Joe The Genius Soldiers On

January 13th, 2009 Conservatives 41 Comments

’)

Share

The gold continues.

I think the military should decide what information to give the media and then the media can release it to the public.

Your right wing media, in action.

Posted in Conservatives |

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

41 Responses to “Joe The Genius Soldiers On”

Enlightened Liberal says:

January 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Ok, now given that that’s how JTSUP (Joe the Scab, Unlicensed Plumber) feels what is the purpose of him reporting from the war zone again? Shouldn’t he just be regurgitating Israeli military press releases?
ed says:

January 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm

I think the military should decide what information to give the media and then the media can release it to the public.

What a stellar, well thought out idea! What could possibly go wrong?
Duros62 says:

January 13, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Are we all agreed, then, we should not pay any more attention to Sanjaya the Plumber?
Duros62 says:

January 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Other than for laughs, I mean.

didn’t Britney say something very similar a while back. Something about we should just trust the President, do what he says and lie back and enjoy it?
mambochicken23 says:

January 13, 2009 at 5:08 pm

I have no words.
SaveFarris says:

January 13, 2009 at 5:18 pm

His basic (if not well articulated) point (“Who put Jonathan Klein and Pinch Schulzberger in charge of deciding what should and should not remain classified?”) is a valid argument.
The Reality-Based Dave says:

January 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm

I think the military should decide what information to give the media and then the media can release it to the public.
After all, Faux newz writes my script and I “report” it by releasing it to the public!
Sean D. Martin says:

January 13, 2009 at 5:23 pm

To be fair, there are some things the military does in a war zone that should not be reported. Troop movements and positions (I’m lookin’ at you Geraldo Rivera), etc. Things which would place soldiers directly in harms way.

And an argument can be made that reporting on the progress or conditions of a war (hardships faced by soldiers, whether an attack was successful or a failure, number of soldiers killed in an enemy attack, etc.) can be demoralizing to troops and the people back home and, to an extent, undermine the war effort and encourage the enemy.

In return, I’d argue that (except for things in that first category) keeping the people who are paying for the war (in blood and/or treasure) informed as to how it’s going is a good thing. If it weakens support for the war then one really should be asking why the war is being waged.

“Joe”, of course, is advocating that we should all just close our eyes and trust the military on everything. And if anything is certain it is that those with power, be it the military or politicians or guards at Abu Gharaib or the abusive parent or the schoolyard bully or ANYone, will be inclined to misuse it if they don’t think they are being watched.
Dennis says:

January 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm

Are we all agreed, then, we should not pay any more attention to Sanjaya the Plumber?

Try telling that to just about every liberal blogger desperately searching for meaning in their lives right now.
Oliver Willis says:

January 13, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Try telling that to just about every liberal blogger desperately searching for meaning in their lives right now.

Um, scoreboard?
Jay Tea says:

January 13, 2009 at 6:26 pm

How awful. How ignorant. How uninformed. Doesn’t he know that the New York Times has the right to publish photos and identifying tail numbers of CIA aircraft? To publish the full names and home towns of Army interrogators who extracted highly sensitive information from captured terrorists?

Wurzelbacher is a treasure. Every single time he demonstrates his amateurism, he reminds us all of just how horrific the “professionals” have been. Objectively, he’s awful — no mainstream media organization would ever hire him. He’s too free with his opinions, not articulate and glib enough, not photogenic enough for TV (it’s a bit of racism; black men with shaved heads can look very cool, while white guys with shaved heads almost always look like psychos), and in general just “not ready for prime time.”

But subjectively, when one looks at what he says and does versus what the mainstream media tries to force down our throats, it puts their own malpractice in stark highlight.

To so many, he’s a laughingstock. But the bigger joke is on the mainstream media.

No, strike that. The bigger joke IS the mainstream media.

J.
C.S.Strowbridge says:

January 13, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Are we all agreed, then, we should not pay any more attention to Sanjaya the Plumber?

Dennis: “Try telling that to just about every liberal blogger desperately searching for meaning in their lives right now.”

Oliver Willis: “Um, scoreboard?”

Exactly. We are not the ones desperately looking for someone to add meaning to our lives.

We are amazed at who the conservatives seemed to have picked to add meaning to theirs.
Southern Quaker says:

January 13, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Let’s take JtP’s quote in context, shall we:

you don’t need to see what’s happening every day, that’s my personal opinion, you don’t have to share it. But, you know, okay, you don’t have to see, you know, 800 dead, 801 dead.

He’s not talking about releasing tail numbers on aircraft, or the names and addresses of CIA agents, or troop movements. He’s talking about the number of casualties in a war zone. Apparently, the public doesn’t have a right to that kind of information. Might as well abolish the press altogether, and just let Stars and Stripes report the news. Oh, wait, they are actually independent journalists (if somewhat censored.) I know, we’ll just let psy-ops write press releases – that will do as war coverage from now on.

Apparently Joe has no effingk clue about the purpose served by a Fourth Estate in a Democracy.
Sean D. Martin says:

January 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm

OW: Um, scoreboard

Renew America Together—the President-elect’s service initiative—has teamed up with YouTube to sponsor a video competition.

Couldn’t they com up with a better acronym than RAT?
Sean D. Martin says:

January 13, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Jay Tea: Wurzelbacher is a treasure. … Objectively, he’s awful

Now to be fair most people can hold opposing opinions in their mind, but it takes Jay Tea to raise it to an art form.

Jay Tea: Objectively, he’s awful — no mainstream media organization would ever hire him. He’s too free with his opinions, not articulate and glib enough, …

And all those girls who’ve turned you down are clearly lesbians.

Something that would never enter JT’s mind, however, is the idea that no mainstream media organization would ever hire him because he’s incompetent. Because he’s an an uninformed idiot who’s can’t be bothered to put any thought behind what he says and, consequently, neither informs or adds anything of substance to the conversation.

He actually displays many of the same qualities that JT condemns in the “mainstream media” straw bogeyman that exists in JT’s mind. But Wurzelbacher is a tool of the right, so that makes him flawless.
We wish Joe would plumb us - That 1 Blog… says:

January 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm

[...] Others Are Saying: Liberal – Oliver Willis·Sadly, [...]
Jay Tea says:

January 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm

Wow… Sean, are you really that dumb? I went on at length over Wurzelbacher’s flaws. Hell, you even quoted me saying that objectively (as in, measured purely on his own merits, not comparatively) he’s awful. And you close by saying “(b)ut Wurzelbacher is a tool of the right, so that makes him flawless.”

Is he a tool of the right? Absolutely. But a damned useful one — as long as you measure his effectiveness based on what he was intended to be used for. He’s about a good a reporter as a wrench is as a hammer. But I strongly believe that he’s not there to be an exemplar of a great journalist, or even a citizen journalist. As I said, he’s there to highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media — and he’s doing that in spades.

Oliver’s getting his jollies in mocking and deriding Wurzelbacher’s reports, and I think that’s part of the intent. It’s a diversion from the above purpose, and Oliver’s playing along with it. He’s even helping it, by constantly calling attention to Wurzelbacher.

Oliver’s taking the bait — harping on Wurzelbacher’s inadequacies on an objective basis, how the guy is (so far) a pretty bad “journalist.” But that’s not the game I believe is being played out, and in that game Oliver is actually helping Wurzelbacher achieve the purpose PJM recruited him for.

All speculation, I freely admit. But it fulfills the criteria of being consistent with the known facts.

J.
Tyro says:

January 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm

But I strongly believe that he’s not there to be an exemplar of a great journalist, or even a citizen journalist. As I said, he’s there to highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media — and he’s doing that in spades.

Much like Bush wasn’t placed into office to be an exemplar of a good president, but rather to highlight the incredible problems caused by government. At least, I’m pretty sure that this is what we’ll be hearing from Republicans in the years to come.

Stop running away from JtP, Jay Tea. Own him. He’s your man. He’s the examplar of what being a Republican is all about — ignorant, incompetent, yet comporting himself with full confidence in his abilities.
fafaroo says:

January 13, 2009 at 8:12 pm

As I said, he’s there to highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media — and he’s doing that in spades.

All I’ve seen and heard is the guy arguing for the dissemination of propaganda, then supplying same.

If Joe offers any sort of media critique it’s an unwitting critique of the right wing media. Joe’s “reporting” is evidence that you guys don’t really have a problem with propaganda, you’re real problem is that the media doesn’t do enough of it for “our side”.

The “report” I saw on PJTV, in which Joe was interviewed by Roger L. Simon and some other hack, offered little more than a highly subjective, one-sided emotional appeal.

Most revealingly, it contained the same exploitation of children for political purposes that guys like Jay Tea regularly accuse Hamas of doing. The only difference being is that while Simon and Joe were lamenting the tragedy of children’s playgrounds in Israel having to double as bomb shelters–which is, indeed, a horrible state of affairs –the Palestinian children were, you know, dead.

So if you think, as Joe does, that the role of the media should be restricted entirely to distributing military/government press releases for “our side”, I guess Joe’s your man.

If you’re actually interested in a free press, Joe, as “reporter”, is an obvious sham.

For some reason it still needs to be pointed out to guys like Jay Tea that a free press can be a messy thing but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Duros62 says:

January 13, 2009 at 8:15 pm

So, a Useful Idiot, then.
Sean D. Martin says:

January 13, 2009 at 8:42 pm

Jay Tea: Wow… Sean, are you really that dumb? I went on at length over Wurzelbacher’s flaws. Hell, you even quoted me saying that objectively (as in, measured purely on his own merits, not comparatively) he’s awful.

Missing my point entirely.

Jay Tea: As I said, he’s there to highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media — and he’s doing that in spades.

Whaaa-t? Just how is he doing that? Has he broken the story on some deception or malpractice the “MSM” has been involved in? Has he done a fine job at reporting and thereby shown what a bad job others are doing?

Nope. All he’s done is spout whatever ill-informed, pre-conceived opinion sprouts into his head and called for the complete abolishment of the media in military matters. Not “Here’s where reporters are failing and they what they should be doing” mind you. But advocating that they not be there at all.

So, just what do you see as actual examples of his “highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media”?
Jay Tea says:

January 13, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Duros, that phrase actually did cross my mind, but while it’s semantically accurate, it has associations that I don’t think apply in this case, so I didn’t use it.

And Sean, I don’t know if you’re doing it deliberately, but you keep missing my point. It’s not that “Joe is awful,” but “Joe is awful compared to… um… you know something, they are really, really bad, and in a completely different and worse way.” Getting people to compare what Wurzelbacher is doing with what they’ve been fed by the mainstream media is, in my opinion, the point — hence my use of the term “comparative.”

Hope you caught it this time, because I don’t think I can dumb it down any more.

J.
Jay Tea says:

January 13, 2009 at 9:20 pm

fafaroo, I wonder why Palestinian children are being killed. I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo

One side builds shelters for children.

The other side uses children for shelter.

And at no point did I endorse a single thing Wurzelbacher has said. I agree on the essential nature of a free press.

Two minor caveats, though: I wish they’d be a bit more “free” of their obvious biases, and “free” doesn’t mean “free from criticism.”

In libel cases, truth is an absolute defense. Similarly, in journalism, lying is an absolute indictment. And they’ve been caught too many times being flat-out wrong, consistently on the pro-terrorist, anti-Israel side, for mere coincidence to suffice as an explanation.

J.
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 13, 2009 at 9:55 pm

His basic (if not well articulated) point (”Who put Jonathan Klein and Pinch Schulzberger in charge of deciding what should and should not remain classified?”) is a valid argument.

Yeah. Who did those founding fathers think they were anyway?

Uh, First Amendment, Farris?
Jay Tea says:

January 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Quaker, could you please apply that argument to Robert Novak’s “outing” of Valerie Plame?

J.
Jaim says:

January 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Jay seems to have forgotten that the New York Times was instrumental in pushing phony WMD stories as an excuse to start the occupation of Iraq. Librul media my ass.
fafaroo says:

January 14, 2009 at 1:03 am

One side builds shelters for children. The other side uses children for shelter.

We’ve already been down this road. At the end of it, you were not only utterly proven wrong in your understanding of international law (now linking to a video that cites many of the laws you so horribly misapplied in your own arguments) while you reitereted your dismissal of civilian deaths with a “shrug” of your shoulders. You really don’t have much moral or intellectual standing on the subject any more, as far as I’m concerned.

As if we needed further evidence of your complete lack of self-awareness, only you could have written these sentences in the same thread:

Wurzelbacher is a treasure. Every single time he demonstrates his amateurism, he reminds us all of just how horrific the “professionals” have been.

and

And at no point did I endorse a single thing Wurzelbacher has said.

If I’m to understand this correctly you wouldn’t endorse a single thing that Joe has said about the media, but you believe he’s offered a sharp and much needed critique of the media.

If you can straighten that tangle out for us I’m sure we’d all be most obliged.
fafaroo says:

January 14, 2009 at 1:07 am

And they’ve been caught too many times being flat-out wrong, consistently on the pro-terrorist, anti-Israel side, for mere coincidence to suffice as an explanation.

Okay. I won’t even go into how ridiculous it is for you of all people to accuse someone of nefarious purposes because they’ve been “caught too many times being flat-out wrong.” I mean…jesus.

But please, Jay Tea, complete this thought. If it ain’t coincidence, just what is the “explanation”?
fafaroo says:

January 14, 2009 at 1:49 am

And Sean, I don’t know if you’re doing it deliberately, but you keep missing my point. It’s not that “Joe is awful,” but “Joe is awful compared to… um… you know something, they are really, really bad, and in a completely different and worse way.” Getting people to compare what Wurzelbacher is doing with what they’ve been fed by the mainstream media is, in my opinion, the point — hence my use of the term “comparative.”

Hope you caught it this time, because I don’t think I can dumb it down any more.

You are absolutely right, Jay Tea. You could not have dumbed down your point any further. It is the very essence of dumb.

This might make some kind of sense if you had just said that compared to what mainstream reporters are doing, Joe is a great journalist.

You might also have said that while Joe is a horrible journalist, he’s still better than the mainstream media who are worse.

Are either of these simple, clear and to the point sentences what you really meant, Jay Tea? Because if it is, fine. I disagree but at least it makes some kind of coherent sense.

But if neither of those statements are what you mean, what you’ve written makes no sense whatsoever.
Crusty Dem says:

January 14, 2009 at 2:52 am

Thank you Jay Tea, you are truly a great and mighty warrior. Continue to defend the honorable Joe, for while your efforts to thwart the evil liberal mainstream media have always resulted in failure, he is clearly the knight who shall lead you in defeating them. Mark my words, with the mighty Joe as your leader, there will be ~~no windmills standing in La Mancha~~ no liberals left in the media!!
Sean D. Martin says:

January 14, 2009 at 3:06 am

Jay Tea: you keep missing my point. It’s not that “Joe is awful,” but “Joe is awful compared to… um… you know something, they are really, really bad, and in a completely different and worse way.”

Compared to… what? “Um…. you know something.”

Way to make your point clearly, Jay.
J. G. Thayer says:

January 14, 2009 at 4:58 am

Wrong argument, Jaim. We’re talking about the media’s bias against Israel here, not their liberal/political bias. You wanna make an argument that they’re neutral or pro-Israeli?

I’m not even certain Wurzelbacher understands just what he’s doing. In my theory, it’s not necessary. A hammer needs no grasp of physics or engineering to drive a nail.

J.
Duros62 says:

January 14, 2009 at 9:44 am

Duros, that phrase actually did cross my mind, but while it’s semantically accurate, it has associations that I don’t think apply in this case, so I didn’t use it.

Oh, I don’t know. Seems pretty accurate to me.

The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.

Just replace Communist with Conservative.
fafaroo says:

January 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm

He’s about a good a reporter as a wrench is as a hammer …
A hammer needs no grasp of physics or engineering to drive a nail.

Jay Tea, did you get “Craftsman’s Big Book of Tool Box Cliches” for Christmas?

So is Joe a “wrench” or a “hammer” or should we all just agree that he’s a tool?
fafaroo says:

January 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm

I’m not even certain Wurzelbacher understands just what he’s doing. In my theory, it’s not necessary.

And whenever you want to take another shot at explaining this “theory” please have at it.
Sean D. Martin says:

January 14, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Jay Tea: As I said, he’s there to highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media — and he’s doing that in spades.

SDM: Whaaa-t? Just how is he doing that? … So, just what do you see as actual examples of his “highlight the incredible journalistic malpractices of the mainstream media”?

Jay Tea: um… you know something, they are really, really bad, and in a completely different and worse way

Still sticking with that as your answer?
fafaroo says:

January 14, 2009 at 1:07 pm

We’re talking about the media’s bias against Israel here, not their liberal/political bias.

Oh, and Jay Tea, if the media’s bias against Israel isn’t part and parcel of its liberal/political bias, just what exactly is its motivating agenda?

Is the media biased against Israel just for the lolz?

Once again, you seem unable to maintain a consistent line on any front. Hell, you can’t even keep your cliches straight.
C.S.Strowbridge says:

January 14, 2009 at 1:51 pm

J. G. Thayer: “Wrong argument, Jaim. We’re talking about the media’s bias against Israel here, not their liberal/political bias. You wanna make an argument that they’re neutral or pro-Israeli?”

When was the last time you saw pro-Palestinian voices on TV on a regular basis?
Dkelsmith says:

January 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm

I see what Joe is saying, albeit, I don’t agree. Basically news is something to report that is not out of the ordinary. Nobody gives a flying f*ck if Dkelsmith and his men pass out chocolates, pencils, paper, and soccer balls twice a week for months on end. Nor do they care if we catch some low level self-appointed militia head who has been targeting innocent civilians. If Dkelsmith and his men hit a platter charge or a pressure plate and die, that is a little bit interesting and when it is reported citizens say, “Man, if we keep this up we will hit 5000 KIA before August, we told you so.” if you are part of one group. If you are part of another group you can say, “Wow, not even 5000 since this whole thing started. Way better than Vietnam…we are winning”.

Now if Dkelsmith and his men get engaged and fire back and a M2 round goes past or through its orginal target and clips a school building, a mosque, or heaven forbid an innocent person, it will be understandably be on Breaking News and will be talked about for weeks. What I can’t understand is regardless of why we are there, those events somehow become the face and action of every person deployed at times.

I don’t agree with embedded reporters, but I don’t think we need to filter unclassified information either.
Duros62 says:

January 14, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Nobody gives a flying f*ck if Dkelsmith and his men pass out chocolates, pencils, paper, and soccer balls twice a week for months on end. Nor do they care if we catch some low level self-appointed militia head who has been targeting innocent civilians.

I do. Good job.
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 15, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Quaker, could you please apply that argument to Robert Novak’s “outing” of Valerie Plame?

Happily.

Mr. Novak was not charged in the Plame matter, in strict accordance with the First Amendment.

Nobody gives a flying f*ck if Dkelsmith and his men pass out chocolates, pencils, paper, and soccer balls twice a week for months on end.

Of course, many of us here care very much. For any who are new here, OW’s readers readers sent DkelSmith a supply of pencils and chocolate to hand out to Iraqi kids a while back. A year ago? Two years? I forget. However, in the context of what is or isn’t “news” Smith is quite correct.

fafaroo: Dennis, I would love for you to explain WTF it is you’re talking about. Are you serious or are you...
Enlightened Liberal: Josh, 1980 called, it wants it’s welfare queen back. You can just say niggers if...
Zython: we didnt attack anyone! Well, except Iraq. the 4th not allowed to search enemy combatants is this really a...
jrfunkenstein: ‘Because God forbid they should be asked to step up and do something themselves.’ The...
Jaim: I love how you’ve gone to trolling a liberal blog, 24 hour a day, to being so hurt and upset by trolling...

Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Joe The Genius Soldiers On

41 Responses to “Joe The Genius Soldiers On”

Meta

Recent Comments

Coverage

Blogroll

Disclaimer

Breaking News