I’ve suggested in other posts, the designation of a press area is commonplace and has the effect of making participation in press interviews voluntary. That’s a good thing, from the point of view of the University’s guests.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  17. Ranging up and down the street, sticking microphones in people’s faces?

    By their standards, Mike Wallace should be incarcerated in Pelican Bay.

    Patricia (2183bb)

  18. “Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!”

    Ray (8cfb7a)

  19. Once again, Tim is defending the left’s right to privacy.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  20. […] believe that because Ziegler claimed to be a journalist while holding an implement of the trade, irony’s the order of the day: The Annenberg School of Journalism . . . teaching journalists how to […]

    “Ché voler ciò udire è bassa voglia.” « The Edge of the American West (bcec6e)

  21. I know that can’t possibly be an ad hominem, Mike K. You’re not the type.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  22. Isn’t that what you were doing, Tim? Defending the left’s right to privacy?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  23. Tim is very sensitive, John. He needs understanding.

    A lot of understanding. His feelings were hurt a couple of years ago and he has yet to get over it. Why don’t you tell them about it, Tim?

    MIke K (2cf494)

  24. The problem with their rules is that they are not equally applied, which in effect means there are no rules, just their personal desires of who can do what; otherwise known as dictating.

    Ray (8cfb7a)

  25. #22

    John, I think people have rights independently of their political views. Don’t you?

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  26. No, I think leftists have the right to shout down conservative speakers or to throw things through windows if conservative speakers step on University land while conservatives do not have the right to ask questions or hand out, free of charge, DVDs when leftists are speaking or receiving honors on University land.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  27. #26

    John, Mike K and I had a discussion about the Tancredo affair earlier. My views are very far from Tancredo’s but I believe his right to free speech was grossly violated at UNC and I condemn what happened there.

    Sorry, but I don’t see the connection with the Ziegler episode. Ziegler claims to have attended the Annenberg event as a reporter, and that’s how I’m judging him. He refused to comply with ground rules the University established for media in attendance, ground rules that strike me as reasonable.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  28. I’m less reasonable. I guess that’s why I’m a life member of the NRA.

    You know, “cold dead hands” and all that ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  29. “Questioning people” and “interviewing” them are noticeably different. I can question patrons at the entryway to a grocery store while passing out strike literature, but it’s not an interview.

    Even if I show up with a hand-held mic, a cameraman, two make-up artists and a flunky with a clipboard.

    steve (76ca44)

  30. I like how people like steve select to choose how to define “journalism”.

    But I do love, as someone noted quite keenly the other day, how the Leftists are defending private property right in this circumstance, but have no problem with dictating to private propert owners whole litanies of things that they cannot do, or must do.

    JD (6ed8b2)

  31. I like how people like steve select to choose how to define “journalism”.

    And “select to choose how to define” isn’t at all long-winded.

    The “questioning” of tea party rally-goers in Chicago by CNN’s Susan Roesgen also was NOT an interview.

    steve (8e7152)

  32. But JD, that is different.

    You and me, we are bitter and evil and cling to our guns.

    Them? They are caring and compassionate and understanding.

    And so much smarter.

    At least, that is what we keep hearing.

    And that is why it isn’t hypocrisy when they do things that they otherwise denounce, based purely on their political viewpoints.

    Feelings. Not facts.

    How dare you question their decisions? The great sage Jon Stewart just took a potshot and Andrew Breitbart about his complaining about PC issues, saying “You guys have been out of power for six weeks; quit whining.”

    Because it wasn’t whining when they did it when a Republican is President. Then, it was the highest form of patriotism. But currently, is dissent patriotic? Not so much.

    Completely different. Just ask Janet Napolitano.

    Me, I keep thinking about Robespierre. He set up the precedents that were used to execute him, when those precedents were used by other hands.

    It should be about the principle, not the person. And certainly not the party.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  33. The “questioning” of tea party rally-goers in Chicago by CNN’s Susan Roesgen also was NOT an interview.

    But journalists are the foundation of American democracy! Journalists keep civilization intact, prevent the Earth from falling into the sun, and hold off the transdimensional vortices of Hastur.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  34. “You and me, we are bitter and evil and cling to our guns.”

    Eric – You might also be godbotherers. I don’t know, but better safe than sorry is what I was taught. Easier to avoid those scary types whenever possible. Wouldn’t want any faith or hope to rub off or anything.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  35. Yeah, I left that out, daley. I guess not being a “Bright” is another sign of terrorism-associated tendencies.

    But this is the era of Hope, if not Faith. Right?

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  36. “But this is the era of Hope, if not Faith. Right?”

    Barack, won ja buy me
    a mer say deez bends

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  37. Now, Bradley…you know very well not to use the title of Him Who Is Not to be Named

    Cthulhu spank.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Z6XQSaZ9E

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  38. So basically one man with armed with a camera and his mouth was a big enough threat to have to be physically removed and yet when Ann Coulter spoke at the school there were more than 150 protesters outside the theater in the same location as Ziegler and they weren’t considered an equal threat. The math isn’t right.

    How does the identifier one gives themself make a difference – It’s still one person. It was still 150. Whether a journalist, a protester, a concerned citizen or just a publicity whore, how do the rules apply to the one and not the many?

    Dana (d08a3a)

  39. Yes, that is an interesting calculus, isn’t it, Dana?

    It’s sad watching the Leftist Limbo on this topic.

    Honestly, the Left could earn so much cred by not showing this kind of differential. But they can’t help themselves. Ideology uber alles.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  40. Dana, I’m not familiar with what happened at Anne Coulter’s appearance. Can you share any details or is there a story you can link to?

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  41. From a 10/25/2007 Daily Trojan article on a 10/24/2007 protest of Ann Coulter’s “anti-liberal speech:”

    “The protesters were kept outside in a designated demonstration area by administrators and Department of Public Safety officers.

    When students showed up with picket signs, they were asked to remove stakes and stay on the grassy area away from the entrance of the building.”

    However, this video of the demonstration clearly shows the protesters were on the pavement and the grass. At times, some protesters appeared to block the pathway but it didn’t seem to bother anyone (with the possible exception of an older couple attending the event), and security didn’t intervene during the 9 minutes the videotape was running.

    BTW, there’s an interesting lecture at the end of the video where one of the protest leaders explains fascism is where the corporations merge with the state. Welcome to fascism, America.

    Anon (b0f193)

  42. Thanks for posting that, Anon. Funny how the university police weren’t following those “private institution” rules here, right?

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  43. duh.
    This is America, my little conservo droogies.
    Let Zeigler sue for false arrest if he has grounds.
    Otherwise, shaddap the whinging already.
    You do understand that Zeigler was there to a michaelmoore on the attendees and get more mats for his conspiracy theory deification of Palin don’t you?
    Look guyz….Reihan jumped off the boat.
    Can Ross be far behind?

    wheeler's cat (06550c)

  44. duh, no one is disputing that USC had the right to remove Zeigler, wheeler’s cat. You’ve missed the point of the the entire parable.

    Steverino (69d941)

  45. Steverino – this cat thing is a self-proclaimed “meme warrior” and “griefer troll”. Unless you are mocking it, you are wasting your time. Though it is kind of fun, in a sick and scary way, to see it discuss how it is a conservative by birth, or how it advocates genocide, or ID. It tends to go Beetlejuice …

    JD (6ef835)

  46. Thanks for the word to the wise, JD. I’ll have to craft some kind of subtle mockery for future engagements with the scurrilous feline.

    Steverino (69d941)

  47. By all means, do not allow me to dissuade you. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of its abject idiocy and complete disregard for anything that approaches being a fact or the truth.

    JD (6ef835)

  48. I loved one of the comments on Salam’s blog:

    I believe the failure was in their modern take on conservatism – which I perceive as a free market/anti tax fetish.

    That nasty old free market. Get rid of that and we can all be happy conservatives.

    I watched Boehner on This Week today and he seems totally lost. He can’t explain the whole tax issue for the tea party people. They know that taxes will rise to try to pay for Obama’s deficits. Boehner can’t seem to figure that out.

    Then Stephanopolis got after him on global warming and carbon. All Boehner needed to say was nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. Instead he gobbled.

    We are really in trouble with our spokesmen. Ziegler is a rocket scientist compared to them.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  49. As long as the Congressional GOP looks to the likes of Boehner, and not to fresh faces (and minds) such as Jeff Flake, Zack Wamp, and others, they will just be Bob Michel re-dux – which got them exactly nowhere the first time. It’s time to let Boehner work full-time on his tan.

    AD (967a8f)

  50. A lot of understanding. His feelings were hurt a couple of years ago and he has yet to get over it

    Was that the time he threatened to kick Ody’s a–?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  51. Really, Dmac? I always missed the funny stuff.

    Seriously, folks on the internet act like they are in cars, behind Magic WIndshields.

    Back in my twenties, I had some guy cut me off in a parking lot for a parking space. So I yelled some creative things at him through my windshield.

    So he walked up to my car and asked me to repeat them.

    Hilarity ensued.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  52. Yeah, it was something of that nature – then when he got called on his behavior by many of the commenters (particularly Mike K.), he ran to Mommy (Cathy Seipp) and complained. Too funny.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  53. Dmac, your memory is faulty. You’ve conflated two separate incidents.

    My William F. Buckley moment was with Ody and followed a long series of posts in which he questioned my patriotism, sobriety, etc.

    Many months later I posted a comment regarding Michael Hiltzik that both praised and criticized him. Mike K posted a response that I found obscene. Since I post under my real name, I asked Cathy to remove it. She declined.

    Dmac, do you have something to offer to the Ziegler discussion?

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  54. The offering I make is an informed history of your prior postings, Tim. That’s the thing with the internet – you can’t run away from your past, only own up to it.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  55. I’ve never been reluctant to take ownership of my views, Dmac, and have the courage to put my real name on them.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  56. Here we go again with the faux tough – guy act, part and parcel. Time to frequent another site, Tim.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  57. Do you have the courage to put your home phone, address and soc sec num up or are you just being nonsensical with all the rough’n’ready stuff?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  58. Real tough guys use pseudonyms — is that it, Dmac?

    If our host finds my presence annoying, I’m sure he’ll let me know. His opinion on the matter is the one that counts.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  59. And, for the record, I don’t want me none of that info. It just irks me to see someone blathering about using a real name as proof of anything on any public net site.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  60. # 58

    My view of anonymity is that it’s a coward’s refuge and one of the reasons that discourse on the Web is so poisonous. I made a commitment to myself a long time ago never to post anonymously or under a pseudonym, a commitment I’ve kept. Some other posters here know I post under my real name — Bradley Fikes and I, for instance, have had professional communications unrelated to blogging.

    Your suggestion is out of bounds. I’m not going to publish information that could jeopardize my family’s security or facilitate identity theft.

    I’ve conducted my part of the discussion of the Ziegler matter courteously. For reasons of his own, “Dmac” has decided some hectoring is in order. Fine, I can’t control that, but I won’t pretend that I respect it.

    What is your beef with me, John Hitchcock?

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  61. Tim,

    Our special forces do not wear day-glow jumpsuits. Are they cowards as well?

    I find your argument counter-intuitive. While discourse on the web can be base, what is also liberating about discourse on the web is that it lives and dies by the strength of its ideas, regardless of the identity of the commenter. I don’t come here to meet people – this isn’t facebook. I come here to hash out ideas and challenge myself intellectually.

    Those that come here to cast aspersions and propagandize are immediately identifiable by the inferior quality of their discourse. Sorry, but one has only to see a ‘celebrity’ at a microphone to realize that the identity of the speaker quite often detracts from the analysis of the message.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  62. Tim,
    I post under my own name because I like to put my views up for public exposure. Curious readers will know where I’m coming from. Also, my editor is cool with it, as long as I don’t imply my opinions are shared by my paper.

    And I also learn things and make friends in the dextrosphere that help me in my reporting. Plenty of reporters are connected with the sinistrophere, but few outside of conservative pubs dare take part in discourse on blogs run by those evil conservative Republicans.

    Some others who post here can’t be so open for reasons I have been informed of and respect. They have one handle, and don’t sock puppet. Ody is one of those. A few years ago I too argued with Ody and taunted him over being anonymous. I have since grown up.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  63. They have one handle, and don’t sock puppet.
    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 4/19/2009 @ 8:20 pm

    For example. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  64. Apogee, there’s something to what you say. Identity — genuine or contrived — can alter the analysis of content. What concerns me is irresponsibility, which anonymity facilitates. When you post behind a pseudonym, you escape real-world consequences. That feels like cowardice to me.

    It’s sometimes uncomfortable here posting under my own name, with my generally liberal inclinations undisguised. Some commenters here really don’t want the echo chamber disturbed. However, I’d be more uncomfortable — and probably more irresponsible — posting under a fake identity. Patrick Frey and I have exchanged views from time to time for a number of years now, starting from when we both posted comments to LA Observed. I post here from time to time when the spirit moves me or when my experience seems to have some pertinent value. My professional experience made me relate to the dilemma the USC staff faced in the Ziegler matter and that’s what led me to participate in the discussion this time.

    I think I’ll keep posting as who I am. Thanks for the comment.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  65. “…Some commenters here really don’t want the echo chamber disturbed. …”

    Nice. Of course you are “above” all the personal attacks, though.

    Eric Blair (ad3775)

  66. Tim McGarry,

    Whether it’s in real life or on the internet, names aren’t what make us have integrity or what earns us respect. Our words and the way we treat others is what earns respect.

    Anon (b0f193)

  67. When you post behind a pseudonym, you escape real-world consequences.

    That’s kind of the purpose sometimes.

    That feels like cowardice to me.

    Really? No other reason to post under a pseudonym?

    I think I’ll keep posting as who I am.

    No problem with that at all. However, you should keep in mind that not everyone using a pseudonym is irresponsible or cowardly.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  68. The whole “echo chamber” meme is one of the oldest Leftist canards, and is complete projection, given their insular communities so willing to parrot the party line for a little advertising cash.

    JD (0ff900)

  69. Tim 8:34pm – What concerns me is irresponsibility, which anonymity facilitates.

    Ok. Let’s look closer at that statement. The converse implies that the lack of anonymity facilitates responsibility, correct?

    But we seem to know the names of everyone in Congress, and we seem to know their whereabouts, as they represent designated districts.
    Would you then argue that Congress has been behaving responsibly over the past many decades?

    I would not.
    In fact, I would argue that much of the push to control the message put out by the media involves the fight over the ability to deliver ideas. One way to attack that ability is to attack the messenger.

    A simple question that is unanswerable can be devastating to a political cause. If you could somehow guarantee that all the parties would act in a responsible manner, then I might agree with your appeal to identification. But I feel that the examples of Congress and the media, acting both irresponsibly and openly makes a considerable point in favor of the anonymous and free exchange of ideas.

    Ideas unencumbered by attempts by some (as we’ve seen lately) to attack the person in order to distract from the ideas.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  70. Apogee – That point is incredibly compelling given the troll still attacking Rush in another thread, and the Left’s general tactic of setting up a bogeyman charicature to attack.

    JD (0ff900)

  71. I’ve had experience with three echo chambers, one on the right with Voldemort, and on the left with Sadly, No! and Daily Kos.

    The leftists echo chambers are far nastier. Voldemort’s minions will call those who challenge them nasty names, SN and DK’s denizens will wish you a slow and painful death. Lovely!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  72. What’s intriguing is when the sadly no crowd accuse Republicans of being the no party.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  73. Apogee, thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

    Let’s focus on a real-world entity for a moment. You mentioned Congress. I would say that, over recent decades, Congress has sometimes acted responsibly, sometimes not. At all times, however, they have been subject to being held accountable by the electorate.

    Is accountability possible without identification? Suppose we could somehow elect a legislative body behind a curtain of ignorance (at least with respect to personal identity) and suppose further that legislators could operate without knowing the identity of other legislators.

    The distraction of personality would perhaps be stripped from the discussion, but what would take the place of accountability as one motivating force for good behavior and good decisions? It’s not always a sufficient force now (and maybe sometimes, as you suggest, an impediment), but in its complete absence, what’s left?

    Not sure where to take this, but thanks for stimulating some thought.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  74. Tim 10:12pm – Suppose we could somehow elect a legislative body behind a curtain of ignorance

    You mean television?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  75. Tim,
    Many of the anonymous commenters here are not totally anonymous. Ody’s identity was known to Cathy Seipp, and Jack Dunphy’s is known to Patterico, I believe. And I know the Clark Kent identities of a few. These people stick to one name, are consistent and have been around for years. They provide useful information and an intellectual scratching post to keep our wits sharp.

    They’re not to be compared with the recent influx of anonymous trolls. These generally don’t stay long or once found out come back under another names. And they spout the same talking points — pro-Obama, anti-conservative and by the way Rush Limbaugh is FAT!!

    Tim, as a person who generally leans left, you might want to disassociate yourself from this. If I saw a Libertarian troll (or a troll claiming to be Libertarian, more likely) saying similar stuff, I’d quickly make clear that person doesn’t speak for me.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  76. “It’s sometimes uncomfortable here posting under my own name, with my generally liberal inclinations undisguised.”

    Tim – Correct me if I am wrong, but you are a liberal living in a very liberal state. Many of us have to deal with your bretheren, who claim to be tolerant, in the real world on a daily basis and have seen examples too numerous to chronicle of exactly how intolerant your type are when presented with views conflicting with their conventional wisdom. Consequences of holding those “forbidden opinions” are frequently not pretty. Look only to the recent Jihad in your state against Prop 8 supporters for examples of this phenomenon. If you think there are not reasons for anonymity from the safety of your perch in your blue cocoon, just BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  77. Tim 10:12pm

    My point isn’t that elected representatives should be anonymous – it isn’t, for the specific reason that they have the power to implement policy.

    It was merely a rebuttal to the idea that there is a direct correlation between anonymity and responsible behavior.

    As you said yourself, Congress has acted both responsibly and irresponsibly (sometimes simultaneously) over its history.

    Consider Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Not a great list of the responsible, yet you know all their names, along with their crimes.

    Ideas must be allowed to flourish, if the human race is to improve. As long as communication is open, then the ideas must stand on their own. I believe that is the overriding principle that produces the best ideas.

    Much could be discussed about how to police the ideas, as is currently happening here on another thread. I would suggest that men far smarter than us have already come up with some very good ground rules.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  78. I’m having update and filter problems, so I can’t see comments update for about 25 minutes.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  79. I’ve been informed that the reload problem is some WP Supercacheafragalisticexpialidocious issue.

    Gots to go, as I’m off to Vegas in the AM.

    Eat your heart out Scott Jacobs!

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  80. daleyrocks, I’m an individual not a “type.” I’m sorry to see you depart from civility.

    Bradley, no one speaks for me. I speak for myself.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  81. Ok Tim,

    As an individual then, are you contending that everyone here using a pseudonym is irresponsible and cowardly?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  82. Barcky/SanFranNan/Harry speak for all Leftists, Tim.

    I do not buy this I have felt “uncomfortable” posting as a Leftist here.

    JD (0ff900)

  83. No, Stashiu3, I agree with you that a blanket statement like that would be taking it too far. I found your cautionary remark persuasive. Thank you.

    Good night

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  84. Consequences of holding those “forbidden opinions” are frequently not pretty.

    All too sadly true. Just look at what’s accepted at Earth Day.

    Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists, and animal rights fanatics are fine and dandy. But anti-abortionists were isolated, cordoned off with a sign saying these “extremists” are not part of Earth Day. I am pro-abortion rights, but by which standard are anti-abortionists “extremists” and Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists not?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  85. “The whole “echo chamber” meme is one of the oldest Leftist canards, and is complete projection, given their insular communities so willing to parrot the party line for a little advertising cash.

    Comment by JD — 4/19/2009 @ 9:02 pm”

    While there is certainly some truth to this, a look at the comments and trends on this thread and others makes it hard to support this statement. I wish it were not so. If I may comment as a frequent reader, occasional commenter, and strong admirer of this site, there does seem to be a double standard here. If liberal commenters are not to be labeled trolls and vilified then they are expected to conform to some rather stringent standards of behavior and are held accountable to answer any challenge with facts and links. Nothing wrong with this but some of the regulars or conservatives here seem free to range unrestrained if they so wish and to go quite personal and nasty for no more apparent reason than the refusal of the liberal to conform to the approved views, and they are rarely called on it.

    I must emphasize that this is not Patterico’s standard, but the commenters’. I have never seen Patterico attack someone personally over their political views, even when he clearly rejects the views themselves. Unfortunately, some of the commenters here are embarrassingly quick to roll out the vulgar and personal attacks. As a bit of an outsider here I can tell you it is not to the site’s credit and does not do justice to the exceptional quality of many of the regulars here.

    I can’t tell you how much I hate saying this. Sorry.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  86. “I’m sorry to see you depart from civility”

    Tim – I didn’t appreciate being called cowardly in your comment, but thanks for your sentiment anyway, Tim.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  87. #86 Machinist:

    makes it hard to support this statement.

    I suppose it could appear so to an infrequent visitor. But the difference in treatment accorded various commenters whose political persuasion tends more to the left than the majority of commenters here isn’t because of their political views, but instead revolves about their honesty. Most of the time, it just has to do with simple honesty, as in not outright lying.

    Other times, it has to do with someone that is intellectually dishonest, that continually spouts nonsense that has been repeatedly shown to be factually in error, or unsupportable, or whatever; but demonstrates an absolute unwillingness to engage in honest argument.

    And a lot of the commenters accorded disrespect have earned, although not obviously so: they may be known from another site or some such, or repeating previous attempts to throw sand in the gears here under another name.

    Those who are here honestly, may not always be given kid glove treatment (for example, ask Bradley Fikes about his initial reception here), but most of the commenters here are at least willing to try to engage in argument.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  88. Machinist – If that is the case, I hope that I do not contribute to that, and will endeavor to avoid that going forward. I do not hesitate to criticize, in sometimes fairly salty language, those that have demonstrated that they are not arguing in good faith. Unfortunately, there have not been many recently.

    JD (f8b50e)

  89. duh, no one is disputing that USC had the right to remove Zeigler, wheeler’s cat. You’ve missed the point of the the entire parable.

    Comment by Steverino — 4/19/2009 @ 7:59 am

    Sweet!
    So…..Patterico….how about you retitle this thread to USC Legally Removes Conspiracy Theory Crank From Private Event?
    And you are missing the point, not me…..Couric’s interview was in no way an “advocacy” interview. Totall softball puff questions. Palin blew it and we all saw she was intellectually naked.
    Like Brooks said, lack of substrate.
    Reihan sees it too now…..how long is it going to take for the rest of you?

    wheeler's cat (06550c)

  90. duh, no one is disputing that USC had the right to remove Zeigler, wheeler’s cat. You’ve missed the point of the the entire parable.

    Comment by Steverino — 4/19/2009 @ 7:59 am

    Sweet!
    So…..Patterico….how about you retitle this thread to USC Legally Removes Conspiracy Theory Crank From Private Event?
    And you are missing the point, not me…..Couric’s interview was in no way an “advocacy” interview. Totall softball puff questions. Palin blew it and we all saw she was intellectually naked…..at least…..those of us with actual eyes.
    Like Brooks said, lack of substrate.
    Reihan sees it too now…..how long is it going to take for the rest of you?

    wheeler's cat (06550c)

  91. Oh Snap! I’m trapped in the legendary Jeff Goldstein Spam Filter!!
    hahahahaha!

    wheeler's cat (06550c)

  92. Or maybe I’m just banned.
    lol
    Hey, Patterico, did you know Ace rewrote one of my comments on his blog as a homophobic slur?
    I suppose he had a legal right to that…hehe!

    I wonder what our mutual sempai Pixy Misa would think of that.

    wheeler's cat (06550c)

  93. Machinist, as a thought experiment, try posting something that sounds conservative or just disagrees from the leftist theme of the thread on one of the lefty blogs like Washington Monthly. I’d also suggest Mother Jones but your comment will never appear. At WM you will get a lot of obscene abuse and then your comment will be deleted, often leaving obscene responses to a comment that has disappeared.

    A few commenters here do get a bit excited sometimes, but the lefty trolls are given a lot of freedom here and nothing like that is seen in lefty blogs.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  94. A few commenters here do get a bit excited sometimes, but the lefty trolls are given a lot of freedom here and nothing like that is seen in lefty blogs.

    I can vouch that the hazing I’ve received here at times, such as over Palin, is mild compared to the treatment I received over at Sadly, No! and at Voldemort’s blog.

    Commenters here are more interested in facts; those at those two other blogs are more concerned with maintaining the politically correct stance and denouncing dissenters.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  95. Your suggestion is out of bounds. I’m not going to publish information that could jeopardize my family’s security or facilitate identity theft.

    So to sum up: posting your real name = gutsy, courageous and a stand – up person; publishing any other personal information = an uncalled – for request and not in gentlemanly behavior.

    Thanks for playing, Tim – and for confirming that you’ve learned absolutely nothing after your humiliation at Cathy’s World a few years ago. Congratulations, you’re still an unmitigated Ponce – and you still owe Ody an apology for sliming our men and women in uniform, whose underwear you couldn’t carry in any way, shape or form. But always remember, you’re the real tough guy in your own little world.

    I can’t tell you how much I hate saying this. Sorry

    Machinist, if you look up in the archives posts involving the commenters Aphrael and Leviticus, you’ll see a far different picture than what you’re painting here.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  96. LOL. Well, I was waiting for the “men and women in uniform” line to be trotted out.

    Since I’m a veteran, Dmac, maybe you can carry my underwear.

    Like you, Ody was a blowhard. Like a lot of right-wing blowhards, he had a penchant for assailing the patriotism of people who disagreed with him. I called him on it and would do it again, without hesitation.

    I’m going to be around for awhile, Dmac, and will look forward to continuing displays of venom from you. It seems to be your sole talent.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  97. I am sure that Tim is denouncing the People’s Republic of Berkley for their totalarian disregard for personal property rights.

    JD (f8b50e)

  98. Tim,
    You have a different memory of your spat with Ody than the rest of us. If Ody was a blowhard, you were at least equal in that department. Challenging Ody to a fight was juvenile, and asking Cathy to delete a comment was also childish. Even when I had the most heated exchanges with Ody, I never did that, or even considered it.

    As for Dmac, he doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (04a387)

  99. You misstate what I told Ody. I didn’t “challenge him to a fight.” I said that, while I had no interest in meeting him, if he were to talk to me in person the way he talked to me on the blog, I would knock him on his ass.

    I meant it. I found it necessary to express in the strongest possible terms my disgust at his constantly questioning my patriotism for disagreeing with his view of the war.

    Months later, when I mixed some praise with criticism in a post about Michael Hiltzik, your good friend Mike K likened it to fellatio. Do you blame me for not wanting this as a Google result? That’s an adult concern, not a childish one.

    This latest series seems to have been brought on when I ascribed a certain irony to Mike K’s suggestion that resort to ad hominem was a liberal characteristic. Dmac emerged from his bunker and you have labelled me “childish” twice.

    Thanks. It’s good to know where you’re coming from.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  100. Since I’m a veteran, Dmac, maybe you can carry my underwear.

    ….aaaaaaaaaaannnd just like the swallows returning to Capistrano, Timmah trots out his shopworn canard akin to Kos’s excuse for his excreable offences to our armed services personnel. He served, so he can call other soldiers anything he likes, no matter how offensive, period.

    I’m going to be around for awhile, Dmac,

    Based on your beclowning so far, I wouldn’t count on it. You’ve ventured into far more intelligent group than you realize, and they’re just getting the taste of your carcass out of their mouths.


    Like you, Ody was a blowhard.

    Yeah, a big blowhard who served on two tours of duty in the green zone in Bahgdad, during the worst months of combat in the history of the conflict. So if he’s a blowhard, I’m honored to be considered in the same company.

    BTW, Timmah has some type of job as a bank teller in a location in Downtown Chicago, so he knows what a real man is composed of – tell us all about it, Timmah!

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  101. I’m going to be around for awhile, Dmac,

    You mean like you sticked around after your humiliation at Cathy’s site, Timmah? You ran out of there so fast we barely caught a glimpse of your backside, and you never returned. Is that what a real man does, Timmah?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  102. Your memory is still faulty, Dmac. I continued as a commenter on Cathy’s site until her death. It was in fact Ody who stopped posting there.

    She and I were acquaintances, not friends, but we both remembered the media scene in Los Angeles in the ’70s and ’80s and occasionally corresponded about it. In particular, we shared a mutual admiration for Jack Smith, a well-known LA Times columnist whose writings served as something of a model for my own blogging efforts, albeit on a much more minor scale.

    She and I disagreed pretty thoroughly on politics, but I enjoyed her writing and respected her. Some of her commenters, not so much.

    See you around.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  103. Comment by Mike K — 4/20/2009 @ 6:45 am

    I am aware of that, Sir. That is why I come here and don’t go there,and why it saddens me to see it here. The standards of the posts, the posters, and the commenters is so much higher here that I hate to see such conduct justified because we’re not as bad as them. That’s a treacherous road. In any case it’s not my call so carry on, but I couldn’t help but comment on the irony of the comment I referenced.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  104. Do you blame me for not wanting this as a Google result? That’s an adult concern, not a childish one.

    More like an ego concern. Are you going to beg all the blogmasters to delete such insults to you?

    Here’s your comment on Hiltzik

    I like Michael Hiltzik’s work as a reporter and columnist. He’s smart and incisive and brings a broader range of understanding and sympathy to bear in his coverage than many business reporters I’ve read. But it’s unquestionably true that he exercised very poor judgment in this instance.

    My overall view of Patrick Frey is negative. I see him as an extreme partisan who cares little about journalism. In this instance, however, he deserves only praise. He was right to disclose his discovery and was completely on target in pointing out why Michael’s deception mattered. Whatever else one can say about him, Patrick’s a very intelligent and determined individual.

    I disagree with those who are calling for Michael’s head. I think “Golden State” has been a great column and I hope it continues. Voices like Michael’s deserve to be heard. I also hope the LAT continues to field bloggers willing to take the fight to the paper’s right-wing critics, despite Michael’s stumble here. Ultimately, it’s the reading public who will benefit.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (04a387)

  105. So, Bradley, if Patterico is so awful…why does TM post here?

    I know the answer, and so do you.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  106. I’m glad you’re going to stick around Tim. You’re holding your own very well and staying civil… good on ya. I have a lot of respect for some of those who clearly don’t like you very much, so it’s uncomfortable right now. You and I are probably going to end up disagreeing on a lot of issues, but I look forward to the discussions.

    As I mentioned on another thread, I think the campus security played right into Ziegler’s hands. When the camera panned around, it was clear that Ziegler wasn’t impeding anyone… there wasn’t anyone to impede. There were a few people at the top of the steps watching the confrontation. I haven’t seen anyone allege that he was getting into people’s faces and persisting if they declined to speak with him. On an open campus, they should have no more right to restrict his lawful movement because he’s a journalist than if he were black. Just because they make some arbitrary rule doesn’t mean it’s right to follow it. If they decided that anyone with a camera had to wear their shoes on opposite feet, I expect you would find that unreasonable. Why is restricting him to a small area with minimal access just because he has a camera any more reasonable?

    Again, if he had been impeding or harassing anyone, it would be different. They haven’t even alleged that. They’ve only said that he tried to interview people and refused to comply with the University’s “request”. Apparently, they have a different definition of request than I do because a request is different than a demand or order. If everyone else is able to walk around the entryway, why couldn’t he? Because they didn’t like his message or intent? That’s the point most of us are making. It’s hypocritical of them to act like this at a Journalism School, especially when they’re hosting an event celebrating the power of a free press.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  107. Thesis: “Journalism” is Irony-Challenged

    mojo (8096f2)

  108. Machinist – Since you were referencing my comment, and noted the irony in same, I will take your words under advisement. I do not want to be the person you described.

    JD (c6b1ac)

  109. And here is Mike K’s reply that Tim asked Cathy to remove, ostensibly to protect his reputation:

    Tim, you can stand up now. I think Michael is satisfied. I can tell by the sloppy grin on his face.

    Hiltzik is a jerk with a thin skin. I sent him an e-mail a few months ago after reading a piece by Mickey Kaus. What followed was an amazingly mean spirited exchange which ended with him telling me I was a disgrace to Dartmouth.

    I mean, Jeez! I was an anonymous e-mailer who thought he had said something stupid. The NRO folks get those from lefties all day long and publish the most amusing of them.

    The amazing thing to me is that his book Dealers of Lightning was terrific. I suppose I’m now going to find out that half out it was BS.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (04a387)

  110. That is it, Bradley?!

    JD (c6b1ac)

  111. JD,
    Yes, that’s the fearsome remark that got Tim’s nose out of joint. That is mild compared to other epithets regularly exchanged on Cathy’s World. But Tim wanted special treatment.

    The whole thread is still there for the reading on Haloscan.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (04a387)

  112. I gather Bradley has no children, which perhaps explains why he is so clueless as to what bothered me about letting Mike K’s gratuitously obscene insult stand.

    I subsequently asked Cathy to remove the portion of Mike’s post that referred to me. I didn’t “beg” her. She thought it over and declined. End of story.

    Now, thanks to Bradley, the world can once again see Mike K’s brand of discourse. You may not realize it, Bradley, but you probably have done your friend no favor.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  113. I cannot get any of the threads to update, again.

    JD (c6b1ac)

  114. That is gratuitously obscene?

    JD (c6b1ac)

  115. Mike K: You disgust me.

    Do it again!!!

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  116. I’m still waiting for Tim McGarry to explain why he comments here, when he has a negative view of Patterico, that “extreme partisan who cares little about journalism”.

    Change your mind about Patterico, Tim?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  117. Comment by JD — 4/20/2009 @ 11:56 am

    JD, I did not mean to single you out and you were not who I had in mind. There are some here who are painfully quick to go down that road and I have used the term “echo chamber” before in private conversation referring to the tendency of some commenters here.

    No offense was intended Sir, but I stand by my observation in general.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  118. No offense was taken, Machinist. I was simply trying to clarify. Again, I know I can tend towards that, and I will take the constructive criticism to heart.

    JD (d71a7a)

  119. Machinist – Thanks for your comments.

    Many of us here have experienced some of folks receiving rough treatment under one or more screen names previously. Wheelers cat has been banned from more blogs than you can count under more names than I can remember. She is a pop fashionista griefer, here to annoy rather than debate. She is very young with an overinflated sense of her intelligence. DCSCA has recently made a reappearance after a sabbatical and has reverted to his form of perseverating over the same debunked talking points within any given thread.

    Most of the contempt you see expressed here, IMHO, is due to familiarity, although I’d be willing to consider specific examples. Tim’s smarmy passive aggressive “civility” doesn’t cut it for me.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  120. JD – I love you man! Don’t ever change.

    Racist!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  121. Daleyrocks,
    I have heard this and similar reasons given before for degrading a civil debate to vulgar personal attacks. It seems the rational is that if someone offended you at some time on another thread or even another site years ago you are forever justified in nasty personal attacks? I suppose this argument could be made but it is not a position I would ever want to defend.

    Perhaps it’s a difference of experience. I have never found this approach effective. Once rational discussion degenerates to obscenity and name calling I have never seen progress made, so I have tried to purge it from my acceptable responses. Have you found this persuasive in the past? Has it been an effective tool for debate?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  122. Has it been an effective tool for debate?

    Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    As can be seen, those such as ASPCA have no desire or willingness or ability to debate. As such, no debate tool will ever be effective.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  123. OK, then what would you have us do when an obvious thread disrupter comes on here and does nothing but spam the site, day in and day out? We’ve previously tried to ignore said nutjobs, to no avail. We’ve also tried to argue in good faith at every initial opportunity to do so (which is never presented, of course), again to no avail. We cannot deal with people like these under the Marquis du Queensbury Rules, so what is your suggestion?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  124. Seriously, without any snark intended, what are your ideas on how to deal with this pernicious problem?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  125. “I suppose this argument could be made but it is not a position I would ever want to defend.”

    Machinist – I’m not asking you to defend it. Depending on my mood and the mendoucheousness of the troll, I am oftentimes willing to ignore them for periods of time. If lies go unanswered, however, I think that is an unacceptable position. If you would like to assume the position of troll responder here for a few days, be my guest, but please make sure their lies do not go unchallenged. I do mean lies rather than differences of opinion.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  126. #122 Machinist:

    Has it been an effective tool for debate?

    There isn’t much point in attempting debate with a dishonest advocate.

    However, it might be worthwhile to react negatively to someone who’s dishonest if it shames them and causes them to reevaluate their behavior.

    Unfortunately, many ideologues seem beyond shame.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  127. Some of the trolls here are nasty and should be confronted or banned, as has happened recently. I was referring to commenters who I have seen avoid personal attacks, even when themselves attacked or provoked. Tim McGarry would be an example on yesterday’s comments. I do not know him but what he did and said on that thread did not warrant the response he got from some others. I would not dream of telling you how to conduct yourself. I say that to me this conduct discredits yourself and your arguments when you resort to it. YMMV.

    Sorry for the delay. It took a long time before the comments showed up. Perhaps the filter does not like long winded blowhards like me.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  128. If you would like to assume the position of troll responder here for a few days

    I have responded to trolls here when I took exception to what they said, Sir. I did not find vulgar language or personal smears necessary.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  129. What happened at another site before can be valuable information about a commenter. That doesn’t mean that every time they comment it should be brought up again. Most of us have gotten heated on occasion and spoken harshly or gotten into a flame-war with someone. It shouldn’t be forgotten, but at some point it’s water under the bridge. As long as he comments honestly and is civil (even if, IMO, he’s incorrect), Tim is welcome as far as I’m concerned.

    Spammers, trolls, astroturfers, Mobys, nutjobs, dishonest commenters, etc… are definitely a problem, but equating them to what I’ve seen of Tim here is unfair. DCSCA, Hax, EfPA, alphie, wheeler’s cat, VeV, horace, brb, i love america, Brad S., glasnost, teh narrative, syntax, bored again christian, and many others… are not the same. They are the ones disrupting threads, not Tim.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  130. Patterico,

    This hang-up with the comments is truly getting terrible. Just sayin’

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  131. Stashiu3, well said, Sir.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  132. “They are the ones disrupting threads, not Tim.”

    Stashiu3 – I agree for now. Even timb has been modifying his act to some degree and it has been met, in my opinion, with significantly less hostility as a result.

    Machinist – It is your choice to refrain from vulgarity and personal attacks in responding to other commenters. My recommendation is not to assume anything about prior dialogue between parties when you see something going on here which you feel is out of line. Patterico does do a good job of toning things down when people get too wound up.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  133. I do not know him but what he did and said on that thread did not warrant the response he got from some others.

    Yes, but a few of us know Tim all too well from earlier days at another blog, and we don’t appreciate his act getting a second run here. So while it’s not for us to say whether he should be posting at this site, some things needed to be said about his past behavior, which was fairly excreable. If he wants to keep commenting here, fine – but don’t proclaim that our opinions about someone’s past behavior shouldn’t be included in the conversation. Sound good?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  134. Thank you, Daleyrocks. I was not assuming anything. Tim was debating the thread topic if I recall and it was another commenter who took the discussion off topic and diverted the thread to the history between Tim and one of the commenters. I don’t think Tim can be blamed for this. He only went to that issue when he felt it was being mischaracterized. I know nothing of that history other than what I saw related here yesterday but it certainly had nothing to do with the topic under discussion. I’m new to this. What do you call someone who drags a discussion off the thread topic with an unprovoked personal attack that has no bearing on the subject under discussion?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  135. “Excreable: capable of being discharged by spitting.”

    Interesting word choice.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  136. Patterico of course sets the standards here but I mention how it looks to an outsider. Of course, if you don’t care about that and only worry about what is accepted by the insiders then by all means continue, but isn’t that the very definition of an “echo chamber” in this context?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  137. Tim is the one who had to go to the trouble of explaining his objection to my rather light-hearted riposte after his slobber job on Hiltzik. Even Cathy, sophisticate that she was, didn’t figure out what he was upset about until he explained it to her (no doubt with pictures). Tim, do you savor that exchange sometimes ? Save up the emotions to make you fell better on a rough day ?

    Well, think about the giggling inanity of the lefties who pulled off that great prank of labeling the tea parties “teabagging.” Did you get it, Tim ?

    Since then, I have even figured out that Hiltzik’s book on Xerox PARC wasn’t all that good when I found a better one. My review is here.

    My one reason for respecting Hiltzik turns out to be a mistake as his book had the usual anti-business slant that makes it such a parody that the clueless LA Times puts him back in the Business section.

    Tim, have you seen anyone about that post traumatic stress disorder ? They have clinics for that now.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  138. but don’t proclaim that our opinions about someone’s past behavior shouldn’t be included in the conversation. Sound good?

    Comment by Dmac — 4/20/2009 @ 5:43 pm

    I wasn’t aware I did that, Sir. Sorry if I did. Please carry on.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  139. Machinist,
    We just know Tim’s history from Cathy’s World of getting into snits and carrying grudges beyond the norm.

    Tim thinks negatively of Patterico, by his own admission. So why is Tim here? Has Tim decided he was wrong about Patterico? Or does he still think Patterico is an “extreme partisan who cares little about journalism”?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  140. Sir. Sorry if I did.

    No biggie, and thank you for saying that; but as Bradley and Mike have pointed out, there was a legitimate reason why I brought up a past association with the commenter. I also remembered his diss of our esteemed host (h/t Bradley), so I questioned his reasons for showing up here in the first place.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  141. My hunch is that, with the demise of “The Festering Swamp,” Bradley has decided to make “Patterico’s Pontifications” his own. He and his friends will relieve Patrick of the burden of running things, although Pat will be able to stay on as a sort of guest host or “founder emeritus.” The blog will complete it’s transformation into sort of a guys’ hangout, where the like-minded gather to comfort one another.

    Mike K, I suppose, will be sort of the wise-cracking chairman of the board, the head Rat-Packer (Dmac can be chief of staff and Head Enforcer). Mike, that was an amazing performance earlier tonight. Character will out and I’m beginning to suspect you just can’t help yourself.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  142. Machinist – Actually, in an echo chamber, wouldn’t it be the case that there would be no criticism of that choice of rhetorical device? While, here, we have a conversation about it.

    JD (769f99)

  143. Passive-aggressive sounds about right.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  144. JD, respectfully Sir, I think I was just told to STFU for doing so.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  145. There doesn’t really be much more to say about this so I’ll do so. My compliments.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  146. Tim McGarry:

    My hunch is that, with the demise of “The Festering Swamp,” Bradley has decided to make “Patterico’s Pontifications” his own. He and his friends will relieve Patrick of the burden of running things, although Pat will be able to stay on as a sort of guest host or “founder emeritus.” The blog will complete it’s transformation into sort of a guys’ hangout, where the like-minded gather to comfort one another.

    This comment surprises me, since it doesn’t add up to anything I’ve observed about Patterico.com.

    For one thing, Mike K has his own blog (an excellent one, you should check it out) and Bradley J. Fikes guest-blogs there. For another, Patterico seems interested in his blog to me. Not only does he post often and well, but he comments frequently, too.

    Anon (b0f193)

  147. Everyone needs to lighten up a little.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  148. Tim,

    BroBrad is well-respected and doesn’t deserve that cheap shot about running things. He’s earned his spurs, you haven’t yet. If everything before this was a facade on your part, fine. As you say, character will out. I wasn’t pleased with your comment about using pseudonyms, but you amended it graciously after I brought it up. If this is the start of your true character however, I predict you’re going to have a lot more problems here than you ever expected.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  149. So many admonitions, so little time.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  150. One of the things that convinced me Patterico cares very much about journalism is the effort he puts into documenting errors and misleading statements in the LA Times. It’s not just opinion, it’s copious links and citations and context. That takes a lot of serious cogitation.

    I got quite a shock initially when reading Patterico, because what he wrote was so vastly different from what I’d been told about the LA Times and its outstanding journalism. But I persevered, followed the links and did my own corroborating reading.

    I felt like I’d fallen through the looking glass, but it was actually the reverse: I got in better touch with reality. And aren’t journalists supposed to be documenting reality? In this time when newspapers are going under and reporters lose their jobs, I see a lot of desperate writhing on a hook: Shall we charge for Web access? Save stuff for the print edition? Beg handouts from Google?

    I rarely see media types asking if our reporting is really so vital to democracy, or as accurate as we’re told it is. Suggestions to that end are dismissed by lefty journalists, who are of course in the great majority, as just right-wing intimidation. So much for actually considering the facts.

    But I am concerned with the facts. If journalism is to re-connect with readers, it will have to concern itself with facts, too, not just recite comforting but ridiculously self-serving mantras about how journalism keeps democracy and civilization going. Time to stop patting ourselves on the back and go to work to actually merit some of that praise. This type of advocacy journalism by the AP, based on agenda-driven politics, not well put into context, is NOT what I mean.

    So that’s why I read Patterico.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  151. Everyone needs to lighten up a little.

    Except for Anon, whose comment I hadn’t seen when I posted that.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  152. Tim, you’ve discovered my clever plan. Patterico is such a notorious softie I can roll right in there and annex this blog like the Sudetenland. Then I’ll take over Jeefy G.’s blog, then Michelle Malkin’s, Huffington Post, and on and on. Today, Patterico’s Pontifications, tomorrow the blogosphere!

    But now you’ve let the cat out of the bag too soon!

    Cursors, foiled again!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  153. Machinist – I most certainly did not tell you to STFU, nor did I intend to imply that, nor should you. You are a good and decent voice.

    JD (769f99)

  154. The blog will complete it’s transformation into sort of a guys’ hangout, where the like-minded gather to comfort one another.

    I think this is an unfair characterization. First, there are women who post here and have no interest in hanging out at a boys club but rather want debate, discussion and even vigorous disagreement if the case may be. Also, having known Mike and Bradley and Dmac since Cathy days, I know they are no less convinced of their povs than are you of yours.

    The Festering Swamp death was prompted by unchecked provocation and yet that momentary ugliness ended up being the necessary catalyst to move on. The site filled a void for a group of us after Cathy’s death but time moves on and so do people. That all ended up here at Patterico’s is not surprising as he provides an equally well-rounded blog, covering a multitude of subjects that interest both ends of the political spectrum and gives wide berth to differing povs. We are all glad to have landed at the same place.

    I would hate to see this place turn into one big never-ending pissing contest with ego and pride getting a foothold and the fun of debate and argument and further consideration of an issue get lost in the messy overabundance of testosterone. Meh.

    Dana (d08a3a)

  155. Racists !!!! 😉

    JD (769f99)

  156. Tim needs his own blog. Badly.

    When the trolls overran Cathy’s blog after she died, I started my own. You might try that. It’s better than bitterness and gnashing of teeth.

    I doubt Patterico appreciates your opinion but it’s his blog. He seems pretty tolerant of strange types.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  157. Dana, thanks for the comment. My post was intended to be read as fanciful. I don’t really think that Bradley wants to run this blog or turn it into an online men’s club, nor do I even remotely think that Patrick would let himself be pushed around by anyone.

    However, Bradley has taken it upon himself to be my interlocutor here and seems very insistent about it. Dmac has taken it upon himself to tell me to leave. Mike K evidently feels quite free here to address me in a most insulting fashion. They act a little bit as if they were Lords of the Manor, and that was the satiric point of my post.

    Tim McGarry (9fe080)

  158. Keeping up a blog is a lot of work if done correctly, I’ve found when wearing the mantle.

    A Brief History is also a WP blog, and I’m shocked at how much spam it gets. I’m constantly cleaning up — just got rid of five spams, and I last checked it a few hours ago. And Mike K. is also cleaning up spams.

    Toss in the need for frequent, cogent posts dealing with unruly commenters, and a blog can easily be a full-time job, without pay. Even with guests, Patterico does an amazing job here, only fully appreciated by those who’ve tried it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  159. I miss DRJ. She could always make all of us racist misogynistic misanthropes see the error of our ways.

    JD (769f99)

  160. JD, I was not referring to you but to Dmac’s comment #134.

    “… but don’t proclaim that our opinions about someone’s past behavior shouldn’t be included in the conversation. Sound good?

    Comment by Dmac — 4/20/2009 @ 5:43 pm “

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  161. Gotcha, Machinist. You are one of the people whose opinion I respect.

    JD (769f99)

  162. A gross oversimplification on your part, Machinist. But no matter, we’ll move on.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4861 secs.