Well, I’d guess a fair number of Democrats read the Washington Post. And Howard Kurtz there has been accurately reporting this little controversy for some days now.
There is no vacuum, not anymore.
Now that that’s settled, maybe it’s time now to hold John McCain’s campaign blogger, Patrick Hynes, up to similar scrutiny.
I’m sure the biased left wing media will be all over this. :rolleyes:
Well, yes and no.
Nothing is immune from scrutiny anymore. But still, there are only so many matters that can be brought to the attention of tens of millions of people. And the Right (a) has a much better infrastructure for bringing up stuff like this, and (b) has more interest in doing so to begin with, because the left is more interested in global warming, universal health care, and the like.
We believe we can win on the issues. Y’all are the ones who need gay marriage referenda, flag-burning amendments, Swiftboating, and other distractions (like this current tempest in a teapot).
Sure. I’m all over it. Full scrutiny of the press on all, if these people are to have an impact on politics.
And while we’re at it, I’m sure right-wingers and left-wingers alike would love for Kos to disclose his client list for his consultant practice, so that donors to candidates touted on DailyKos know whether Kos has a financial interest in them.
Why, is there a problem? As your own two year old link says:
The disclosure was dated June 9, 2003. You have anything on him after that, or are you just throwing the illusion of mud around, hoping people will imagine that some of it is on Markos Moulitas’ face?
I’d like to know the financial and familial political connections of persons whose names appear on op-ed pages, and whose faces appear on news and political talk shows. Just as one minor for-instance, it would be nice to know that ABC “reporter” Terry Moran’s brother is blogger Rick Moran of "Right Wing NutHouse" without having to have a blogger clue me in.
And of course we know now how many reporters and commentators spoke about the Plame affair without mentioning their or their organizations’ involvement.
I think any media ethics standards should apply across the different media, platforms, etc., however. Newspapers, magazines, broadcast and cable television, talk radio, news and commentary websites of all sorts. When a letter to the editor from the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute appears in the Washington Post, let’s see whose money supports them.
But anyone can start a blog. I’ve started two, neither of which are currently active. Should I list my employer and any other relevant connections when I resume posting? Should each of us do so here?? What exactly are the appropriate rules for a medium where anyone can post anything at any time, with access to the world but no guarantee of an audience?
This discussion certainly deserves a thread of its own, but I should get some work done and I’ve got a busy weekend coming up, so I don’t think I’ll start it. But if anyone else has the urge, go for it.
Again, I’m just super thrilled that you’ve taken a hiatus to get over the hardened partisan nonsense you found so problematic, Mr. Moto.
Now let’s go out and get Kos! Next, we’ll take out Joshua Micah Marshall. Then that Kevin Drum will get what’s coming to him.
To paraphrase the Master, Bill Donohue could perceive anti-religious bias in a dial tone.
Hokay. I’m still waiting for something that supports the claim of anti-Christian or anti-Catholic bias. (Surely you aren’t suggesting that “Christian” or “Catholic” are synonymns for “perverted religious nut”…?)
Since you obviously don’t read my links, I’ll save you the trouble:
How’s about this one, by now often-quoted:
You know, if you’re going to provide a link that’s of any length, you need to quote or otherwise point to the relevant parts. Just because you include a damned link, doesn’t mean you can expect anyone to read the whole thing, decide which bits best support your argument, then form and rebut that argument.
Here’s how it works: you make a case here, you quote the relevant parts of the supporting references, and you provide a link to them so that other people can see you’ve used your source accurately.
BTW, in this case you haven’t. Here’s part of your quote:
This past election? That’s a misrepresentation - yours, not your source’s.
Just a quick answer - I think if your post relates to your employer, organizations you belong to or hold leadership positions in, or concerns where you have a financial interest, those should be disclosed, and the post ought to be clear whether this opinion is an institutional or a personal opinion.
Oh, my mistake. I should have included a parenthetical to show that by “last election” the source material meant 2004.
Not a misrepresentation, as an examination of the source will show.
He’s on to a new target, Barbra Walters
Any evidence that Markos Moulitsas violated that standard?
How would an examination of the source show that, given that it wasn’t their misrepresentation?
Because, while the quoted material says “last election”, the quoted material is from 2005. Therefore, “last election” means 2004.
I simple erred by not inserting a parenthetical to make that point clearer to the reader, which was entirely my fault, but not a willful misrepresentation.
Yes, since Moulitsas will not disclose his clients, and has stated that he will not do so.
Keep in mind, whenever I post here about Democrats, I have my folks and my brothers in mind.
And my mom goes to mass twice a week, minimum.