Comments on: Cons In Reality

By: xklaznbt ebxqwhfpy

xklaznbt ebxqwhfpy — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:24:52 +0000

dtasnkig laxtyw besikat joagc aocrhxqju moruyv tvlykabuq http://www.cboqkx.urjagftmz.com

By: dvsihnjpk mvebk

dvsihnjpk mvebk — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:23:55 +0000

nhriuezk wgcep bgxjmzn gdwnxtab lygac inrlqkv hsae

By: duros62

duros62 — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:06:57 +0000

Wait, isn’t a good reporter supposed to be objective? Conservative/Liberal should not be an issue.

Well, it shouldn’t….

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:06:23 +0000

Because we know, as Dr. P said, that 70% of journalists (I thought it was more) declared themselves to be Democrats.
I seem to recall that something like 90% have voted Democratic for some time now.
So some of that 30% must be independents or liars.

By: maestroanonymo

maestroanonymo — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:06:16 +0000

Frank_D, how do you know they don’t? And even assuming that most reporters are Democrats, some are not — and some of the ones who are Republicans may be writing some of the evil anti-Bush stories that bedevil the MSM, since any objective reporter would sometimes have to acknowledge that the facts themselves are anti-Bush. (Just like reporters who voted for Carter or Clinton nonetheless wrote vicious stories about them: getting the story was more important than supporting their man.)

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:06:14 +0000

I don t see why any mainstream paper wouldn t hire them.
Me, neither. So why don’t they?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:06:58 +0000

The reason writers for conservative publications don t go on to be mainstream reporters is pretty simple, allright: What left wing MSM paper would hire them?
How many “conservative” reporters work for the
LAT
NYT
WaPo
??

By: maestroanonymo

maestroanonymo — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:06:28 +0000

The reason writers for conservative publications don’t go on to be “mainstream” reporters is pretty simple: most conservative publications don’t do reporting. TNR does a lot of reporting and field pieces — and while it’s not exactly a “liberal” publication (there’s a reason why the Reagan administration used to order dozens of copies of TNR) — it is a good breeding ground for reporters, as are some other, more liberal publications that do the same.

The conservative journals don’t do much reporting. The American Spectator did a few of those anti-Clinton pieces, but they had, to put it mildly, an accuracy problem. National Review does an occasional piece of reportage, but it’s mostly opinion journalism, and most of the other big conservative magazines are all opinion journalism. The only conservative magazine that really makes TNR-style reporting a big part of its publications is The Weekly Standard.

So why doesn’t somebody go from writing for National Review to reporting for the New York Times? Because writing for National Review is mostly about expressing opinions; it’s a legitimate form of journalism but has nothing to do with reporting.

By: Sundown

Sundown — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:06:03 +0000

If a conservative reporter is an excellent reporter, as opposed to a glorified opinionist, then I don’t see why any mainstream paper wouldn’t hire them.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:06:57 +0000

Rheinhard: Who’s Dan Rather?

By: Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:06:19 +0000

Scratch, your analysis assumes the MSM is full of TNR or The Nation Alum; it’s not, those are very small publications. For every Michael Kinsley, there are a hundred journalists at the Times or WaPo who put got knocked around in Spokane or Tulsa or wherever the fuck. Goldberg, as is his wont, has simply made an intellectually lazy argument. Quelle surprise.

By: scratch

scratch — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:06:45 +0000

So it’s these journalists from the liberal publications who go on to give the mainstream media its right-wing bias? Why do these upstanding, intellectually honest, liberal reporters carry water for this dishonest administration? Why won’t these straight shooters ask the hard questions of this President?

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:06:06 +0000

Jay C: content free “analysis” as usual.
scratch: I don’t think the mainstream media has a conservative bias, more than a bias towards stupidity (some could argue they’re the same thing), but the MSM allows itself to be pushed around and in our current environment that leads to pro-GOP storylines dominating – not a product of the presidency because the same happened during the Clinton years.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:06:06 +0000

damn good point scratch.

Not a damn good answer though Oliver. Doesn’t pass the common sense test.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:06:48 +0000

Qualified conservative reporters. That is like "military intelligence", no?

By: Jay C

Jay C — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:06:22 +0000

That guy’s entry is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

I would swear it was satire.

By: Rheinhard

Rheinhard — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:06:36 +0000

Oooh! I get to beat dugger, Frank, et al to the punch!

DAN RATHER! DAN RATHER! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

With that out of the way, it’s also worth noting that the other reason wingnut columnists have a harder time getting stints alongside actual journalists is because so many of them get their jobs only because of wingnut welfare: e.g, Jonah Goldberg’s sinecure at National Review because his folks are Lucianne and Bernard Goldberg, and similary John Podhoretz courtesy of dad Norm.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:06:35 +0000

here is an alternative theory:

The MSM won’t hire qualified conservative reporters. It is sort of like a form of institutionalized racism. The conservatives don’t “think like us”.