iowahawk Turns the Tables
This iowahawk piece is hysterical. Here’s a taste:
Bylines of Brutality
As Casualties Mount, Some Question The Emotional Stability of Media Vets
An Iowahawk Special Investigative Report
With Statistical Guidance from the New York TimesA Denver newspaper columnist is arrested for stalking a story subject. In Cincinnati, a television reporter is arrested on charges of child molestation. A North Carolina newspaper reporter is arrested for harassing a local woman. A drunken Chicago Sun-Times columnist and editorial board member is arrested for wife beating. A Baltimore newspaper editor is arrested for threatening neighbors with a shotgun. In Florida, one TV reporter is arrested for DUI, while another is charged with carrying a gun into a high school. A Philadelphia news anchorwoman goes on a violent drunken rampage, assaulting a police officer. In England, a newspaper columnist is arrested for killing her elderly aunt.
Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America’s newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters? Answers are elusive, but the ever-increasing toll of violent crimes committed by journalists has led some experts to warn that without programs for intensive mental health care, the nation faces a potential bloodbath at the hands of psychopathic media vets.
“These people could snap at any minute,” says James Treacher of the Treacher Institute for Journalist Studies. “We need to get them the help and medication they need before it’s too late.”
If Jim Treacher says so, it must be true!
Read it all. It only gets better.
My god.
What can I, a concerned citizen, do to help? Does the Treacher Institute take non-tobacco donations?
The media call for better mental health facilities takes a much different turn given this information. If only we had listened to their cry for help, we wouldn’t have reached this point.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 1/23/2008 @ 7:30 pmWhat steps is the government taking to protect children from these disturbed souls? For example they should mandate a 1000 foot journalist-free protective zone around every school.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:35 pmIf these poor men and women weren’t forced into an illegal and immoral fact checking situation they wouldn’t be in this mess. STOP THE FACT CHECKING NOW. The media lied people died. What a travesty!!
Dr T (340565) — 1/23/2008 @ 8:46 pmYou know, I assumed the story that Iowahawk is mocking was just another attack on the war and the military, but this line gave me chills:
I don’t know if Iowahawk made that up or copied it from some real article, but that could be the secret to what is going on with all of this tragic concern about criminal vets and homeless vets: the liberals want a chance to brainwash them into liberal beliefs. That’s what most courses of occupational “therapy” is –indoctrination into the Church of Progressivism.
The military is one of only two major US institutions that hasn’t been entirely corrupted by the Left. The other is law enforcement. And that is one of the primary reasons that police and soldiers are under such constant attack by the Left.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 1/23/2008 @ 11:13 pmWhile Iowahawk’s piece is intended as satire, there could be more than a kenrnel of truth there. Newpapers are among the most stressful places to work now. There is simply no job security. In just the past week the Philadelphia newspapers informed their unions thay had to reduce costs 10%, and the LA Times editor left when he refused to implement drastic cutbacks in the news department. Every day in every newsroom there are new rumors of gloom and doom.
Overleveraged, underfunded and inexperienced new newpaper owners have their backs against the wall. The only way to survive is to cut, cut, cut.
For the newsroom employe, there isn’t much future. No other papers are hiring. The alternative to their cushy, ego enhancing jobs is writing textbooks or editing company newsletters. I’d go home and beat my wife if that were my fate.
Increased psychiatric care for these folks? Not enough. Free Prozac and lithium dispensers in the newsroom, well that might help.
Corky Boyd (a8cc75) — 1/24/2008 @ 5:51 amSeriously, does the fact that so many of them work for companies that are performing poorly color their writing, in that they assume that all must be doing as poorly as they are?
Or, are they just unprincipled asshats?
JD (75f5c3) — 1/24/2008 @ 6:20 amIowahawk is maybe the most underappreciated writer on the web. This article is better than anything at Romenesko/Poynter or CJR in years.
gp (72be5d) — 1/24/2008 @ 6:46 amJD, I think the “need” to tell everyone else how to think is so ingrained that it will take generations to learn that they can’t do that any more because of the internet….
reff (bff229) — 1/24/2008 @ 7:17 am#6 Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
They can be both unprincipled asshats and assuming that all must be doing as poorly as they are.
#4 “Liberals” are cowards, that’s why they avoid both law enforcement and military occupations. Too dangerous. Which also imposes reality checks against “progressive” fantasies. Being narcissists, they then must despise the occupations (and those who do them), to avoid facing their cowardice.
LarryD (feb78b) — 1/24/2008 @ 7:58 amTruly biting satire always has at least a kernal of truth; this is at least a peck, maybe a bushel.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 1/24/2008 @ 8:21 am“The military is one of only two major US institutions that hasn’t been entirely corrupted by the Left. The other is law enforcement. And that is one of the primary reasons that police and soldiers are under such constant attack by the Left.”
-Doc Rampage
*snicker*
You forgot Our Nation’s Fire Departments: “Liberals don’t Fight Fires – Liberals Fan Flames.”
“Liberals” are cowards, that’s why they avoid both law enforcement and military occupations. Too dangerous. Which also imposes reality checks against “progressive” fantasies. Being narcissists, they then must despise the occupations (and those who do them), to avoid facing their cowardice.”
-LarryD
Yes, of course: Save us, manly Conservatives!!!
You wanna talk about “cowards”? Try to add up the deferments of members of GW’s senior cabinet over the past seven years (you may have to take off your shoes and socks, though – you’ll run out of fingers).
Jeez… if you’ve got some sort of weekly Stupid-Quota, consider it met.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 1/24/2008 @ 12:34 pmI can’t help but notice you didn’t actually try to refute the claims, but instead deflected to attacking GW’s staff.
Such a small group that you focus on, I wonder what Clinton’s staff’s collective defferment tally was…
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/24/2008 @ 1:08 pmStarting with WJC himself, an admitted DRAFT DODGER!
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 1/24/2008 @ 2:01 pmBut, that’s OK, since he is a Progressive.
“I can’t help but notice you didn’t actually try to refute the claims, but instead deflected to attacking GW’s staff.”
– Scott Jacobs
What claims? That “Liberals” are cowards? On what reasonable evidence is that claim based, that I must reasonably refute it? Gimme a break. You’re sickeningly self-righteous for someone with no service under his belt.
“Such a small group that you focus on, I wonder what Clinton’s staff’s collective defferment tally was…”
– Scott Jacobs
That’s kinda the fucking point, isn’t it, Scott? There are “cowards” (a disingenuous phrase at best, but I’ll couch this in your terms) from all walks of life, from both sides of the political spectrum, making LarryD’s statement redundant at best (and moronic at worst).
Leviticus (b987b0) — 1/24/2008 @ 2:28 pmThat’s the calm, well-reasoned response I’ve just come to expect from you.
I wish we could all be as level-headed and civil as you, Leviticus…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/24/2008 @ 2:51 pmThis is incorrect.
Enjoy your paradox, mortals! Muah-ha-ha!!!
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 1/24/2008 @ 5:53 pmEnjoy your paradox, mortals! Muah-ha-ha!!!
thanks a lot – now probably won’t be able to sleep all night LOL
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/24/2008 @ 7:27 pmThat only works with robots, Jim. I am lying.
nk (eeb240) — 1/24/2008 @ 7:46 pmLeviticus, let me see if I get this. You were mad about what I said but couldn’t find any way to refute it, so instead you quoted me, and then quoted someone else making an entirely different point completely unrelated to mine, and then snickered at me on the basis of what this other guy said.
I’ve got to tell you, I don’t feel particularly refuted by your argument.
Doc Rampage (01f543) — 1/24/2008 @ 9:47 pm*That*… is not the correct order. First I quoted you, then I snickered at you, then I poked fun at your idiotic broad-brush shenanigans, then I quoted someone else making a (marginally) different point (sorta) unrelated to yours. Then I made what I think is a valid point in regard to that guy’s claim.
I never tried to refute your lunacy reasonable assertion of near-total Leftist Permeation. I just laughed at it.
Leviticus (e87aad) — 1/25/2008 @ 9:16 amlunacy
Stupid strikeout. Ruins the whole line.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 1/25/2008 @ 10:31 amIt did it again, dammit.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 1/25/2008 @ 10:32 amLeviticus,
If you want strike, it needs more than the “s” between the tags. Type in “strike” manually.
nk (eeb240) — 1/25/2008 @ 11:19 amOh, you were snickering at *me*. Well then of course I have been thoroughly refuted.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 1/25/2008 @ 2:39 pmAhh.
I knew that.Thanks, nk.
And like I said, Doc, I wasn’t trying to “refute” you. I was mocking what I considered a silly statement.
Leviticus (2446e6) — 1/26/2008 @ 5:08 pm