From the LA Times blog:
One writer has broken ranks with Slate’s slate of writers and intends to vote for John McCain! The Republican senator from Arizona.
No, really. We’re serious here.
And one other Slate writer intends to vote for Bob Barr. The Libertarian former Republican representative from Georgia.
Not just because Bob has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. But because the editor-at-large, Jack Shafer, explains he has chosen the Libertarian candidate ever since he started voting in 1972.
Jack admits that there have been “a long line of chowderheads” atop the Libertarian ticket. But he feels that party comes closest to his ideal of limited government, free markets and noninterventionist foreign policy.
The rebel Republican over at Slate is Rachael Larimore, the deputy managing editor and copy chief, who’s a lifelong moderate GOP voter who admires McCain, is incapable of generating a ton of hate for that known Satan George W. Bush and hopes that a Democratic victory will help recharge the GOP in the long run for the benefit of our two-party system.
That leaves only 55 other Slate staffers who chose to announce their fealty to the Illinois fellow for a variety of reasons you can read for yourself here.
Editor David Plotz describes the political announcements as a sign of openness and because he, like his predecessors, says he does not believe that how writers write politically is affected by how writers think politically.
So rest assured the online vote at Slate has absolutely nothing to do with all this late-race, trumped-up, empty chatter over media bias in favor of the handsome, eloquent Democrat with the darling family running against the grumpy old pilot who can’t use a BlackBerry or play tennis because his arms were allegedly broken so often and then shocked the media by picking as his running mate a Washington outsider, a non-Democrat female no less, who’s so opposed to abortion she didn’t get one herself.
That’s just widespread biased hooey. Forget about it because we say to.
55-1-1? That seems about right. But by no means is it suggestive of a bias toward Obama by the writers at Slate, who, the archives will clearly show (were we to bracket the articles on Sarah Palin’s tanning habits, clothes shopping, and love of killing God’s creature with guns before going home to, like, totally mistreat her sandwiches with white bread and aerosal cheese) have gone out of their way to remain completely objective during the entire run-up to the election.
— that is, if by “objective” one means “so deep into Obama, they risk getting his ancestors pregnant.”
Which in certain periods of time, under Democratic dictate, would have been illegal.
I honestly thought the title of what you just wrote was your own artistic expression and not the actual fucking title of the LATimes piece. Jesus.
These people do not even realize that when they try to satire themselves or a right wing characiture of themselves they are actually being honest for once.
This is probably the last presidential election for the Los Angeles Times. It must be sort of unbalancing for them. Nobody reads them anymore is why. There are three copies what come to this ginormous building I work at. Three. I know cause I have been getting in early. That’s pitiful cause that means even the baracky fellaters what work here don’t want to read their cheesy crap. I might pick one up one day just cause I’m curious what idiots are still buying ads in it.
This is probably the last presidential election for the Los Angeles Times.
Of course it is, silly. It will be assimilated by the Ministry of Marxist Information (they won’t even know the difference).
All your crappy news outlets are belong to us.
Actually, Lisa, that is in fact what’s going on here.
They’re like any other oligopolist: when the mammals start chewing at their toes, they call for Government Regulations. There won’t be any Ministry of Information. Look for the Free and Responsible Press Act, setting standards for Journalism and requiring accreditation as a “professional journalist” before providing Public Information. That, they think, will restrict market entry enough for them to go back to making money (they expect, quite rationally, to be grandfathered in.) There’ll be an ID card, with a picture, and a registration number, issued by a Board of Examiners staffed by known Responsible Journalists — Dan Rather, perhaps, or Maureen Dowd, certainly Markos Moulitsas — charged with ensuring that irresponsible rumor-mongers are kept away from the Sacred Duties of the Press.
Jeff won’t get one.
Regards,
Ric
every oh..solstice or so
i’ll pick up the sunday ny times
and i’ll have 2 thougts
1-damn-5 bucks! /and
2-thems some fine booties them hotties be wearing in da STYLE section
it’s kinda like the Enquirer-bring it along to thanksgivin/x-mas- as a conversation piece
added benefit-less talkin to my in laws
u can pic ur nose
but u cant pic ur relatives
or sumtin like that
You say: Free and Responsible Press Act. She says: Ministry of Information. Potatoe, potato.
Now that the Right is being shown the door to the political wilderness, I guess it’s too late to introduce legislation that requires each bill to have two names. The first of course would be designated by the proponents, the second must be by the opposition. The idea that legislation like the “Fairness Doctrine” is fair is much po-mo-a-go it’s infuriating.
Now, Commenter #5, if there was just some way for me to identify you personally to thank you, my comment would be complete, but I don’t see any kind of name or handle here on this page. Only if there were some way to have this weblog insert a name or something at the top of each comment, like automatically. Damn, shame. Goldstein, get on that, will you?
I’m going to have to disagree with Ric here. There won’t be any legislation regarding heterodox press outlets…that’s far too overt, blatant. For a more likely template, look at what the Mexican government did to a periodical called Excelsior back in the late ’70s or early ’80s (memory fails me as to which). Papers and magazines were allowed to criticize the PRI (the ruling gang of banditti at the time), but within certain limits.
Excelsior stepped over that line, and one day discovered a picket line of Indians around their building who claimed it was built on ancestral lands. The government rushed in and determined that – surprise! – the Indians’ claim was true and began to move to evict the magazine from the premesis. Lo and behold, a PRI official discussed the issue with the Owner and other honcos and it was agreed that the whole thing would blow over if the article was retracted and such criticism in the future treated with more, shall we say, circumspection. The Indians disappeared anon, and everything was hunky-dory in short order.
Slate’s slate of writers
I’d say more of a stable.
With Slate it’s more of an un-stable though..
test