Patterico's Pontifications

2/27/2010

Trust and the Media

Filed under: Media Bias,War — DRJ @ 6:45 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

How does a major newspaper decide whether to report wartime news whose release may jeopardize American interests or lives? New York Times‘ Editor Bill Keller says it depends on many factors, apparently including whether the newspaper has a friendly or acrimonious relationship with the President:

KELLER: No, we get asked to withhold information, not often but from time to time. Sometimes it’s a no-brainer, you know we have reporters embedded in military operations – obviously they don’t file information that would put troops at risk. We’ve had other stories that were much more controversial where we decided that we would publish. This one was not, honestly, a very hard call. Obviously we were eager to break the story, it represented a lot of resourceful reporting by Mark and Dexter, but there was no obvious public interest reason to rush the story into print and you know we are responsible people; we didn’t want to compromise what sounded like a possible intelligence coup.

HEADLEE: And certainly, the story retains just as much power more than a week later as it would have had you broken it right at the time, is that kind of your thought process?

KELLER: Yeah, I think that’s kind of the thought process. What actually happened, was yesterday our stringers in Pakistan and Afghanistan started calling our bureaus there and saying, we’re hearing reports that Mullah Baladar is in Pakistani custody, we took that to the White House and they said, yeah we understand it’s not holdable anymore.

HEADLEE: Right, so you published it. Now you visited the White House in 2006 while President Bush was in office and you were getting ready to publish a story about domestic wire tapping and very famously you were told if you published that story you’d have blood on your hands. Is that the kind of dire warning you got from the Obama White House?

KELLER: No, first of all this didn’t even get to my level, they dealt with Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, I mean obviously if they felt they needed to call me, I’m always willing to take a call, but it didn’t even rise to that level. Back in 2006 the conversations were professional and civil, but in the end when we didn’t agree to hold the story as they wanted us to, it was a kind of firestorm of criticism from the White House aimed at the Times. So far anyway we haven’t had that acrimony with this administration, nor as far as I know have other news organisations.”

It sounds like the New York Times‘ editors didn’t [like and/or] trust Bush and that contributed to why they refused his requests, but they [like and/or] trust Obama so they are more willing to accommodate his requests. I don’t know if that’s consistent with journalistic standards but it’s understandable. We are more likely to believe people we trust.

It’s also useful because it explains why subscriptions are dropping at newspapers like the New York Times but not at sources like the Wall Street Journal. It’s about trust.

— DRJ

81 Responses to “Trust and the Media”

  1. I read Keller as saying the issue is one of liking Obama better (“we haven’t had that acrimony”.

    NCC (996c34)

  2. NCC,

    First, I agree there are several ways to read what Keller said. Second, arguably liking someone and trusting them are two sides of the same coin but you make a good point and I’m going to edit the post to add that.

    However, the intelligence details were known to everyone involved in both instances and both Administrations claimed the intelligence matters were vital and should be kept secret. In addition, there was no claim that Bush’s secret program was about to be outed (other than by the Times). So either Keller thought the Bush intelligence coup wasn’t worth protecting, he didn’t trust Bush, or both … but I think a lack of trust was part of the reason the program was outed.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  3. Trust Bush! They HATED BUSH!!!!!

    EART (9d1bb3)

  4. So they sit on things without even being asked for Barcky.

    JD (4c20e2)

  5. i trust the MFM to lie to me, and i trust them to publish whatever will advance their own personal world view, regardless of whatever damage than might do to the country or the service members protecting it. in other times, they would have been prosecuted for treason and executed by now.

    that’s why we only get the WSJ and the Green Sheet at the house, and why i always send back the prepaid envelopes with the LA & NYT subscription forms with all the junk i can pack into the envelope. i look forward to the day they finally close for good.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. Hey, I do the same thing with AARP envelopes! I’m helping the USPS and getting money out of the AARP lobby.

    EART (9d1bb3)

  7. Keller contrasts “acrimony” with “professional and civil.” You contrast it with “friendly.”

    That tactic helps to make your point:

    “It sounds like the New York Times‘ editors didn’t [like and/or] trust Bush and that contributed to why they refused his requests, but they [like and/or] trust Obama so they are more willing to accommodate his requests. ”

    But also, we know that part of the reason they did eventually publish the story is they found out they had been lied to by the admin about the story. The admin misled them about the amount of intra-admin disagreement over the legality of the program. So trust is a part of it.

    imdw (6eb217)

  8. excuses for treason don’t stop it from being treason…. they just make you an accomplice after the fact.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  9. imdw:

    Let me get your argument straight. So let me take it step by step:

    First, the press and government have an adversarial relationship because the press represents the people as a watchdog on abuses of power by the government.

    Do we agree here?

    Second, this is an adversarial relationship.

    Right?

    Third, the government says to the press: “Don’t publish this, it might cause unnecessary bloodshed.”

    Are we OK so far?

    Fourth, the press finds out that the government lied to them about intra-administration disagreements on the subject at hand.

    Right?

    Fifth, the press says, let’s get these lying buggers.

    And they do.

    But, if they the lying buggers had said: “Look, we’re not all in agreement of legalities regarding a new threat to the commonwealth, but here’s what we’re doing.”

    And, if then the press withheld the story, it would have been alright because of the whole “trust” issue?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you saying the government can do what it pleases as long as they outline it clearly to the press and then politely ask: “Please don’t publish this?”

    And one more minor point, which really is too insignificant to mention: If the government says people may die if you disclose the information, the press’ best response is:

    No, first of all this didn’t even get to my level, they dealt with Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, I mean obviously if they felt they needed to call me, I’m always willing to take a call, but it didn’t even rise to that level.

    I tried, but I really can’t figure out a way to comment on the hubris of that statement. I mean, I don’t expect him to read the personals in the classifieds, but page one is important.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  10. You are giving it waaaaaaay too much credit, Ag.

    JD (0a6172)

  11. No Ag that’s not it.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  12. No, it’s much more obtuse than that.

    GeneralMalaise (c58b20)

  13. The short version is that the Times is the Chicago Tribune of this era. Colonel McCormack hated Roosevelt so he published the Rainbow 5 program four days before Pearl Harbor and the fact that the Japanese code had been broken at the time of Midway.

    Sulzberger hated Bush and all Republicans so he published anything that could hurt him and the country.

    Simple.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  14. No Ag that’s not it.

    A short, succinct answer; but a non-answer, since the troll declined to define “that”.
    But, what else could be expected from such a pest, particularly one as demonstrably ignorant as this one.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  15. Readership at the NYT, LAT, WP, and the majority of “big city dailies” is down for many reasons. The fact that most Americans have lost the belief that they can be counted on as unbiased purveyors of news ranks near the top.

    What I’ve found amusing is that their bias is so obvious and yet they don’t trouble themselves to mask it. Their spin is always presented as “the way it happened”, with off-the-record allegations from anonymous sources for background.

    GeneralMalaise (c58b20)

  16. The short version is that the Times is the Chicago Tribune of this era.

    The even shorter version is that Trib is like the Trib of that era now, rarely criticizing Teh One during his curious rise to power, never inquiring as to his shady dealings with nefarious figures in order to ingratiate himself with the Chicago Machine, finally culminating with their going to court in order to get sealed divorce records released to the public in order to embarrass his GOP rival for the Senate seat. Job well done, you pathetic syncophants.

    Dmac (799abd)

  17. Just on some other side. If it will hurt Bush to publish, then publish. If it will help Obama to not publish, don’t publish. If it will hurt the military, publish ….

    htom (412a17)

  18. Exactly, htom! And the examples would fill several pages.

    GeneralMalaise (c58b20)

  19. 10.You are giving it waaaaaaay too much credit, Ag.

    Comment by JD — 2/27/2010 @ 9:56 pm

    Impressive comment, JD. I’m glad you hang around the board all day to drop golden comments such as this one.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  20. “A short, succinct answer; but a non-answer, since the troll declined to define “that”.”

    Oh sorry. His whole post.

    imdw (2c1194)

  21. The Return of Rumpleforeskin & Rumpleforeskin, Jr….

    GeneralMalaise (c58b20)

  22. First of all, you are only jumping to a conclusion based on what was bolded above. Secondly, it is quite possible that, if a newspaper has a favorable relationship with the white house, sitting on a story may pay off with more information in the future…whereas a hostile or strained relationship with the white house would lead a reporter to believe that no such ‘pat back’ information is forthcoming.

    But if it makes you feel better you go ahead and get angry about this. I’ll sleep better at night knowing you’re losing sleep over this. :-)

    Intelliology (00d844)

  23. Keller is a hack who has performed the seemingly impossible task of making the NYT even less respected under his stewardship than it was when he took over after the Jayson Blair scandal. This is a guy who withholds news to protect NYTimes reporters whose recklessness gets them captured, but who is happy to print government secrets when only the lives of US and British troops are at risk. What a jerk. Just another reason why the impending demise of his newspaper is such cause for celebration.

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  24. NYT needs to be more like The National Review and sponsor ‘scientists’ to conduct global warming research with an endpoint already in mind.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  25. ^his mom’s supply of Jergens must be running awfully low today.

    Dmac (799abd)

  26. Excellent comment, Dmac. JD must be out purchasing more vaseline for you two to enjoy? Is that why you are providing invaluable commentary today?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  27. i wasn’t aware that the National Review was part of the IPCC process…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  28. Ah yes, I forget that you guys use the hockey stick graph as evidence that global warming is a hoax, despite several studies of the statistical significance of the graph that has confirmed that you guys don’t know what you’re talking about. But again, as long as we can sleep at night, right?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  29. But, and I apologize, I digress. Currently we are discussing the bolded portions of the exerpt above, which in no way confirm the conclusions that were written.

    Discuss away!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  30. excerpt*

    Intelliology (00d844)

  31. at this point in time, i’m just laughing at your stupidity, decked out as it is in bald faced lies, presented on a plate of poorly constructed “engrish”.

    just out of curiosity, what is your native tongue, since your command of english is only sufficient for leading it on suicide charges?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  32. I see. Are you referring to this country as ‘Merica’ and if I don’t speak ‘Merican’ then I should get out? Bigot.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  33. so now its my fault you can’t communicate in a coherent manner?

    nice try with the victim card, incompetent one.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  34. Actually I would like to know where you get off discussing my grammar when you do not seem to know where the shift key is.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  35. “The reports of the UN-IPCC have long provided the basis of the so-called ‘scientific consensus.’ Climate statements of assorted national academies of sciences, including the venerable Royal Society, turned out to be nothing more than rehash of the IPCC conclusions, rather than independent assessments. [Ed.: This is true of the EPA’s endangerment finding as well.] Similarly, the statements issued by various professional societies simply relied on the IPCC – without adding any analyses of their own.

    In turn, this apparent consensus misled not only the media and the public but also the wider scientific community, which had remained largely unaware of the ongoing debate and of the work of the many reputable climate experts who disagreed with the IPCC. Thanks to the e-mails of ClimateGate (CG), we now know of the efforts by a small clique to suppress publication of such dissenting views by subverting the scientific peer-review process – often with the connivance of the editors of leading professional journals.

    All this is now changing. The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia server strongly suggest that the basic temperature data had been manipulated, yielding the reported strong surface warming of the past 30 years. Again, we had long suspected this, because the data from weather satellites showed little warming trend of the atmosphere since 1979. Available proxy data seemed to confirm this result (see “Hot Talk Cold Science” [1997] — HTCS Fig 16). But according to theory – and every greenhouse climate model — tropospheric trends should be substantially greater than surface trends.

    This disparity between the trends derived from weather station data and from satellite data was already apparent in 1996 (see HTCS Fig 9), and was amply confirmed in a special study of the US National Academy of Sciences [“Reconciling observations of global temperature change” 2000].

    The NAS report could not reconcile the disparity and never explained its cause. But it has become evident now that the cause may be a greatly exaggerated surface trend – brought about by the CG cabal. We will learn the details once we unravel just how the data were manipulated.

    The ‘manufacture’ of a ‘man-made’ warming trend, when there is none, likely involved (i) selection of stations that showed a trend, and (ii) inadequate correction for purely local warming influences such as the ‘urban heat island’ effect (see HTCS Figs 7 and 8; and the recent extensive publications of Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts).

    In a sense then, the other ‘Gates’ discovered since CG – GlacierGate and all the rest – are a distraction from the main story. They were all found in IPCC Volume 2, which deals with climate impacts, i.e. with the consequences of global warming. They indicate a general sloppiness and make a mockery of the much touted IPCC standards and procedures. They have severely shaken the public’s and the media’s faith in the IPCC. But the main story is still CG – because it impacts directly on IPCC Volume 1, which deals with climate science and the causes of climate change rather than with climate impacts.

    To sum up: CG demonstrates just how the IPCC [2007] arrived at its erroneous conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the latter half of the 20th century. They used bad data. It’s no surprise then that none of the evidence the IPCC put forth in support of AGW can stand up to scrutiny – as already shown in the reports of the NIPCC (“Nature, not human activity, rules the climate” and “Climate change reconsidered”) [2008 and 2009].”

    http://www.sepp.org/

    GeneralMalaise (c58b20)

  36. JD must be out purchasing more vaseline for you two to enjoy?

    So we’ve now established that you cannot even come up with an original joke, you’re just a hanger – on groupie, waiting for someone, anyone, to notice your furious self – flaggelations in the corner. Keep wacking that weed, you’re doing excellent work.

    Dmac (799abd)

  37. Sepp.org is authored by Fred Singer? Is this correct? The same gentleman who claimed that passive smoking was harmless? Okay. Just checking. You go ahead and place your faith in his work. I will use scientists who aren’t for sale.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  38. Intelliology, you got schooled on global warming already and you are still looking for a fresh beating?

    You really have no clue what you are talking about still. Fred Singer was one of the original people to point out that the satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature don’t match the ground station data – and we now know that the ground station data has been corrupted by suspicious manipulations.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. Can’t find the shift key?

    Must be a howler at the e.e.cummings seminars?

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  40. Yes, I got ‘schooled’. You prop up a scientist who doesn’t think that smoking is bad for you, and I stand by the original report that has been confirmed as correct (all the reports I read determined that, despite a few flaws in some of the reporting of data, the end result was accurate)…. and I got schooled? Keep dreaming, sir, keep dreaming.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  41. Intelliology, keep lying. It matches your reputation. You’ve been reading other liars like yourself exaggerate Singer’s comments, and then add your own exaggerations.

    Yes, you got schooled on your ignorance of the global warming topic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. …all the reports I read…

    GIGO!

    Mis-information by omission.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  43. My ignorance of your ignorance? I admit to that. I had no idea that your side of the argument was so ridiculously flawed until I did a little research of my own. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  44. Intelliology, you’ve never done any research at all. You’ve just copied crap you googled without any understanding. Like that crap about Fred Singer and his criticism of the second hand smoking studies.

    You’ve not the slightest knowledge of the actual debate in that nor in AGW. You are a clown and a dishonest one at that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  45. Oh yeah? He thinks that smoking isn’t bad for you, but there is some nuance that I missed? So he was using satire in his publications?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  46. If smoking is so harmful, why does the City of Los Angeles have 700 pot dispensories; more than the number of Starbucks?
    And 698 more than the number of gun-shops.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  47. You are a liar, Intelliology. Singer never said that smoking was not bad for you.

    You really are a clown. The earliest study that claimed second hand smoke was a health hazard based it upon a correlation of 1.2 which was a value never before used in epidemiology to establish proof of causation of disease. Usually correlations of at least 2.0 or greater were viewed as the threshold of significance.

    But all this is so far beyond your understanding as to make discussing it like discussing physics with my cat.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  48. Now, SPQR, that is being disrespectful to your cat in particular, and most cats in general.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  49. Maybe instead of defending the industry he should have clarified.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/fred-singer-man-you-would-be-embarrassed-have-your-side

    Ha!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  50. AD, Intelliology is such a stupid troll that it is astonishing that he thinks his bullshit fools anyone.

    I was involved in the early debates about the second hand smoke studies and know just how bogus that “science” was. Intelliology googles up some blog carping about Singer and thinks he has found a brilliant point when all he is doing is repeating someone else’s dishonesty as his own.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  51. “You really are a clown. The earliest study that claimed second hand smoke was a health hazard based it upon a correlation of 1.2 which was a value never before used in epidemiology to establish proof of causation of disease. Usually correlations of at least 2.0 or greater were viewed as the threshold of significance.”

    Yeah why would anyone think that *inhaling smoke* would be bad for you?

    imdw (de7003)

  52. Once again, Intelliology uses links he’s never even read.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. All we need now is Assclown Doodeyhead for the Trifecta.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  54. imdw, because the basic principle of toxicology is that “dose makes the poison”.

    Get a clue.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. A 2007 NewsweekNewsweekNewsweek is an American weekly newsmagazine published in New York City. It is distributed throughout the United States and internationally. It is the second largest news weekly magazine in the U.S., having trailed Time in circulation and advertising revenue for most of its existence…
    cover story on climate change denialClimate change denialClimate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. The term “Climate change denier” is often used to refer to people acting in bad faith; The term “climate skeptic” generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on…
    reported that: “In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall InstituteGeorge C. Marshall InstituteThe George C. Marshall Institute is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1990s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.More recently, the…
    , Fred Singer’s group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute’sAmerican Petroleum InstituteThe American Petroleum Institute, commonly referred to as API, is the main U.S trade association for the oil and natural gas industry, representing about 400 corporations involved in production, refinement, distribution, and many other aspects of the petroleum industry…
    Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty.” The plan was reportedly aimed at “raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom'” on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.

    From:http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Fred_Singer

    I don’t know… I mean if I were trying to make a case I would use a character who wasn’t so, I don’t know. Dirty? Shady? For sale?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  56. Perhaps he’ll prove us wrong by drinking a perfectly harmless, but essential, liquid – like water; about two-litres an hour for 6-hours should do it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  57. On the reliability and trustworthy scale, Newspeak is just below the NYT.
    In fact, I think Wiki is a far more reliable source.
    Newspeak has bought into the AGW scheme hook, line, and sinker, just as they did the 2nd-hand smoke propaganda from the EPA years ago.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  58. So you are also claiming that smoking is not bad for you? Oh this is just fascinating. I love you guys! :-)

    Sooooo entertaining!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  59. Any source you disagree with is not a reliable source. I have played this game before. If you live in your own fairy tale world, where anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you don’t have to ever face reality. Teenagers do the same thing… only they are teenagers so I assume that they just don’t know better. What’s your excuse?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  60. Just because someone doesn’t believe in X, doesn’t mean they must believe in Y.
    No one said that smoking wasn’t bad for you (except the usual pot-heads), what was stated – which you would know if you possessed at least marginal comprehension skills – was that the EPA 2nd-hand smoke study was severely flawed, just as the AGW studies are severely flawed.
    In fact, the data in both are most likely fudged to support a preconceived outcome.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  61. Yeah why would anyone think that *inhaling smoke* would be bad for you?

    That’s complete bad faith. It’s not so much inhaling the smoke that’s at issue, it’s whether the amount you can inhale second-hand is enough to do any harm.

    Learn about Brownian motion, you might realize that the concentration of smoke by the time it reaches you is exceedingly small. And if that tiny concentration really is harmful, then smokers — who inhale a concentration orders of magnitude larger — would be dropping dead after a single pack.

    Some chump (050674)

  62. Yes, we are all too familiar with your games.

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  63. Brownian motion
    Now you’ve done it.
    Math is so hard.
    The poor little dear will get a raging migrane .

    AD - RtR/OS! (dbf36d)

  64. The poor little dear will get a raging migrane .

    not likely: migraines occur in the brain, leaving it immune to them. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  65. Why does this thingie want to continually embarrass itself in public by proving that it is dummerer than a sack of Andrews?

    JD (de0c49)

  66. Actually I would like to know where you get off discussing my grammar when you do not seem to know where the shift key is.

    ah yes, the old “since i have no substance, i’ll attack his style instead ploy”.

    way to go Max: now we know why you’re Agent ’86′: you’re always getting kicked off of threads by the laughter of all the other posters.

    sucks to be you, don’t it?

    (n0 $HiFt kEy5 were harmed in the creation of this p0ast. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  67. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

    Yes. Second-hand smoke is bad for you. You can ‘brownian motion’ me all you’d like, but now you’re just being coy. Unless you really don’t believe that second-hand smoke is bad for you…

    You guys are hilarious tonight!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  68. Any source you disagree with is not a reliable source

    Like liberals with O’Keefe?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  69. 68.Any source you disagree with is not a reliable source

    Like liberals with O’Keefe?

    Comment by Patterico — 2/28/2010 @ 6:25 pm

    So you’re willing to admit that it occurs on the other side of the political aisle, but not on your side?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  70. All political dishonesty occurs on both sides on the aisle. Politics makes liars and irrational lunatics out of people from both sides.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  71. (@59 Intelliology) I have played this game before.

    Yes, many times and still not a single intelligent reply, just a host of personal insults or a composite of disconnected irrational propositions that attempt to justify a non-principled stance: Democrats are good and Republicans are bad.

    The larger issue of whether or not the press should make professional journalistic judgments based on a likability-factor is ridiculous. Since it is not possible to render a rational defense of such a position in ethically consistent terms, one can expect a defender of such a practice to make ridiculous and inadequate responses, coupled with various forms of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.
    Here are a few examples:

    Personal insults
    Unsupported premises
    Change the subject
    Falsely attributing quotes

    Pons Asinorum (95faa4)

  72. i’m still not using the shift key!

    (too much %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  73. Sorry to bypass the whole smoking and pollution issue, but:

    First of all, you are only jumping to a conclusion based on what was bolded above. Secondly, it is quite possible that, if a newspaper has a favorable relationship with the white house, sitting on a story may pay off with more information in the future…whereas a hostile or strained relationship with the white house would lead a reporter to believe that no such ‘pat back’ information is forthcoming.

    That’s it? That’s the excuse?

    God help the Republic, the First Amendment and, most of all, the world you want to live in.

    Great job to the usual suspects at derailing the topic. Not just great, but outstanding.

    And, I would be remiss, in honor of the just-completed Olympics, if I didn’t award this gold:

    Any source you disagree with is not a reliable source. I have played this game before. If you live in your own fairy tale world, where anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you don’t have to ever face reality. Teenagers do the same thing… only they are teenagers so I assume that they just don’t know better. What’s your excuse?

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  74. (@34 Intelliology) Actually I would like to know where you get off discussing my grammar when you do not seem to know where the shift key is.

    (Yeah, about the Shift Key thing…)

    Red, be careful or you might go to Shift Key jail.

    Pons Asinorum (95faa4)

  75. Pons-
    OMG! You found a cool youtube video! Awesome. Did you watch SNL this past weekend? Yeah they had a guy on weekend update like you. He was lame too. The only difference was he was intended to be funny. What’s your angle?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  76. ^Pons wins the thread via an atomic wedgie of our own special little boy Troll.

    Dmac (799abd)

  77. Iowahawk has the definitive word (well, a few hundred) on the Grey Lady.

    In New York Town, Scrappy Newspaper Struggles to Survive

    New York, N.Y. – Like the corpses that lazily bob along in the nearby East River, life obeys its own pace in this isolated island community of 8 million in southern New York State.

    It is an ancient pace, its cadence dictated by the steady whirr and click-a-clack of word processors, plied by the gnarled hands of skilled opinion craftsmen who once supplied nearly eighty percent of the world’s refined punditry output.

    To some ears, the din from the mighty opinion mills of this gritty Ink Belt town may be grating; but it has served as a siren call for generations of hungry immigrant OpEd workers.

    Each year they come here, from Cambridge and Ithaca and New Haven, young and eager social critics seeking nothing more than an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s condescension, and perhaps a decent squab pate in white wine reduction.

    For the newest generation of polemic workers, though, the promise of that simple Anti-American Dream seems ever more distant. Most of the mills have long fallen silent, tragic victims of cheap foreign radio talk shows and the growing monopoly of multinational corporate blogs.

    Now, even the grandest of the old mills – the venerated New York Times 34th Street Opinion Works – stands at risk. A recent spate of quality control problems, product recalls, management turmoil and a painful round of layoffs is leading many here to worry if the plant is destined to go the way of automats, five cent Cokes and international socialism. . .

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  78. @75 Intelliology —

    Silly response to #71 — fitting.

    No response to #74 — telling.

    Pons Asinorum (95faa4)

  79. Brother Fikes, that essay was funny, thank you. It could also serve as a Quality Management textbook-case of what not to do. The examples are hysterical (and the appropriate villains named and brought to account). From your link:

    In the face of low morale and plummeting demand, Sulzberger remains defiant, steadfastly insisting that increased production will, in fact, create more and more interest in the Times aging product line.

    Even Deming has to smile at that — albeit Incredulously.

    Pons Asinorum (95faa4)

  80. Holy transposition, Batman.

    @75 Intelliology –

    Silly response to #71 — fitting.

    No response to #74 — telling.

    Heh, let’s try that again:

    Silly response to #74 — fitting.

    No response to #71 — telling.

    Pons Asinorum (95faa4)

  81. Newsweek has gone entirely digital in response to their inability to sell in hard copy. Heh.

    Mazzuchelli (0be5b4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6058 secs.