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.

I do. Good job.

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.

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

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.

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?

And whenever you want to take another shot at explaining this “theory” please have at it.

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?

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.

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.

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

Way to make your point clearly, Jay.

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.

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”?

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.

J.

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

Uh, First Amendment, Farris?

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.

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.