So Easily Spun By Nonsense

1:05 am EST March 8th, 2009 | Media | 31 Comments

The right-wing blogs are latching on to a thinly sourced story in a London-based paper. They fall for this every time.

Here are some other recent gems from The Telegraph focused on attacking President Obama:

“Barack Obama under fire for ignoring advice on how to beat John McCain ”
“Michelle Obama’s prom date describes their high school romance ”
“Germany seduced by ‘Messiah’ Barack Obama”
“Is Barack Obama really too thin to win?”

Its almost as if the Telegraph writes up b.s. stories about Obama in the hopes that conservative American bloggers will be gullible enough to link them and provide traffic.

Topic:

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

31 Responses to “So Easily Spun By Nonsense”

  1. Quaker in a Basement says:
    March 8, 2009 at 1:35 am

    Traffic from right-wing blogs? Psh! NP-freakin’-R ran with this on Friday’s “All Things Considered.”

  2. Jay Tea says:
    March 8, 2009 at 3:29 am

    Sound advice, especially from you, Oliver. Nothing like the voice of experience — weren’t you recently gulled by a Playboy bullshit story about some grand conspiracy involving Rick Santelli and the Tea Party movement?

    So, Oliver, what is YOUR explanation for the incredibly boorish way Obama treated one of our oldest traditional allies (the late unpleasantness of 1812-1814 excluded) this week? Blown off joint conference, cheap and tacky gifts?

    J.

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    March 8, 2009 at 4:26 am

    You mean the way Obama accepted Brown like every other US president has accepted a British PM? Unlike the right, I don’t believe every word of the UK Murdoch-style press.

  4. Jay Tea says:
    March 8, 2009 at 5:48 am

    Yes, exactly… but without the big stand-up joint news conference, without the carefully thought-out exchange of special gifts, and all the other stuff that goes with old-style diplomacy.

    Boy, I bet Brown was thrilled with those DVDs… and the Brown boys must have LOVED those toys straight from the White House Gift Shop.

    And how’s that “smart diplomacy” working out with Russia, anyway?

    J.

  5. Leota2 says:
    March 8, 2009 at 6:54 am

    Wow–It’s like the Repubs are grabbing hold of a ninety
    year old woman with osteoporosis leg as they go over the cliff.
    They’ll snarf up anything and comment on any funny crap—-
    Okay we Dems will too–but this is so much more entertaining.
    DVD’s, Michelle’s high school boyfriend. Obama too tired.
    It’s funny ’cause it’s sad . . . . . .and pathetic.
    But if it makes them not want to go into deep depression and jump
    off a huge DJ’s fat head. . . .
    And stop being so cranky Jay. No WH gift shop gifts for you!

  6. Dennis says:
    March 8, 2009 at 7:01 am

    The right-wing blogs are latching on to a thinly sourced story in a London-based paper. They fall for this every time. — Oliver Willis

    Oh, glass house dwelling person.

    I think even thinly-sourced trumps the non-sourced and completely fabricated Playboy smear last week you were about ready to nominate to the Pulitzer committee for excellence in investigative journalism.

  7. Jaim says:
    March 8, 2009 at 8:02 am

    Did Obama grab the PM of Germany by the shoulders and totally freak her out?

    No? My goodness, we have an adult back in charge. Good times.

  8. Jay Tea says:
    March 8, 2009 at 8:15 am

    Did Obama grab the PM of Germany by the shoulders and totally freak her out?

    No. And since it’s been done, he’ll find something at least as inept to do.

    It’s been less than two months, with about 46 to go. I have faith he’ll find his own way to match — or beat — it.

    J.

  9. Leota2 says:
    March 8, 2009 at 8:53 am

    I’m pretty sure Obama won’t use the rest of his 46 to trash the Constitution, torture,
    wiretap newspapers, give the military the right to blow up buildings on American soil and arrest us without lawyers. While making sure everyone from Haliberton to the banking mortgage industry had no stop gaps . . . . .thus destroying the economy.

    Where the hell were all you caring Repub individuals when our previous POTUS was seriously screwing the pooch? Hmmmm–of course NONE of what that nightmare did has ANYTHING to do with our current state of affairs.

    So Repubs sticking your head up your asses for eight years, living in denial then trashing the party that has come in and clean up the past eight years after the bacchanalian orgy must leave you all with crotch clutching glee. And I would expect nothing less from you
    all.

  10. Jay Tea says:
    March 8, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Careful with all those straw men, Leota; one stray spark and…

    Obama’s already working on the Constitution with DC representation, his history of assaults on the 2nd Amendment, his singling out of individual reporters, and signed off on several of Bush’s policies. As far as newspapers… well, there very well might not be enough to be worth wiretapping soon. You seen the New York Times’ balance sheets lately?

    Oh, and you might not have noticed, but “1-20-09″ has passed. It’s the Era of Hope And Change. Get up to speed, will ya?

    J.

  11. calling all toasters says:
    March 8, 2009 at 9:19 am

    Wait… Retardlicans are now concerned about what other countries think of us? Next thing you know, they’ll be worried about infringements on civil liberties, inadequate disaster responses, and deficits.

    “1-20-09″ has passed.

    Oh. Got it.

  12. Jack J. says:
    March 8, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Now, you realize that The London Telegraph is a politically conservative paper, right?

    I look at them as I look at Murdoch’s “news”, all full of shit. And, without a doubt, repukes LOVE eating shit because that’s all they have.

    If the Prime Minister said the meeting was a success (he was there, ya’ know), then it WAS a success.

    Bon appetit, wingnuts!

  13. fafaroo says:
    March 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Jay Tea, Dennis, please STFU:

    The Guardian, Thursday 2 August 2007

    Gordon Brown spent two days at the American presidential retreat of Camp David emphasising the importance of soft power. Judging by the gift he received from George Bush, however, the message has not quite got through.

    Inside a large box wrapped in lurid gold paper with the presidential seal on top lay Mr Bush’s idea of the perfect memento – a leather bomber jacket with Gordon Brown’s name written on a black badge.

    Bomber Brown – whose normal idea of casual wear is a lounge suit and a thin, crumpled red tie – must have blanched.

    It is the exact same design worn by President Bush when he stood on an aircraft carrier 30 days into the Iraq war to declare “mission accomplished”. A Downing Street aide described the gift and gave permission for reporters to view it.

    So if in the next few weeks on a windswept English beach you see a studious figure with two boys and a biography of JK Galbraith, sporting a bomber jacket, it is likely to be the prime minister.

    We do not yet know what Mr Brown gave President Bush, but it is likely to have been something improving, such as the Wealth of Nations, or possibly Thomas E Ricks’s bestseller Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.

    Mr Bush may have seen the present as a revenge for being forced to dress relatively formally at Camp David in order to meet the prime minister’s desire for a businesslike session, as opposed to anything with a hint of relaxed intimacy.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/02/uk.usa

    And …

    The British reporters took it for some kind of intentional insult, perhaps a joke, some suggested, by Bush.

    The headline in today’s Times of London blared: “Presidential Gift Offers Brown the Chance to Become a Flash Gordon.” The headline in the Independent newspaper asked, “Has the President misjudged Mr. Brown’s Style?”

    “The item is garish, camp and seems deliberately unlikely to appeal to the new Prime Minister’s more austere aesthetic,” the Times of London reported.

    The story, written by former Washington Post Stern fellow Sam Coates, went on to say that Brown “failed the first test with Mr Bush: unlike his predecessor, Mr Brown refused to put it on while with the President, insisting that both he and the Mr Bush dress formally as they whizzed around the mountain retreat on ‘Golf Cart One’.” And it was noted, of course, that Tony Blair happily wore the bomber jacket given to him by Bush during his visit to Camp David in 2001.

    Under the British government’s ethics rules, the Times of London reports, Brown “must pay the equivalent cash value of the jacket if he wants to keep it, but is thought unlikely to do so.”

    voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/08/bush_bombs_with_bomber_jacket.html

    As it turned out, Brown did not keep the jacket, having decided against paying the equivalent cost according to ethic’s rules.

  14. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Jay Tea: Boy, I bet Brown was thrilled with those DVDs… and the Brown boys must have LOVED those toys straight from the White House Gift Shop.

    Perhaps he was. Have you seen any statement from Brown to the contrary or are you just taking offense on his behalf because you know best?

    Perhaps the kids were thrilled with helicopter toys. You boys tend to enjoy those things. But don’t let that, or a complete lack of legitimate reports as to the boys’ reactions stop you from insisting that they must have felt slighted.

    Finally decided you can’t keep running with the long-disproved lies about ACORN so you now need a new irrellevant gripe to ride?

  15. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    Jay Tea: As far as newspapers… well, there very well might not be enough to be worth wiretapping soon.

    So a crime isn’t a crime if the victim dies, right?

  16. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    SDM: You boys tend to enjoy those things.

    Young boys tend to enjoy those things.

    Fixed

  17. fafaroo says:
    March 8, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Boy, I bet Brown was thrilled with those DVDs… and the Brown boys must have LOVED those toys straight from the White House Gift Shop.

    Of course, we already know that Brown refused to accept Bush’s gift of a bomber jacket:

    The gift from President George Bush, handed to Mr Brown as they ended get-to-know-you talks at Camp David last July, was a surprise choice given the Prime Minister’s preference for sober suits and ties.

    Downing Street confirmed yesterday that the unexpected present from the most powerful man on earth was gathering dust in a government cupboard.

    Yesterday’s list of ministerial gifts over the past year showed that the jacket, and a leather holdall, had been spurned by Mr Brown and was “held by the department”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-jacket-required-bushs-gift-for-pm-is-gathering-dust-874857.html

  18. Jay Tea says:
    March 8, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Sean, in the newspaper’s case, it would be more analogous to suicide. They’re putting themselves out of business.

    The bomber jackets (usually associated with Air Force One) go back a long, long way. I remember seeing Ronald Reagan wearing one. Clinton was extremely fond of his.

    Besides, they’re remarkably practical — very warm and comfortable. They weren’t invented just for Bush’s visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln, they date back at least to World War II.

    So Brown didn’t care for what has been a traditional gift from US presidents. His loss.

    But back to the original topic… I really appreciate your voice of experience here, Oliver. Others may mock you for your jumping on that Playboy/Santelli story with both feet, but I see it as a valuable learning experience, and will only enhance your credibility in the future.

    Once you get around to admitting that you completely bought into the bullshit, that is.

    J.

  19. fafaroo says:
    March 8, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    So Brown didn’t care for what has been a traditional gift from US presidents. His loss. But back to the original topic…

    Hilarious. Jay Tea, several things here.

    1) We know Brown did not care for the jacket as he didn’t bother to pay for it as required by British law for accepting gifts.

    2) Do you know if Brown and family have similarly rejected Obama’s gifts? Clearly, you don’t. And yet you feel confident enouogh in your ignorance to write sarcastically: “I bet Brown was thrilled with those DVDs… and the Brown boys must have LOVED those toys straight from the White House Gift Shop.”

    3) If Brown was offended or did not like the DVDs or toys, where’s the shrug of the shoulders: “His loss”?

    4) Thanks for the concise history of the bomber jacket, but how does that in anyway support your claim that bomber jackets are “traditional gifts from US presidents.”? Are they, really? How many bomber jackets did Clinton give out?

    5) The original topic is just how easily spun by bullshit stories you morons are. You and Dennis have your panties in a twist over Obama’s insult of Brown but you have no evidence that Brown was actually offended or displeased with the gifts. When confronted with evidence of Brown’s clear rejection of a gift from Bush, you just shrug your shoulders. You guys are hacks through and through.

  20. fafaroo says:
    March 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    Once you get around to admitting that you completely bought into the bullshit, that is.

    Jay Tea, I really don’t know where you get off thinking you have any grounds on which to accuse someone of “buying into bullshit.”

  21. Zython says:
    March 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Obama’s already working on the Constitution with DC representation

    Can you hear it? Jay Tea is fuming, FUMING, that American citizens have congressional representation. How DARE Obama do something like that.

  22. Jay Tea says:
    March 8, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Zython, it’s not the representation that is the issue, it is the violation of the Constitution to achieve it. In the previous discussion, I mentioned two ways to get the same result without violating the Constitution, and endorsed one of them.

    If Obama and the Congressional Democrats come up with a plan that fixes the situation within the framework of the Constitution, then fine and dandy. If they want to trash it on the path to “fairness,” then I intend to oppose it.

    As should anyone with the slightest lick of common sense.

    Oh, yeah… sorry, forgot where I was speaking. Say the right magic words (“fair,” “hope,” “change,” and the like) and common sense goes right out the window.

    J.

  23. Kat says:
    March 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    The Telegraph is regarded as one of the more serious papers in the UK…
    I would expect that type of non-story-story from the Sun or Star, but then again, when you have a blank space to fill and deadlines are tight…

  24. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Jay Tea: Sean, in the newspaper’s case, it would be more analogous to suicide. They’re putting themselves out of business.

    Who said anything about suicide? And what has the means of the demise have to do with anything? I repeat: So a crime isn’t a crime if the victim dies, right?

    It’s tremendously telling that, rather than clarify your point or respond to mine you choose to sidestep to irrelevancy.

  25. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Jay Tea: So Brown didn’t care for what has been a traditional gift from US presidents. His loss.

    But woe to Obama for trying something different. Would you have been happier if Obama gave Brown a bomber jacket? After all, it’s known that Brown doesn’t have one. Or would that have been yet another reason to attack Obama: He didn’t put any thought into the gift.

    Your double standard is flashing in neon, Jay.

  26. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Jay Tea:
    9:09 am Obama’s already working on the Constitution with DC representation
    3:02 pm If Obama and the Congressional Democrats come up with a plan that fixes the situation within the framework of the Constitution, then fine and dandy.

    From Obama’s “already working on” violating the Constitution to “If” his plan does in under 6 hours. So it takes about 6 hours for Jay to move from his knee-jerk “Obama’s out to destroy America” attitude to something much closer to reality.

  27. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 8, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Say the right magic words (”fair,” “hope,” “change, “Obama”” and the like) and common sense goes right out the window.

    There. Fixed that for you.

  28. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    March 9, 2009 at 12:21 am

    “Did Obama grab the PM of Germany by the shoulders and totally freak her out?”

    J.G.Thayer: “No. And since it’s been done, he’ll find something at least as inept to do.
    It’s been less than two months, with about 46 to go. I have faith he’ll find his own way to match — or beat — it.”

    And when you are proven wrong? Of course, in your diseased mind you’ve already been proven right. Facts be damned, you prejudice must be fed!

  29. passerby says:
    March 9, 2009 at 12:49 am

    Since when is kissing limey ass an American value?

    Really, I want to know.

  30. Enlightened Liberal says:
    March 9, 2009 at 8:57 am

    CSS, remember you’re talking about J.G. Thayer, a welfare queen who still thinks that there were WMD’s found in Iraq. Of course he thinks he’s been proven right.

  31. daniel rotter says:
    March 9, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    Grabbing the PM of Germany by the shoulders without her permission (Thayer conveniently forgot to mention that last part) isn’t “Inept,” it’s creepy.