I'll bet they REALLY wanted to watch THIS

??
Ok, number one, you just indicted ALL reporters as being liberally biased -- based on the conversation ScottBot McClellatron had with one reporter. In five years this is the first indication that not everyone in the press corps wants to watch something other than conservative news 24/7.

Your conclusion, as you damn well know, is logically inconsistent for that reason alone.

Two, isn't it a little bit ridiculous that a request to change the channel was met not only with a denial, but that the reason given is that somehow, someone on the other end of that magic phone stated they only watch Fox as if it were some kind of official policy or something.

Beyond any indication of whose political bent is exposed here, isn't it indicative of an arbitrary control-freakish kind of attitude to refuse a polite request to change the channels out-of-hand? Isn't that a legitimate question? Is it unreasonable to be surprised that changing channels is verbotten?

It's quite possible that a DC reporter was wholly uninterested in seeing a story about Aruba or Duke (the school or the corrupt Congressman, take your pick) for the fifth time that news cycle, and wanted to see what else was going on in the world that might affect the stories he was working on.

Maybe Brit Hume was having a slow news day and the reporter wanted to see what Lou Dobbs was saying about the latest immigration debate. Maybe he just has a thing for Paula Zhan, and O'Reilly just doesn't "do it" for him.

I expect Malkin to insult her readers' intelligence, and that many might even buy this sillyness. But the only thing "obvious" to me is that no excuse is too lame, no evidence too flimsy to fit into the conservative framework of painting themselves as victims of media bias.

Michelle Malkin? Who's next -- Ann Coulter?

Says the guy that regularly links Kos, Atrios and sometimes Al Franken.

Do you actually make money off selling t-shirts that "joke" about killing journalists?

I don't sell t-shirts that joke about killing journalists. Actually, I don't sell t-shirts at all but I did endorse the "Che bullet in the head" shirt.

I didn't endorse what Malkin said, I linked a transcript that she posted. Since it is a transcript I have no reason to not believe it to be true. You don't have to like her to believe her. You wouldn't doubt her if she wrote a post stating that the Sun is hot and that the Earth rotates, would you? Maybe you would...

When is the last time I linked Ann Coulter? I get that you are trying to smear Malkin by attaching Coulter to her like a sidekick but it isn't so. It's the same tactic used by Democrats all the time, although Republicans have gotten pretty good at it lately. Remember how you guys treated poor Bob Dole by verbally attaching Newt Gingrich to him. It's a pretty effective trick that is wasted on me, since I know better.

It is incidences like this one that remind me of the quote from Shakespeare,

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

It sounds like two kids in a sandbox arguing back and forth, "Is so!" "Is not!"

We are locked in a struggle with an enemy that if he could press a button and all Americans would die, he would do it in a heartbeat and then jump for joy. Now we have an arguement about what channel is on the TV?

Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life here.

We are locked in a struggle with an enemy that if he could press a button and all Americans would die, he would do it in a heartbeat and then jump for joy. Now we have an arguement about what channel is on the TV?

Yes. Well.

I agree with you except for that last sentence which that sticks in my craw.

VandeHei is one crack reporter to not have gotten the name of the person on the other end of the phone or at least publicly offer to disclose it to McClellan privately. Sure makes it sound like he was "talking" to the second cousin to Harvey the Rabbit.

"I agree with you except for that last sentence which that sticks in my craw."

I was NOT referring to anyone here - wherever "here" is. I was referring to the people arguing what channel the TV should be tuned to.

Malkin was selling this obscene t-shirt on her new blog, aptly named HotAir.com.

Ara, considering that the zeitgeist in America is journalists going out of their way to share military and state secrets with our self-declared enemies, and the current administration's hitherto lukewarm enforcement of laws against such practices, I'd say there's a simmering backlash waiting to boil over. And I'd say the lawyer was right, we despise journalists MORE right now.

Ara,

Like Mark, I'd say it's no different than a considerable number of lawyer jokes I've heard. Here's an example. The problem with both jokes is they are wrong even if they are funny. Lots of jokes are wrong. My eldest daughter doesn't like slapstick because it shows people getting hurt. So, unless you are prepared to condemn George Carlin, Joan Rivers, Bill Mahr, etc. I really can't take you seriously, Ara. A lot of the humor that isn't obscene is hurtful. Very hurtful. Ask Barbara WaaWaa. Ask Chelsea Clinton. Ask Tammy Faye.

As nearly as I can tell, most of the comedians whom people like are real jerks, Ara. I've become entirely disenchanted with comedy as a profession. They are worse than journalists. They are worse than used car salesmen. They may even be worse than Democratic politicians.

See, many journalists will do anything for a story, but it usually isn't cruel. Many used car salesman will do anything for a buck, but it ususally isn't cruel. Many Democratic politicians will do anything for a vote, but it ususally isn't cruel. But many comedians will do anything for a laugh, and it often is cruel. Very cruel.

OTOH, Bill Cosby and Ellen Degeneres, now there are a couple of comedians who are worth listening to.

Lawyers, OTOH, are great. My mother-in-law has a good lawyer who is looking out for her interests. My wife and I have a good lawyer looking out for her interests. The state of Kansas had a good lawyer who took a stint as judge pro tem to look out for the state's interests. A bunch of good lawyers in the legislature wrote some good laws, which were enhanced by the decisions of a bunch of good lawyers in the judiciary after lots of good arguments by good lawyers in the courts.

The result is that my wife is now her mother's guardian and conservator, with sensible restrictions to make sure we don't steal her money, even though my mother-in-law didn't properly handle things before she came down with whatever caused her dementia.

Thank G-d for the rule of law.

Yours,
Wince

P.S. And, Mark, you who love both the law and humor can quote me on it.

P.S. We'll leave Malkin's endorsement of lynching for a later discussion.

... and yet another hyped attempt to desperately paint the media as liberal hacks, ALL of them who aren't on Fox, Bites The Dust. (...or should that be "another desperate attempt to mediate the hype?")

In keeping with the new tradition established here of linking to a blog that links to original sources instead of linking directly to the source itself, I linked and quote from those silly bloggers at the Columbia Journalism Review who quote the discussion board at the Washington Post. Mind you, they don't think they are bloggers any more than they think bloggers are journalists, but there they go, blogging again.

I'm not going to even click on the link that the link I linked to links to because I believe everything I read on blogs; especially those articles that are packed with partisanship and concern, you know, actual news printed in a newspaper for a story about, um, ... TV news networks announcing the news about what news all the newspeople like watching -- which for some reason now is news.

(Oh Gawd, what have I become?!?)

Anyway, the upshot is that as the gerbils whose forced labor powers the ScottBot McClelletroid® finally begin to wear out, he let go with one last zinger as an audition piece to become the next connected Foxpert in prime time (I hear they got an opening.)

Tom Edsall, national political reporter, suggests that CNN might have overplayed the CNN-angle. When confronted by a reader over what the Fox/CNN switch revealed about the bias of White House reporters, Edsall provided a simple answer: nothing.


"To repeat: there was no request for CNN by the press," noted Edsall. "The question was whether the White House had a policy requiring TV's to be tuned to Fox. Maybe some reporters wanted to watch Desperate Housewives or the Playboy channel. The CNN angle is a canard injected by Scott McClellan to put down the press."

Hey, did anything important happened today? Like . . . nobody let Bush start another war or anything while I was out getting supplies, right? (I was out of batteries, duct tape and bottled water.)

Oh, that's right, I'm asking the wrong crowd about anything important in the way of news that's not useful to score points. Hopefully the the McClellenator will learn the same lesson as the WOPR:

* Is it a game, or is it real?
* ...Where the only winning move is NOT TO PLAY.

The more I hang out here, the more I'm coming to the same conclusion.

And mind you, don't take it personal. By here I mean on the internets . . . both of them. Last night Left-Blogtopia was afire with invectives directed at Right-Blogistan over who was lying about who was selling more books by which blogger writing about partisan politics. Oy!

Hey Wince. Here's one. True story. I deal with Justice, who is supposed to be blind, and my best friend is blind, and he's a stand-up comic. Coincindence?

Ara,

Well, generally, I am in favor of the profession of journalism. I'm not going to write a glowing account about it right now, like I did about lawyers, though, since that isn't what you asked for.

Since you asked, though, here's the dirt on journalists. Journalists are professional gossips and tragedy vultures. Everyone hates gossips. Haven't you heard Dirty Laundry?

She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die...

Don't think about the noble things journalists say they do. Think about the reputation destroying, vouyeristic stuff they actually do. I mean, really. You don't think there are plenty of slimy creeps in newsrooms all over this country who won't do anything to get the story? And do I really need to know about horrendous crime X? No, I really need to know common sense safety tips so I can avoid becoming a victim. We get some of that, but not much.

Of course journalists are actually working hard to do the noble things they say they do. But the not-at-all noble stuff pays the bills, 'cause while we hate gossips, we all love hearing it, don't we?

Otherwise it's in the formulation. Anybody can do it. Here's the formula: Rope. Tree. "Person or persons to whom we object". Some assembly required. It's funny because you do not expect the "Some assembly required" toy advertisement legal disclaimer, just like you don't expect the priest to say, "It's OK, I got him with the door."

Once it's been overdone, which it will be soon, people won't find it funny, and it will fall out of favor until the next inappropriate legal cliche is discovered. If, for example, there is a lawsuit which faults the manufacturer for a horrible Lego model assembly accident, toy advertisements might start featuring the phrase "Assemble under adult supervision".

Then we'll see this T-shirt: Rope. Tree. Lawyers. Assemble under adult supervision.

And people who see toy advertisements will laugh.

Yours,
Wince

P.S. Malkin didn't endorse lynching, just like those who tell the joke I linked don't endorse running down people with trucks. Sorry, Ara, it looks like I need to repeat this for emphasis. Malkin didn't endorse lynching. She told a joke in poor taste. Most Americans can learn to distinguish between jokes in poor taste and endorsements, since we are, after all, deluged with both. You are engaging in ridiculous hyperbole, you aren't even trying to be funny, you are believing your own hyperbole and you are, in fact, mistakenly engaging in character assassination, since endorsing lynching is entirely out of character for Malkin. Have I raised your consciousness enough?

Not all of them suck Mark :)

Wince:
My epiphany was when Dean linked to a Scrappleface post blasting Kerry during the primaries. I read it too fast, and hadn't read Scrappleface before. I commented on Dean's with a screed defending Kerry's newly announced philosophy countering "compassionate conservatism."

I didn't know that Scrappleface was a parody site, or at least that he uses pardody to such effect to make his points. I thought it was a serious link by Dean to a serious news item by Scrapple.

It wasn't until several hours later that someone (Rose, I think) pointed out to me that the whole thing was a joke. D'ya ever look at your monitor and blush with embarassment -- the joke was on me.

So I went with it, memorialized it, adopted the joke as my new political looking glass which both reflects and magnifies. It's been fun, but it also works.

The title of Scrappleface's post became my battlecry to the World Wide Weirdness:

Dispassionate Liberalism

I love how the conservative defense for all their outrageous comments is "It was a joke! Can't you take a joke?" When Ann Coulter said she wished Tim McVeigh had blown up the New York Times Building - that was a joke! Couldn't you tell? O'Reilly wants terrorists to blow up San Francisco? Joke!

This defense is all the more absurd considering that as a group, conservatives couldn't find their sense of humor with two hands and a shovel.

That's one reason why I respect La Shawn Barber. When she says she heartily endorses torture, she means it. Good for her.

I just wanted to make sure that no reading comprehension problems or, more likely, lack of clarity in my writing was misleading anyone here. That t-shirt is wrong. Wrong as in sinful. Wrong as in against the will of God. Wrong as in impolite, mean-spirited, cruel and unethical. It is wrong to sell it, wrong to buy it, wrong to wear it and wrong to repeat it except to comment on it.

And yet, it is funny. Well, adultery is wrong, too, but most of us seem to think there may be some pleasure involved.

There are lots of jokes which are sinful, against the will of God, impolite, mean-spirited, cruel and unethical. We should stop telling them, and learn to suppress our laughter at them, just like we've learned to suppress our laughter when someone falls down.

The fact that a joke is funny does not vindicate it, any more than the fact that adultery is pleasurable does not vindicate it. And just because you are late to work doesn't mean you get to speed, either. I'm sorry, officer, thanks for the warning, and I wish I could say I'll never do it again.

Yours,
Wince

Ara-it's time to "lighten up Francis!"

Didn't you read what I just wrote?

Yeah, you got the vapors over some rough humor. Man up, Nancy.

Ara,

I read a true story about a little boy who was angry at his mom. Another grownup asked him about her, and he told the grownup she was dead, even though she was standing right there.

And that was over something small.

You should think that when you hold strong opinions about highly emotional issues involving life or death, and you express those opinions strongly and act on them, some people will wish you were dead. And some will make jokes about it.

Malkin gets death threats for the same reason. Dean gets death threats for the same reason. A man spits on Jane Fonda for the same reason.

Welcome to the fallen human race. Abel was killed for less. Cain had kids.

I have more to say on the subject, but no time.

Yours,
Wince

And yeah, that's a "hanging spies" reference.

I hate the sins of the NY Times.

Soldiers who misbehave make the front page. Soldiers who perform nobly do not. When SFC Smith was awarded the Medal of Honor, the New York Times put the story on page A-13.

I did a Nexis search on "New York Times and Abu Ghraib." It came back with more than 1,000 hits. The Times has run exactly one story that mentions Sgt. Peralta, and he had to share billing in it with SFC Smith and Sgt. Hester.

"A nation that ignores, or, worse, attacks its heroes erodes and disparages its own ethos," warn Mr. Weinberger and Mr. Hall.

Ara, you should hate the sins of the NY Times, too. It's a rotten newspaper, doing a horrible job. They have poisoned your mind in the cause of evil. What trash. They are scarcely better than Pravda.

During a war, Abu Ghraib should be one story on A-13. Sgt. Peralta, SFC Smith and Sgt. Hester should be on the front page day after day.

When I consider how evilly the NY Times has behaved, that t-shirt looks better all the time. That's how angry I am.

Yours,
Wince