I hesitate to take this up, because to fully fisk Greenwald/Ellison/Ellensburg/et al’s latest screed would take much more time than I have at the moment. The Great Sock-Puppeteer is throwing down the gauntlet to the entire right-wing blogosphere over the identification of a Jamil Hussein who is indeed a police officer in Iraq and is presumably the source of various stories proffered to and published by the AP. I wrote about the story here.
The gist of Greenwald’s argument is this:
Packs of right-wing bloggers spent the last several weeks trying to destroy the credibility of Associated Press’s war reporting by claiming that one of its sources, an Iraqi policeman named Jamil Hussein, does not exist, that AP simply invented him. As it turns out—and as AP itself had the great pleasure of reporting (and then rubbing in the face of its irresponsible, taunting accusers)—the Iraqi Government, which previously denied it, now acknowledges that Jamil Hussein does exist and he is a police officer in Iraq, just as AP reported accurately.
Eric Boehlert has written extensively about the right-wing blogosphere’s attempt to destroy the credibility of AP’s war reporting by insisting that their source was non-existent (and, needless to say [ed., which, to tell you the truth, is why I’m saying it], then became the immediate target of a campaign of personal attacks, assaults on his integrity, and childish name-calling).
And within the last twelve hours, multiple people [ed., though few of them as “multiple” as Glenn] have written comprehensively about the profound and long overdue humiliation which these right-wing bloggers just suffered. Greg Sargent re-caps how this incident exposes – yet again – the complete lack of credibility of the reckless, truth-free lynch mobs that compose the “right-wing blogosphere” and which hilariously see themselves as watchdogs over the media even though they traffic in the most reckless innuendo, gossip, and rank, error-plagued speculation that exists.
Ever attracted to litotes, as with his previous insistence that Lieberman’s backing of the war in his recent op-ed underwrote an attempt to increase the possibility of military conflict with Iran, Greenwald is at least consistent when he claims that the “truth-free lynch mobs that compose [ed., comprise would have been better] . . . traffic in the most reckless innuendo . . . that exists.” [italics mine] Apart from the fact that “exists” seems not to agree in number with the hyperventilative laundry list he disgorges, it’s good to know that we’re dealing with something that is ontologically immanent–like Jamil Hussein.
However, the fact that “reckless innuendo [heh], gossip, and rank, error-plagued speculation” exist does not mean that they are truthful. That goes for Jamil Hussein and the AP’s stories based on his testimony as well. What attracted the dextrosphere’s attention to Hussein in the first place was the frequency with which his claims were unsubstantiated by or directly contradicted by other sources, as with the numbers of mosques burned, people dragged out, burned, shot, presence of morgues not located in the places indicated, and so forth. Hussein was the source for 61 AP articles, most of which were not independently corroborated by any other person, some of which were contradicted by people who would seem to have been in a position to know, as for instance by virtue of being inhabitants of the locales indicated by Jamil Hussein.
Because we were skeptical of Hussein’s claims, Greenwald concludes that we were handed a line from the military sources who couldn’t locate him, and:
which they mindlessly ingested and accepted as True like the good little authoritarians that they are.
So, you see, it is mindless tractability to believe what the military tells one, but a sign of good faith to believe uncritically whatever one is told by the AP.
GiGi continues, now he’s worked himself into a lather:
And now the right-wing blogosphere stands revealed as what they are—a pack of gossip-mongering hysterics who routinely attack any press reports that reflect poorly on their Leader or his policies, with rank innuendo, Internet gossip [ed., thanks for specifying], base speculation, and wholesale error as their most frequent tools of the trade. They operate in packs, constantly repeating each other’s innuendo and expanding on it incrementally, and they then cite to each other endlessly in one self-feeding, self-affirming orgy of links, as though that constitutes proof.
Which is pretty funny, in a metaphysical way, coming from a notorious sock-puppeteer.
There is a difference, you see, when one of Gleen’s soul-mates is found to have clay feet:
The New Republic has its Stephen Glass and The New York Times has its Jayson Blair. But those are one-off incidents.* The right-wing blogosphere is driven by Jayson Blairs. They are exposed as frauds and gossip-mongerers** on an almost weekly basis. The only thing that can compete with the consistency of their errors is the viciousness of their accusations and their pompous self-regard as “citizen journalists.”
Well, it’s true that Russ Feingold has never had anything entered into the Congressional Record, as far as I know, written by me.
I like this bit:
These right-wing bloggers love to piously masquerade around as “media watchdogs,” keeping a watchful eye on the “MSM” and compelling them to adhere to facts. And ever since their involvement in the use by Dan Rather of fraudulent documents [ed., would it not be more straightforward to say “exposure of”?], and then heightened by Charles Johnson’s oh-so-monumental observation that a Reuters photograph of Lebanon had been photoshopped to give the appearance of more smoke during an Israeli air strike on Beirut, the media has largely recited this storyline.
I just want you to know, you poncy moron [childish name-calling, or accurate depiction?], that the only people who masquerade with the preposition “around” are gay men of the flambe variety. That Charles Johnson exposed the fraudulence of Rather’s documents and the famous photoshop (one of many fauxteaux that the dextrosphere has uncovered) really ought to be cause for celebration and congratulation from someone who cares so deeply for the truth.
There’s plenty more there, if you care to look. To re-cap, I love it how his site’s a regular sockpuppet clusterfuck. Bon appetit!
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds, who is specifically abused in GiGi’s piece as the epitome of blogospheric wingnuttery, posted a link to this article, yesterday. I’m sure GiGi will find a special exemption in this research for those who are really reality based, for real.
* You know: like that time I had sex with a
** Is mongerers as dumb, Gleen, as “butcherers”?
UPDATE x2: Patterico has the goods on E&P’s misrepresentation of how this story has played out in the blogosphere.
UPDATE x3: Also Media Matters. Uh, say it ain’t so.
Did you know that Glenn Greenwald had a New York Times Bestseller, and that Russel Feingold quoted his blog post on the Senate floor?
Good DAY, sirs.
I really mean it this time.
What GiGi is trying to say is that the AP is beneficent, much like he is, and we should blindly trust them even when empirically observable reality leads us to doubt.
The government we’ve bought, paid for and elected? Lies, every word out of their mouths, because they are lies, and because it is so. They exist to deceive and destroy, where the AP exists to enlighten. In fact, we should all move to Brazil, where we’ll be safe from them. It’s the patriotic thing to do.
I totally agree with that, Pablo. That is a perfectly trenchant analysis and I applaud you for both your insight and your ability to effective encapsulate such a complex concept into just those two pithy paragraphs.
Bravo, my good man. Bravo.
Let’s presume someone named “Ellison” kept writing on blogs that a certain “Glenn Greenwald” had a 13 1/2 “ cock.Then,it comes to light,that someone named “Glenn Greenwald” exists.Does it follow that “Glenn Greenwald” has a 13 1/2 “ cock?
Glenn Greenwald is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
In the blogosphere’s endless quest to express it’s holy rage at either all things conservative or liberal/progressive, words like vitriol and hypocrisy get a routinely petty bandying about. Unlike Jeff or Dan’s craftsman-like use of the language—seen here once again—the lower ranks stretch their mad word skilz with such giveaways. Obviously there are other examples.
It is therefore with great pleasure that I hereby proclaim GiGi’s minor league rantings to be among the limpest, dampest, most mindless and self-evident political vomit spawned in order to contaminate these here Internets. Talk about taking your foot out and removing absolutely all doubt. This quivering turd even paces LiarBlogFake in the perpetual fool’s race for the very bottom of the cesspool that is the lunatic Left.
The giveaway? Yes, her epic vitriolic hypocrisy. There’s just no other way to describe this rubbish.
Have GiGi and Baghdad Bob ever been photographed together?
That must mean that every word out of the new Holy Pelosi Congress must be a lie, by definition. And has been thus far.
Those aren’t my rules – they’re Greenwald’s.
Funny how it works, that.
Hey dudes, the AP is like sooooo The Establishment.
Greenwald Da Man, I counter your culture.
It’s funny how leftists always preach to “question authority” yet they always on the lookout for someone with absolute moral authority.
That’s what he calls his George Bush action figure.
Please stop picking on my ex-boyfriend. He may have been a great big poofter, but for a few brief months, he was MY poofter. Now all I have is Andi….sigh.
Dan – Now you’ve gone and done it. Big bad Glenn is probably going to get mad and come over here and write nasty comments. It might be more fun if Glenn or his commenters actually understood the story, but they don’t. It’s too easy.
More rhetorical bullshit from the bedwetters. So, pointless name-calling (he’s a faggot, we get it) and grammar flames are all you can manage. Well, whatever whips the shitheads up into a rage, eh? I’d like to point out that if using only one source is the only crime the AP committed, then I’d say you are pushing a non-story. It happens all the time. Especially when the environment might be dangerous to cover.
It’s funny, you know, when you brave troops of freedom would call the AP reporters pussies for not leaving the green zone for fear of their lives while you call “internet research” from your couch “journalism”. Soldier on, tough guys. To the Google-cache! For freedom!
except that that one source is possibly just passing on enemy propaganda. you’d be all over AP if it was the other way around and it was some pro-American story they got wrong.
Daleyrocks,
Man, did you call it! Just one minute after your post, one of our intellectual & moral overlords blessed us with a “progressive” sunburst.
As you predicted, he/she doesn’t get it. All “heet,” no light.
Cordially…
heet,
That’s nice. My concern is with accuracy in reporting.
Well, actually it’s rhetorical bullshit from GiGi that I’m analyzing, which is not just grammatical, though that is often a good index. And you’re really funny speaking of “pointless name calling” after referencing “bedwetters.” So, Malkin’s going over there, and Curt from Flopping Aces, and Ardolino is there, and there are milbloggers like Roggio who are either there or have been. But you all like your version, so enjoy.
One of the perennial topics of this blog is language and its perversion, by the way. Many like to quote Orwell, but when one conducts a little Orwellian analysis you become agitated. I won’t state categorically that all of Greenwald’s entries are like this one, as I seldom visit, but in this case at least it’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that he utilizes language as a means to obscure rather than illuminate the truth. But, you know–to the sweeping generalization! For truth!
OK. Heet. Where is Jamil Hussein?
So many questions raised by one sentence:
1. And “heet” is commenting from where exactly?
2. Have we seen Dan or even Jeff refer to their blogging as “journalism”?
3. Who called the AP reporters pussies? I think the complaints are more related to laziness and/or deliberate slanting of the situation in Iraq in order to slake the BDS-induced thirst of the Great American Secular-Progressive Movement. (Yes, I’ve been brutally brainwashed by Bill O’Reilly, and I’m only on the first chapter of “Culture Warrior.”)
As for Dan’s post, it’s hard to believe anyone could include all those quoted paragraphs in one posting. How does GiGi spell redundancy?
Email one of the intrepid bathrobe warriors who have been deployed to the green zone. I’m sure they can help you.
Shouldn’t the AP be enlightening us with that information, heet? He is their guy, right?
Greenwald has gained popularity by packaging sweeping, ridiculous, and completely over-generalized dross in lengthy pieces that are presumed thorough based solely on their word count.
Ironically, most of those sweeping, ridiculous, and completely overgeneralized posts try to call the “right” out for being sweeping, ridiculous, and overgeneralizing.
Of course, the irony is mitigated by the fact that Greenwald is himself a righty. Like Sullivan.
After reading his latest long-winded bout with rhetorical alsheimers, I keep wondering where Mona is to pin him down on particulars.
Heet —
Read Karl’s post on Hussein yesterday. Then offer some criticisms. Until then, shut the fuck up. Snide showiness aimed at strawmen isn’t a substitute for argument—at least, not the kind anybody here is interested in countering with any seriousness.
One of my new year’s resolutions was to point out how you are a tough-talking pussy of epic proportions.
In that vein, I offer this: you are a tough-talking pussy of epic proportions. Go fetch me a beer and a brat.
Let’s not forget the key issue—the AP continues to stand by their story that 6 sunni moslems were dragged from a mosque, doused in gasoline and lit on fire in the middle of the street, resulting in their death, all while police watched. I have yet to see any corroboration of that story from any source other than a person, who evidently does exist, named Jamil Hussein.
Oh, Jeff. I’m touched I made your resolution list. Why don’t you ban me if I’m such a big problem, tough guy?
heet,
Take a number.
heet – you exist for our amusement.
heet, I don’t recall anyone saying you’re a “problem.” If you are, it’s a problem like on my five-year-old’s kinder homework. Two plus two, how do spell “cat”, one of these things is not like the others—that kind of thing. That’s how hard you are to figure out, dude.
Now if you would’ve said you were a joke, then we can talk!
Please be more interesting in the future.
The ASSociated (with terrorists) Press has had most of the 61 stories provided by Jamil proven lies. They didn’t happen, so they have to be lies.
So far I haven’t seen one shred of proof (other than another AP story) that Jamil exist. Has anyone? Notice that all AP stories are just that stories, not news.
Anyone still hyping the danger in Iraq since it’s a fact there are several American cities that are more dangerous. Anyone want to walk the streets of New Orleans at night? For a fact, walk some of them in the daytime. Looks like they’re about to get a curfew just like Bagdad. ROFL
The antique MSM has sent out a dozen talking heads to deny they are biased. If they aren’t biased then they are plain old liars. Take your pick.
Why don’t you ban me if I’m such a big problem, tough guy?
Uh oh. I know where this is going. Turn back, heet! This kind of talk can only lead to unemployment, bad poetry, and time in the slammer.
heet showed his motivation for posting here with:
Yep, another punk trying to seek martyr cred so he can go whine about his free speech being oppressed.
I guess I still don’t understand why the lefties are all doing a celebration dance.
The AP reported a story with two named sources saying that 6 people had been dragged into the street and burned alive, 4 mosques had been utterly destroyed, and 18 more people were killed in the obliterated mosques.
After investigating this amazing story, it turned out that:
* One of the sources immediately recanted his version of the story.
* No one was burned in the streets.
* No mosques were destroyed.
* No one was killed in the mosques that weren’t destroyed.
* A month or so later the AP has finally found an Iraqi named Jamil Hussein, but he denies being the AP’s source.
In sum, the AP published an utterly false enemy propaganda story, which has been recanted/denied by both of their named sources and demonstrated as inaccurate by people in Iraq who investigated the sites allegedly involved in the carnage. Yet according to the latest round of Townhouse groupthink, all of this is somehow damaging to the people who were critical of the AP’s original fantasy and exposed it as a pack of lies.
Very odd.
Heet’s little fart contains enough enraged self-conflicting energy to replace oil before 2008. Lamely hypocritical vitriol. Just like GiGi.
I’m inclined to think heet couldn’t carry the jocks of all her stereoytpical villains—those entrusted with liberating, um, brown people into self-governance at the cost of their own lives to the bedwetter-fabricated Islamofascists who don’t really exist.
Bring it on about the grim milestones, heet. Go ahead and go there. Point out all the bedwetting servicepeople reading and commenting on this blog.
Oooooh! I might irritate servicepeople! Perish the thought! If they buy into the bullshit peddled on this blog, they deserve derision. Not for being servicepeople, but for being idiots.
Furthermore, Jeff won’t ban someone who drives traffic to this backwater outpost of ‘jammies media. All the bedwetters stick around to see the witty putdowns. It energizes the circle-jerk, ya see.
”..the Great American Secular-Progressive Movement.”
Sounds good. Where do I sign up?
So that’s why you stick around, is it? Good to know.
I am constantly amazed by the lack of ability of some people to analyze things. Thank you Shad, for really telling us what finding a cop named Jamil Hussein means. Its really frightening to any liberal or conservative that people like “Heet” continue to parrot silly and unenforcible arguments. But he cusses and calls us out real cool. Wow.
1. Nothing, and I mean Nothing, has ever surfaced top corroborate several of JH stories. Every newswire but the AP ran from the burning mosque because (please get ready Mr. Heet), it simply wasn’t true.
2. This fact is true of many of JH stories.
3. This guy denies (better sit down with Actus “Heet”) that he ever gave the AP a story. Even though the AP got over 60 stories from him this year, they oculdn’t locate him for the past month. Unless I’ve missed something, no AP reporter has pointed at this guy and said “Yea, that was my source, that guy right there.”
4. This one is tough. Get a map of the city. Where is his station in relation to the stories he allegedly reported to the AP? It is nowhere near many of the reports. Just a little simple research guys.
5. Although this guy is an police officer, no one has offered proof that he is the “Captain” who gave these stories to the AP reporters. A “Captain” would have a number of men in his detachment, right? Or has the AP lied about his rank as well to lend credence to “reports” we already know were bogus?
Twenty years of public defending have taught me something “Mr. Heet”, and that’s don’t let your opinions get in the way of rational analyzation. You have violated that rule big time. As someone who once held liberal views, its amazing to me that in an attempt to make this war “my vietnam”, so many liberals end up defending the institutions they protested in the 60’s in their twisted attempt to remain “relevantly hip”. (See Bill Clinton’s escalation of the “war on drugs”)
The AP still has offered no rational explanation as to why they relied on someone like this for 60 stories. Worse yet, people like “Heet” refuse to acknowledge why they, as supposed liberals, would defend multinational corporations who have so obviously misled the public for profit
Lots of Ted Haggards in here. lol This crystal meth is bad for the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.
Sirk,
Thanks for dropping by. Your site sucks.
I do wish you ruffians would stop picking on nice guys like Glenn, heet and, especially, Sirkowski. Andi and I have developed quite a “thing” for Sirk!!!
If Glenn Greenwald was a gay horsey what would he eat?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Haaaaaayyyyy!
(you gotta do this in the most gay voice possible to maximize effect).
You know, I never met a gay horsey now that I think of it……
Talk to Mr. Ed.
so many assumptions, so little time.
I’d probably have more time if I wasn’t always praying to Jesus to destroy my enemies, the brown people and gays, of course.
For me, it like Mcain- there are electronic memories around this interweb truck thingie. The way I read (past tense)some blogs, the existence of this person was the issue. Malkin wasn’t going to get other eyewitness accounts, she was going to prove or disprove hussein’s existence. I could be wrong, it’s happened before (just ask my first wife).
Ratzo,
My first thought was to direct you to the DNC, but aclu.com or george.soros.net would probably be a purer entry point.
/made-up URL’s off
tw: Can a zebra like heet ever change his stripes? Ahhh… 71… a wonderful year!
What does Hussein’s partner, Tennille, have to say about all this. Has the AP located her yet? Surely we can get some Muskrat Love out of this at a minimum.
This whole Jamail story has really perplexed me. Why the AP obsession with this guy? Are there no other sources in all of Iraq? Why the right-wingers obsession? Is there no one on the ground who can refute his “accounts?” I feel like I live in some anime nightmare where everything’s a creation.
I hate to break this to you like this, cynn, but . . .
Is this why you’re acting out, heet?
BECAUSE OF THE APPARATUS !!!
That, and the pie…
heet continues his efforts to get banned with:
There, there. I’m sure you can wander over to Free Republic or similar and get your nice shiny “My Free Speech Was SILENCED” merit badge in no time.
Run along now.
Heet, you’re not a tough guy, you’re not even a tough women. Fuck off, little pussy and start yourself some learnin…You are NOT worthy to post here. You must be a Jeff Goldstein sockpuppet, but then again Jeff is too intelligent to create such a worthless foil such as you. So, all in all, I am guessing you’re mad at your daddy for not loving you.
Cynn —
As Karl noted yesterday, and as I noted in my first (and only, I think) post on this topic, the reason why the “right-wingers” are “obsessed” about this is because it illustrates just how narratives out of Iraq are being driven by the AP.
Does it not matter to you that you might be formulating your opinion on how we should proceed in Iraq based on tales told by dubious sources—especially when their potential biases are hidden (JH is a Sunni who feeds the AP stories of Shia atrocities, many of which have proven to be false, others of which can’t be corroborated. That, and the fact that he was a source for al Jazeera, as well, is enough to give me pause).
This is not an obsession. It is an objective correlative for what many of us believe has been going on with Iraq reporting for several years nows.
And so shining a light upon it until the truth finally blinks seems to me what we should be doing. Why so many “progressives” are interested in burying the facts is clear: they are only interested in forwarding a particular narrative that Hussein’s story services. And because many of them truly believe in the morality of that narrative, they feel that anything that promotes their vision is, by extension, moral. It’s a little white lie in the service of a larger Truth.
I find that kind of thinking repugnant. And so I will continue to highlight it wherever I find it—and in fact, in an earlier debate with Greenwald (do a site search for “On Patriotism,” I think it was), I got him to admit that a bit of finessing of the facts in the service of the Truth is acceptable and, to his way of thinking, appropriate.
If you read Greenwald through that lens, everything he writes can be reduced to yet another attempt to massage his predetermined narrative.
His popularity arises because so many true believers are willing to follow him.
Re: link to the Times Online.
Questions: Is there anyone with a lick of sense that is surprised Israel “has a plan” to strike Iranian nuke facilities with the necessary fire power to destroy these facilities?
Also, if this is new information/confirmation why do I doubt Israel would “leak” this information. The article speculates the leak is to “cajole America into action or soften up world opinion”.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
With the way things have been going I don’t think a nuclear blast on U.S. soil could “cojole” us into action.
And the idea that Israel is trying to “soften up world opinion”- what world are these reporters living on?
Somebody better be planning to bomb those fucktard Iranians.
Oh, and I’m not usually so low-rent but heet, you’re an ignorant fuck-stick.
Burr,
I prefer to think of heet and his ilk as ignorant NON-fuck-sticks. God forbid he/she should procreate before maturity sets in.
But I do see yer point.
I think Angie makes a very good point. Bad, bad precedent here.
And WTF is up with people who bring up the topic of their own non banishment?
I don’t get it. Are they getting their 1st grade teacher to type this stuff? Are they really wanting to be punished? Are there not other forums for people who like to be punished?
Of course there are, but I think they charge by the minute.
Sure, but I think they charge by the minute.
So when the server told me the request timed out, IT WAS LYING!
Who knew? All of my e-mails say this this sort of thing is FREE, FREE, FREE!
Probably heet just doesn’t have a credit card.
And yes, the server is lying. My comments are going thru regardless of that message and even when I stopped loading the page.
It doesn’t appear that you’re smart enough to correct Greenwald’s grammar. Here’s something that you can try to remember:
The parts compose the whole.
The whole comprises the parts.
His use of “compose” is correct. “Comprise” would be wrong.
Also, his use of “exists” is also correct. You have to look at the entire clause at the end of the quote to see it:
Stick to what you’re good at. Namely, trafficing “in the most reckless innuendo, gossip, and rank, error-plagued speculation that exists.”
In this Iraq conflict, there are confusing accounts with our local media heralding “fallen heroes,” but no national recognition. There are blog reports of American outrages, but no MSM follow-up. So what to think? It’s frustrating, but really, is anyone who actually consumes and digests the various media surprised? It’s merely a vehicle, manipulated as needed.
I was just a little surprised by the easy sale of J. Hussein; he seems to be the Paris Hilton of Iraq: Everywhere at once, but nowhere in particular.
It warms the cockles of my propagandist heart.
idahogie,
No, the whole is comprised of the parts. Your use of it is wrong. Thanks for stopping by, though.
So, what is it you’re good at?
cynn, I love the Paris Hilton analogy. Very apt and I wish I would have thought of it first!
It’s come to this, I guess. Fine.
“Trafficking.” If eighth-grade spelling isn’t a prerequisite to teaching grammar, it should be. Next:
Ugh. This happens to the best of us, but if you’re going to criticize Collins for his grasp of English, at least preview your comment.
Finally, here’s the full sentence at sock puppet’s site. I don’t know what Jeff was thinking when he accused Ellensburg of trafficking in “sweeping, ridiculous, and completely over-generalized dross”:
Innuendo exists. Gossip exists. Speculation exists. Innuendo, gossip, and speculation exist.
idahogie and pablo – Before you meet with dueling grammar books at 50 paces, here’s the passage on the traditional rule and the change in common usage that you might want to use to prove both of you right.
Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states.
Oh, it’s on, dog. It’s on.
Word to your mother.
tw: Thinking14
I would have pegged it at 12.
Well, for pete’s sake don’t be a party pooper dog8.
I would love to see dueling grammar books at 50 paces.
I hope at least one of the grammar books has the decency to dress and fight like a Ninja.
And if the other grammar book wants to be a Pirate, that would be soooooooo kewl!
I’ll have you all know that Glenn Greenwald has read The Elements of Style several times, and his gramatically-correct musings have been published in a New York Times best-seller and quoted on the Senate floor.
GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIRS.
I’ll have you all know that Glenn Greenwald has read The Elements of Style several times, and his gramatically-correct musings have been published in a New York Times best-seller and quoted on the Senate floor.
GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIRS.
In spite of his double post, Sean M. made some very cogent points. As a completely different person from Sean M., I wholly agree with what he said.
Oh Dan, you should feel honored…
<a href=””>St Amanda of Fornicatus</a> has discovered you
St. Amanda has declared the AP a saint of objective, truthful reporting. Dan, fall to your knees and REPENT!
whoops… I botched the link
here
whoops, I botched the link ….
here
Thanks, Darleen! You’ve made my day.
Hmm. The AP must really respect her vagina, is all I can say.
I don’t know: it seems to me that you have failed to counter Greenwald’s arguments, and have instead relied on ad hominem attacks. That’s always a very weak position. You should stick to the facts–but it seems the facts are not on your side.
What post are you reading, Kevin? The one up top here does just that. You should read it.
Kevin,
Abuse of sockpuppets is not, by definition, ad hominem.
Kevin,
The abuse of sock-puppets is not, by definition, ad hominem.
Try here, Kevin.
Those are facts marshalled against Greenwald’s assertions.
As for countering Greenwald’s “arguments,” I ask you: how would you like me to disprove this:
Should I go to every “right-wing” site and find instances where they have NOT trafficked in “the most reckless innuendo, gossip, and rank, error-plagued speculation that exists”? Or is it enough for me to point out that such a sweeping statement is absurd on its face.
Similarly, should I point out, as Shad does in the link above, that Greenwald completely ignores the meat of the argument in favor of a distraction—namely, that for most right-wing bloggers, the existence of a Jamil Hussein was completely secondary if not immaterial. What is important—and what Greenwald cannot make go away with all his posturing outrage—is that the AP relied on this particular source (who is now claiming he is not their source) for 61 stories, almost all of them detailing Shia atrocities. Does it not matter to you—or Greenwald—that the political opinions of Americans are being formulated based on uncorroborated reports or outright propaganda printed uncritically by the AP and other outlets?
The press has an important function in representative democracies. For my part, I don’t care if a particular organ turns into an ideological mouthpiece. But if and when they do, they need to surrender the cloak of “neutrality” they pretend to labor under, and which they use as a shield against criticism. Otherwise, they have violated a sacred trust, and should be vilified by anyone with an interest in truth.
Testing testing testing.
I think that that pretty well sums it up, Jeff, and warrants its own post, not because it says anything very different from what others have said here (and elsewhere), but because it puts it elegantly and saves us having to state the same things over and over.
Thanks, Dan. Go ahead and use it as a post if you’d like, and make sure to link it Greenwald so that he knows it’s coming from me.
I love it when he and Mona get the vapors.
For my part, I’ll be spending the day in Denver (about 40 minutes away) running all the errands I haven’t been able to get to because of the snow. Another snowfall is expected later in the week—and Ms Wisdom is heading out for a business trip—so I have to get ready to hunker down with the kid.
Which means I need scotch, Guinness, and maybe some fruit rollups.