i must say i think COLUMBO is cool.
n69n |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 5:45 pm | #
Church Lady and Fitz!!
anonymous |
02.11.06 - 5:45 pm | #
Fitz pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee
Harry |
02.11.06 - 5:45 pm | #
I just read that, too. What an asshole. After all this time, he still doesn't get it. And he continues to lie about the nature of the comments.
Semblance |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 5:46 pm | #
Must say this again - for Jim's sake.
"My favorite story from this adventure involves one blogger who proudly runs a no-holds-barred blog that relishes name calling. Nonetheless, we invited this blogger to participate in an online discussion about ethics on the Web. During the discussion, this blogger peppered me with many of the same questions that I'd answered in other forums. In one of my responses, I noted the investigative nature of her questions and suggested that when she was done playing Columbo, she might actually discuss the topic we'd invited her to discuss. More than 50 of this blogger's readers later sent e-mails to me demanding a public apology for comparing this blogger to a fictional television detective. One of the complaints about my manners closed by telling me to go do something unprintable with myself "and that Wa:Po rag you ride about town." Uh, thanks."
Wow, uh Jim - sounds like you have the hots and bad for Jane. Too bad that the anticipation of any "invite" from her would most likely kill you.
Delphyne | 02.11.06 - 5:34 pm | #
Delphyne |
02.11.06 - 5:47 pm | #
I heard someone say that they know somebody who may know someone who heard that a few years ago Jim Brady may or may not have been exposed to a vulgarity.
Everythingseemssoneat |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 5:47 pm | #
My friend Jennifer noted that the WaPo still calling their critics barbarians is like the Administration calling anyone who opposes them traitors.
I doubt if Brady's thought it through quite that far, though, the whole tone of his piece is quite limited and hyper-sensitive.
Big baby man.
BWA HA HA HA HA!!!
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 5:49 pm | #
I found amusing his whining about how he had already answered your questions in other fora. He was on his home territory and was being challenged to repeat those rationalizations in a coherent, unified way. Damn few people gave a damn about this kerfuffle and damn fewer followed Brady in all his public manifestations. To ask him to repeat his far-flung answers in one place doesn't sound unreasonable one whit...
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 5:52 pm | #
sounds like jane drew some blood.
aarrgghh |
02.11.06 - 5:53 pm | #
He's jealous that Jane's better at investigation (Ms. Colombo!) than anyone on his staff.
ljt |
02.11.06 - 5:57 pm | #
I'm sure the last of the dinosaurs spent an inordinate amount of time and effort stomping on those pesky little mammals...
Davis X. Machina |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:01 pm | #
hi all, been busy & so haven't had much time to partake of the very fine comraderie in these here parts- but thought you might appreciate this exhortation to public service i bumped into on harvard's website (my son is applying)
In 1929, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then governor of New York, was chief marshal at Commencement and delivered an address that in some ways presaged his presidency. Back in Cambridge for his 25th reunion, Roosevelt told the graduates:
"May I add a personal plea to the Class of 1929. We have long suffered throughout the nation from the disinclination of educated men to take part in public affairs. This has resulted in part from a tendency to sneer at a certain type of so-called politician, and in part from a lack of definitive human interest in questions of government. Too often the tendency is to let government, both local and state and national, take its own course just so long as it does not interfere with the business, convenience, or pleasure of the individual. I do not mean for a moment that taking an interest in public service is a life task or a profession. It is rather an avocation which should be entered into by every man as a part, great or small, of his daily life.
"There is a feeling today, on the part of many of our citizens, that much the easiest way out of our political questions will be to find some popular, able, economically sound Mussolini to act as a complete dictator and administrator for all governmental functions. But it is worthwhile to give passing thought to the earlier days of our history during which our ancestors set up the first successful republican form of representative government. Its creation and subsequent development, on wise lines, was due to the personal, active interest taken by a large proportion of the population, not by the wisdom of an oligarchy or a dictator."
brkily |
02.11.06 - 6:01 pm | #
Jim's graf about the relationship between bloggs and TM was spot on.
But he just repeated all the things that pissed us off.
He's not being honest about the reason for closing comments.
colleen military mom |
02.11.06 - 6:02 pm | #
And I thought I was a church lady for trying to clean up some language and baiting here a couple months ago. What a wimp, Brady.
But it is truly worse than that. Jane, your description of how it was dealing at your end of the interactive process during the Brady session explained a lot. The way he was controlling the posting envitonment and mis-timing your replies. I felt at the time that he had sandbagged you. Reading his comments today, I'm really disappointed that this guy who comes across as fair and modest on TV is nothing more than an insecure, craven, small-minded slimeball.
So Jane got out of the shower feeling clean after compiling the Barbarella Comstock stuff, reads Brady, and feels yucky all over again. Like living too close to a swamp in the south in the late summer before the age of air conditioning.
Edward Teller |
02.11.06 - 6:02 pm | #
"More than 50 readers....one of whom..."
Hey, Jim, it's a bit pointless to complain about the obscene emails you get if THOSE are the only ones you'll READ!
Why is that man so angry and unhinged?
Dave Latchaw |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:03 pm | #
Isn't it amazing how unhinged these people become when pressed to tell the truth... What a fear filled world they live in. My first impulse is to slap them as they lay there and simper.... But it would be much like kickin' a dog that's been kicked to much.
I don't know how to give them a hand up, and not another smack down, I mean other than doing their jobs for them, when they are disabled by their fears..... It is just repulsive to see grown men and women cry when confronted with their failings.
Soulard Blues |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:06 pm | #
colleen military mom -- Great bloggers like Glenn Greenwald are data miners in the tradition of IF Stone. I doubt Brady has any idea of who that is or what that means. His analysis is overly simplistic and, per usual, fails to grasp the obvious.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:07 pm | #
Being compared to Columbo is a compliment.
colleen military mom |
02.11.06 - 6:08 pm | #
"involves one blogger who proudly runs a no-holds-barred blog that relishes name calling"
I must have missed something. I didn't know that O'Reilly and/or Limbaugh had blogs. Or is he referring to the online efforts of the Madam of one of the many DC whorehouses, Planet Lucianne? I am so confused.
-
Valley Girl |
02.11.06 - 6:08 pm | #
You been seeing the stories from John Aravosis on AmericaBlog re: the ease with which someone can get your cellphone records? Wouldn't it be interesting to get Barbara Comstock's?
HiBouncePinko |
02.11.06 - 6:11 pm | #
His *explanation* certainly does not reflect well on someone who (according to him) has spent "10 years in online media".
Maybe it's one year's experience, with a web site, 10 times over ?
But even that strains credulity .. because one year's real experience with recent / current online media should have moved him past his current appreciation / stance.
Jon Husband |
02.11.06 - 6:11 pm | #
it's one thread late, but wanted to say that the Evil Harpie Time article was great, as was all the work behind it.
Jane, may I have my name calling with relish please? And sauerkraut. I love sauerkraut.
jerry |
02.11.06 - 6:14 pm | #
for him complain about getting 50 Emails is most peculiar. I would have thought that in his position he would have been deluged with all sorts of Emails of various topics. If all he got was 50 Emails on this subject of dissing FDL pnline he should count himself blessed!
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:14 pm | #
I get more than 50 emails for viagra and penis enlargement a day. Now that's something to be a WATB about.
gq |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:16 pm | #
You been seeing the stories from John Aravosis on AmericaBlog re: the ease with which someone can get your cellphone records? Wouldn't it be interesting to get Barbara Comstock's?
HiBouncePinko | 02.11.06 - 6:11 pm |
I think somebody volunteered to do just that last night in the late night thread. Can't remember who, though.
Edward Teller |
02.11.06 - 6:16 pm | #
In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans.
and the fuckwad STILL gets it wrong. (I emailed him, btw, and set him straight without saying "fuck" once).
NYBri |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:16 pm | #
NYBri, I wasn't so good. I said the same thing, but concluded with a nice FOAD.
jerry |
02.11.06 - 6:18 pm | #
NYbri,
Sorry, but what is wrong with the formulation he gives? I think it's indisputable now that Abramoff directed his clients to donate to some Dems, at times, although overall he shifted donations to Republicans.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:18 pm | #
Well, we have our Pentagon Papers now, it seems.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:19 pm | #
marky, before abramoff arrived, those tribes were donating almost exclusively to a few dems. after he arrived, they continued donating to those same dems, but much less. They started donating to Republicans much much more.
That's not the usual meaning of the word "directed"
jerry |
02.11.06 - 6:20 pm | #
i hope youve had a chance to listen to brady on the majority report with sam seder, when brady said "i stand by the posts reporting but i wasnt involved in the reporting so i cant vouch for the reporting"
n69n |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:21 pm | #
Jerry,
It starts to look like we are trying to deny facts when we nitpick at this level. I am confident that you can find specific instructions to donate specific amounts to Democrats. What Brady is leaving out is that the Democrats are not implicated in any of Abramoff's crimes, while numerous Republicans are.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:23 pm | #
marky | 02.11.06 - 6:18 pm
To add on jerry's comment, we also have seen no evidence of direction -- no letters, no emails.
Have the tribes said they were directed? I don't recall hearing this, either.
Rayne |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:23 pm | #
EPU'd in last thread, so thought I'd re-post in case anyone wasn't fired up enough:
As if we needed any more reason to abhor the woman, or any more proof of how execrable she is, here is Ms. Comstock's post at NRO's The Corner shortly after Ted Kennedy's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention:
"Kennedy was stumbling over words, saying some words three times before he got it right. His voice was cracking. At one point instead of saying "they fired the shot heard round the world" I think he said "they fired the SHIRT round the world"!!
I think Ted may have been firing up some shots before he gave this speech. He said he had no ill will towards his opponents and invited them to a tea party and pointed out it was right down the road...I think it sounded like he had already been at a party down the road and they weren't serving tea. The speech itself wasn't good even if he could read it without stumbling over the words. Apparently Bob Shrum was otherwise occupied, but it doesn't seem like Teddy even got the B Team to work on this one.
On a proud mother note: Before his speech Wolf Blitzer and others were talking about how Chappaquiddick lost Kennedy his shot at the White House. My son asked, 'Didn't Chappaquiddick lose a woman her life?'"
Rayne,
The facts will speak for themselves, whatever they are, but I would be extremely cautious about the making the strong claim that you and Jerry make.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:25 pm | #
Oh he ticked me off. I read it, and e-mailed Mr. Jim 'fainting couch' Brady, still recovering from his 'mugging', that casting aspersion on bloggers, and himself as some sort of victim is hypocritical, and that I hoped he would move on.
Beth |
02.11.06 - 6:26 pm | #
What does "EPU'd" mean?
gq |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:28 pm | #
The article's most arresting feature is Jim Brady's continued inability to see the journalistic error in Howell's attempted correction. Indeed, he repeats the "clarified" version of Howell's statement:
Howell erred in saying that Abramoff gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans.
"Why are people so angry?" he later asks, but he fails to notice a central piece of the answer: that the statement "Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties," even if factually substantiated, is entirely misleading in the context of Howell's original article or any of the subsequent discussion. In these settings it implies, in a fairly direct way, that Abramoff held influence over lawmakers from both parties, who are all thus implicated in whatever wrongdoing occured. That this would be the baseline assumption, absent specific evidence of relevant criminal actions involving Democrats, is inappropriate at best, and certainly not representative of most of the Post's excellent work on the story. This was the real journalistic error that Howell made in both her article and her subsequent clarification, an error whose effect the Post has aggravated by backing her stance.
Brady follows his question with a statement intended to explain the difficulty of finding an answer. "It was a mistake, it was corrected," he says. Until he understands that this isn't the case, I'm afraid that his misapprehension of the affair will continue.
Adam |
02.11.06 - 6:30 pm | #
Wow. Brady is still whining about the horrible lack of civility of the bloggers. Heres my email to Jim (jimbradyva@aol.com):
Stop Whining And Do Your Job
Please Mr. Brady,
Your post titled "BLOG RAGE" contains nothing but your sarcastic complaints that readers have not been kind enough to you. I know your ego must be bruised by those who call you names, but if you had only done your job as editor, and actually responded to the valid complaints of your readers, the torrent of criticism might slow. Your thinly veiled attacks on Jane Hamser and others are hypocritical when your main argument is that bloggers are "uncivil" and "poison[ing] the debate".
Please do your job. When mistakes are made in your pages (on or offline), correct them quickly and publicly. Be prepared to handle some angry and offensive replies from readers, without using that as an excuse to ignore valid criticisms. After years of being called traitors, terrorists, "on the other side", and worse by right wing partisans who are given months of fawning airtime by the media, there are some on the left who are understandable angry with the direction of the country today.
Please do your job. Report the facts, even when those facts are not as "balanced" as the administration might like. And don't waste any more time whining about bloggers.
-Mike Bell
mike bell |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:32 pm | #
Re: Columbo:
You refer to Brady referring to someone closing his comment re: Mr. Bradys manners toward Jane Hamsher by telling him (Brady) to do something to himself unprintable.
Well, I am ashamed of what I said to Mr. Brady in the FDL comments as I try not to do that sort of thing. My exact words to Mr. Brady were: "So you want to play rude and obnoxious Mr. Brady? Go fuck yourself and that WaPo rag you ride around town". As I said, I am not proud of having said that, but I was incensed. No excuse for my behavior. However, it sure felt GOOD at the time I said it.
Oklahoma kiddo |
02.11.06 - 6:35 pm | #
What does "EPU'd" mean?
Oh, curse you EPU, for starting this. It means that your comment got stranded at the end of the discussion of the last article that was posted. Since Wilson is known and loved for giving the heads up when a new article appears, maybe we should change it to "my last comment was PW (post-Wilson)". Wilson's around a lot more than EPU these days.
-
Valley Girl |
02.11.06 - 6:37 pm | #
apropos Brady saying it was a mistake and it was corrected -- thats sorta like saying slavery was wrong but the US Government ended it. Timing is all! Brady missed the fact that it was -- what? 4 days? -- of festering that caused that wound to putrify and ooze pus and develop gangrene. The stonewalling of WaPo allowed the situation to build up so much pressure. A speedy response by Lil Debbie would have pacified, if not mollified, the foul-mouthed and ravening mob...
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:37 pm | #
I sent him an email suggesting that he obviously still doesn't get "it" and maybe he needs to consult with Froomkin who clearly does. And by the way, parenthood obviously agrees with Froomkin who has been IMOHB "on fire" since he came back.
Lurcher |
02.11.06 - 6:37 pm | #
marky | 02.11.06 - 6:25 pm
That's my point, marky. Show me the facts. I'm not making any claims. I simply have not seen any facts to support what you've repeated.
I've seen plenty of RNC operatives saying what you've said, too -- which makes me suspicious.
I want to see emails and letters and tribal leaders documenting actual direction from Abramoff to donate to Democrats, AND I want to see the illegal activity itself , the quid pro quo vote-for-money on legislation.
Right now I'm not seeing it and until I do I'm going to reject any other claim "tribes were directed by Abramoff to 'buy' Dems" as RNC talking points.
Hell, that's what "Queen of the Damned" Comstock's counting on people believing.
Rayne |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:37 pm | #
what does WATB mean?
Alice Marshall |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:38 pm | #
Jerry,
RonK over at Thenexthurrah has written on this subject, and while there is some debate over his conclusions, he points out that all three of those articles have the same source.
Regardless, you are quibbling over words, and the direction of this debate is not one which will profit the Dems.
I submit that it will be very hard to disprove that Abramoff directed specific amounts of money to specific democrats, to be given by Indians. If you insist strongly that this did not happen and you are wrong, you're screwed.
The correct response is to ask Mr. Brady why he is so focused on showing that Democrats received "Abramoff moneY". Is he suggesting that Democrats are implicated in some of his crimes? Why doesn't Mr. Brady note that the opposite is actually true?
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:39 pm | #
Thanks to the lovely gals who came to my rescue with a definition of "EPU'd"...
gq |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:40 pm | #
I should add to the above that one of the reasons I find this all so puzzling is that I've actually been impresed with almost everything else Brady has done, and I think him a fairly smart man. Which makes his failure to notice the clear implication of the Post's stance on this issue especially baffling.
Adam |
02.11.06 - 6:40 pm | #
Janie,
Brady's whinnin' about the barbarity of the sans culotte blog nation is jest the last gasp of a corrupted and condemned institution...you can either continue to waste time on 'im and his ilk er you can concentrate on providing source material for the new public information system.
Every once and awhile it would be good ta tatoo 'im again on somethin' jest for the comic relief of us unwashed out here but, Janie-girl, you are far too valuable to waste any real quality time on this moron anymore. He has become a parody of himself.
KEEP THE FAITH AND TAKE NO PRISONERS!!!
NorskeFlamethrower |
02.11.06 - 6:41 pm | #
WATB=Whiny Ass Titty Baby
At least as far as I can dicipher.
gq |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:43 pm | #
it was probably the most attention he's gotten in awhile and he wants more of it. it's sooo yesterday. and he brings nothing new to the table, just a rehash of his lame same ol victim side of the story. and of course he doesn't want to link to jane. not after the bogus claim putting blogs in their 'place'
annie |
02.11.06 - 6:43 pm | #
Rayne, I hope you're not accusing me of being a republican operative--again! Once was quite enough, thank you.
Well, I have no problem asking Brady to back up his assertion about the "directed" donations; the WaPoo's reporting has really lacked clarity on this point.
It would be a mistake to insist that he has the point of fact wrong, at this point; moreover, this whole line of inquiry is not going to profit the Dems. Absent any evidence of wrongdoing by the Democrats, what's important is to get the WaPoo to put in print that no Democrats (is that right? wa there someone in Louisiana?) are implicated in Abramoff's crimes.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:44 pm | #
Warning on RNC Defenses
Hello,
If you want a good taste of the RNC non-sense, you can visit this blog: And look at the comments -- Dog is howling up a storm in denial. This is the same non-sense we had with the Iraq WMD.
This is an alert to keep focused on the issue: They're willing to assert that your lawful solutions and desire to debate will be stated the opposite way -- that somehow "you" have the problem; calling you crazy; but doing the same as they did with the Iraq WMD issue: Avoiding the problem they have, and not discussing the issue.
Then here is the issue to watch out for -- look at this comment: [ Says the "Dog" 10:56 PM ]
Then look at the responses: Look for this key word = [ In re: Says the "Dog" 10:56 PM ] and the following.
The point is: You must be prepared to throw it back in the RNC's face -- they're avoiding the issue of the Constitution and trying to make it "something else."
As a reminder, recall what was done in 2003 over the Iraq WMD issue: The same thing. If you have time, review the following comments, and you'll see the similarity to what is going on today:
Keep on them! Their only option is to use non-sense -- a good sign they are falling apart. Don't let what happen over Iraq WMD -- happen again in 2006: Force the RNC to answer the questions and throw it back on them. They have the burden of proof to justify why anyone should believe them.
Constant |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:45 pm | #
marky | 02.11.06 - 6:39 pm
The direct question is this: where's Brady's evidence?
Without evidence, he's defaming -- nay, LIBELING -- the tribes who were screwed by Abramoff and Dems who were natural representatives of tribes' interests.
And he doesn't get it. He simply thinks we're supposed to take him at his word.
How incredibly stupid Brady is. Cripes, I wouldn't trust him with chemicals around my pool...
Rayne |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:47 pm | #
I asked something about this at the end of the last thread -- about whether there is a Snopes-like site for liberals -- would that be dKosopedia which someone else mentioned??
AJ |
02.11.06 - 6:48 pm | #
WATB = Whinging About The Blogosphere
Bob Adams |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:49 pm | #
Rayne,
They do have evidence. I agree, it should be presented more coherently so that the readers can judge it.
Actually I say, go with the flow: for example, all the articles about Reid and Abramoff should have the effect of clearing his name, if the reporting is thorough (yeah, big if).
Specifically, we should trumpet that Reid was for raising the minimum wage in the Mariannas, and despite extensive contacts from Abramoff's office, representing clients who were against this law, he voted for it.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:50 pm | #
Re WATB, I guess I misinterpreted Atrios on that one. So it goes.
OT (off topic, right?)--would it be inappropriate to drown out the neighbors loud obnoxious music with really loud Metallica?
gq |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:51 pm | #
gq - I was being snarky. I think you got it right.
Bob Adams |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:53 pm | #
Rayne and Jerry,
Suppose you make a big fuss about Brady not proving that Abramoff directed contributions to Democrats. Suppose he can show this in a limited number of cases. In that event, he will present the evidence with great fluorish, and the upshot will be to make Democrats look bad.
I don't know the facts, but I really don't think this is a winning battle. It's much more important to ask for more reporting on Abramoff's actual crimes.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:53 pm | #
marky: Congressman William Jefferson of New Orleans may be involved in an illegality of his own but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Abramoff. Now you see how good propaganda works: you somehow got the impression that a Democrat was involved with the ultra-Republican Abramoff. Bush and Cheney never stated that Saddam did 9/11 but at one time half of all Americans assumed he did and thus worthy of revenge.
Evil-doers like Barbara Comstock are very skillful in powers of misdirection...
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 6:53 pm | #
Wilson,
The reason I thought there was a connection is because there was quite a bit of Abramoff fraud in Louisiana. Thanks for the clarification though.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:55 pm | #
Given the current absurdity levels, there's a serious possibility the reason these guys are such whores for the administration is that they're being blackmailed with crap from their personal lives.
"Why are they so angry?" |
02.11.06 - 6:56 pm | #
marky, I don't think you're an operative. I think you're a jerk.
Instead of keeping your links to yourself, try posting them next time. Try posting them as a response to the first claim someone makes that you think has since been corrected.
As in "if you are referring to the American Prospect Study, that seems to have had some problems with it that can be read over here."
We all have lots of things to do with our lives.
In actuality you posted no links just played this little game of "tsk tsk."
This is repetition, but I think there should be more attention given to Howell's citing the Hudson Institute. That was very objectionable, journalistically speaking.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:57 pm | #
Jerry,
You can imagine my seven letter response in your mind.
It's two words.
I'll save any other responses for people who have more critical thinking skills.
marky |
02.11.06 - 6:59 pm | #
gq | Homepage | 02.11.06 - 6:51 pm
Re WATB, I guess I misinterpreted Atrios on that one. So it goes.
hmmm... no, I don't think you misterpreted. The only def. I've seen is the one you gave. Not Bob Adams' more polite version. But then I'm warped into a "no-holds-barred blog that relishes name calling".
-
Valley Girl |
02.11.06 - 7:00 pm | #
Rayne,
I've brought up the defamation issue here and elsewhere before. You're right, Brady did it again. That's one of the cool things in the LA Times article today. They sought applicable quotes from Native American VICTIMS of Blackjack, and used the statements contextually and professionally.
VICTIMS, not CLIENTS.
Edward Teller |
02.11.06 - 7:01 pm | #
Good point, Edward, especially since in some cases, Abramoff was chosen as a lobbyist after rigged elections. How can you call the Indians "clients" in those cases?
marky |
02.11.06 - 7:03 pm | #
jerry, marky,
LIGHTEN UP, you're getting all Bradyed up....
Edward Teller |
02.11.06 - 7:03 pm | #
New thread!
Kurt |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 7:04 pm | #
"Why are people so angry?" he later asks, but he fails to notice a central piece of the answer: that the statement "Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties," even if factually substantiated, is entirely misleading in the context of Howell's original article or any of the subsequent discussion. In these settings it implies, in a fairly direct way, that Abramoff held influence over lawmakers from both parties, who are all thus implicated in whatever wrongdoing occured. That this would be the baseline assumption, absent specific evidence of relevant criminal actions involving Democrats, is inappropriate at best, and certainly not representative of most of the Post's excellent work on the story.
Adam
___________________________
What Adam said. Darn those baseline assumptions absent specific evidence anyway...
Surfer |
02.11.06 - 7:04 pm | #
speaking of evildoers: there's a new thread about Ms.Comstock !
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 7:05 pm | #
There was a day when the WaPo hired good investigative reporters (Columbo's), rather than complaining that they exist outside the WaPo and sometimes turn their skills to examining the WaPo's work products.
Be proud, Jane. He can't let it go, can he? Not until the unwashed masses bow down to His Grace.
Prof |
02.11.06 - 7:06 pm | #
I agree, Siun.
Adam says it the best. Jane ought to hightlight that.
marky |
02.11.06 - 7:06 pm | #
Return to sender.....
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: Blog Rage
Sent: 2/11/2006 9:38 PM
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
'jimbradyva@aol.com' on 2/11/2006 9:38 PM
473 jimbradyva@aol.com relaying prohibited. You should authenticate first
Larry |
02.11.06 - 7:07 pm | #
Marky's lookin' for props, and FDLers aren't giving. BTW, what is the origin of "props"?
anon |
02.11.06 - 7:08 pm | #
marky,
were't you the one that came here claiming Howell was bought and paid for? and that you so accused her? without any evidence?
At the end of the article Jim Brady complains that he is criticized by bloggers who don't know him. But we do know him, isn't he that asshole that works for the publication that allows the Bush Administration to get away with suggesting that they represent freedom and democracy even though the crushed democracy to seize power? Doesn't he work for the news organization that seems to believe the suggestion that Bush is strong on National Security even though they orchestated 9/11?
Everythingseemssoneat |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 7:15 pm | #
Jeebus -- what is in the air that is making everyone get snarky with each other today? Was there some sort of weirdness that crept in with the snowstorm we're dealing with on the east coast, or what?
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 7:17 pm | #
Brady fails to address the context: that the narrative in the Post about Democrats has been set by Republican operatives and that Howell's "mistake" is an extension of that.
We're no longer allowing that game to be played.
That's the story, not "blogs."
Slothrop |
02.11.06 - 7:21 pm | #
Maybe everyone has been sniffing pot.
Everythingseemssoneat |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 7:21 pm | #
Early example
Lyrics from "Respect"
I'm about to give you all of my money
And all I'm askin' in return, honey
Is to give me my propers [props]
When you get home (just a, just a, just a, just a)
Yeah baby (just a, just a, just a, just a)
When you get home (just a little bit)
Yeah (just a little bit)
DM |
02.11.06 - 7:29 pm | #
Redd -- sorry, really do think it's cabin fever. Cooped up too long and no Fitz.
Also dealing with unresolved issue in this thread.
Edward Teller -- thanks, been digging so long in the Comstock muck that I haven't checked out that LAT article.
What really steams my shorts, as a person of indigenous heritage, is the subtle way that the half-assed aspersions about tribal monies being directed by Abramoff makes it sound like Native Americans are bad guys. One more poke at the non-white peoples, insinuating they are too stupid to manage their monies.
The real potential crime that nobody is willing to tackle is that 150 BILLION in tribal monies went walking -- and the tribes had no way of preventing it. The RNC talking points on the Abramoff story are merely a way to minimize and disenfranchise the Native Americans even further, so that the majority white population is disinterested in and disregards the massive theft.
You bet I'm concerned about getting at the truth, at making it crystal clear in the media exactly what the tribes roles were as victims in the Abramoff scandal. Brady is aiding and abetting this if he doesn't "get it" and fails to set the record straight promptly.
Rayne |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 7:33 pm | #
I sent him an e-mail, noting that I don't know him but yeah, Ido think he is an idiot because he again, again, stupidly, cited the falsehood that Mr. Abrahamoff directed money to "both parties" when the facts show donations from his clients to dems DECLINED. Repeats the same falsehood, stupid stupid stupid, yeah, I don't know HIM, but I know from his writing that he is an IDIOT..
Daver9 |
02.11.06 - 7:37 pm | #
"In her Jan. 15 column, Howell erred in saying that Abramoff gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans."
Thus Brady: two clear, unequivocal sentences in a rather frantic rant, several thousand words long. Has either he, or Howell, hitherto stated the problem as forthrightly as these two sentences do? If so, I must have missed it; but if not...well, to judge from the tenor of Brady's rant, these sentences can't have been easy to publish--because editors hate to admit that they, or their writers, "err".... Which is strange, since everyone errs.
alabama |
02.11.06 - 7:41 pm | #
DM | 02.11.06 - 7:29 pm
Thanks so much for the info about "props". Much appreciated.
anon |
02.11.06 - 7:43 pm | #
"wanker of the day" what a tool.
rusty |
02.11.06 - 7:52 pm | #
Is snarkiness or suspicion the reason why I can't get an answer to my question about a Snopes for Liberals? Not that it matters that much I suppose.
But at some liberal blogs it does seem like a new poster is considered a troll until proven otherwise. Only it is hard to prove a negative.
Everyone fights for the good guys in different ways -- in addition to writing and calling my congressmen and writing LTEs, I take on the political misconceptions and GOP spin I find at non-political message boards.
I don't respond to the trolls -- only to the true believers who watch Fox News and vote against their own economic and social interests. I communicate with them respectfully (although I have been kicked off the Washington Post boards for hammering a troll) and try to get them to question their sources and the spin.
You would be surprised how often debunking just one of their go-to sources causes them to listen to you on other subjects. And everyone of them has a circle they communicate with ... it's just one approach to winning back Middle America.
Which is the long way of saying -- I had a reason for asking.
Speaking of Middle America, the New Yorker has an excellent profile on Bush's top speechwriter in the current issue. Turns out his top five favorite presidents (after Bush) are all Democrats (FDR, HST, Carter, JFK and Woodrow Wilson). So why is he a Republican? It's an excellent article.
AJ |
02.11.06 - 7:53 pm | #
A repost from below, for the record. Hi, Jim!
Shorter Jim Brady:
We don't always suck, so it's unfair when you only point out when we do. We should get credit for doing half our job.
Name calling hurts me. Waaah. But I can tell stories about it to my friends, like a carrier of the White Man's Burden regaling his friends of my adventures among the African bushmen.
I assert that the comments on our site were unbelievably uncouth, and refuse to produce any verifiable evidence of my assertions to any third parties. No matter what evidence you may think you may have to show that I am full of shit, I get to be my own fact witness. I believe in accountability, but not when it may interfere with a useful slander.
Pachacutec | 02.11.06 - 5:51 pm | #
Pachacutec |
02.11.06 - 8:00 pm | #
Hey Brady -- want to get back on our good side?Then it's time you learned to do this number from Anyone Can Whistle (It's just so you):
"MAYORESS CORA HOOVER HOOPER:
Everyone hates me-yes, yes-
Being the Mayoress, yes.
All of the peasants
Throw rocks in my presence,
Which causes me nervous distress, yes.
OOOH, OOOOOOOOOH, OOOH, OOH, OOOOOOOOOH.
Me and my town, battered about,
Everyone in it would like to get out.
But me and my town,
We just wanna be loved!
Stores are for rent, theatres are dark,
Grass on the sidewalks, but not in the park,
Me and my town,
We just wanna be loved!
The people are starving,
So they sleep the day through.
My poor little people,
What can they do?
TOWNSPEOPLE:
Boo!
CORA:
Who asked you?
Come on the train, come on the bus,
Somebody please buy a ticket to us.
Hurry on down-
We need a little renown.
Love me,
Love my
Town!
OOOHHHH OOOOOHHHHH OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!
BOYS:
Hi there, Cora. What's new?
CORA:
The bank went bust and I'm feeling blue.
BOYS:
And who took over the bankruptcy?
CORA:
Me, boys, me!
BOYS:
Si, si!
CORA:
Me, boys, me!
BOYS:
Tell us, Cora, how you are.
CORA:
I just got back from the reservoir.
BOYS:
And what's the state of the water supply?
CORA:
Dry, boys, dry!
BOYS:
My, my!
CORA:
Dry, boys, dry!
BOYS:
Ay, ay!
CORA:
A lady has responsibilities...
BOYS:
Responsibilities...
CORA:
And civic pride!
BOYS:
Civic pride!
CORA:
Well, I look around and what do I see? I see no crops.
BOYS:
No crops.
CORA:
I see no business.
BOYS:
No business
CORA:
To the North, to the South,
Only hoof-and-mouth!
BOYS:
To the East, to the West,
No community chest
CORA:
I see a terrible depression all over the town-
BOYS:
Oh, a terrible depression,
Yes, a terrible depression.
CORA:
What a terrible depression
And I'm so depressed
I can hardly talk on the phone.
I feel all alone.
CORA AND BOYS:
But a lady has responsibilities-
BOYS:
Responsibilities-
CORA:
To all my poor! Starving! Cold! Miserable!
Dirty! Dreary! Depressing! Peasants!
ALL:
Peasants! Ick!
CORA:
A lady has responsibilities-
BOYS:
Responsibilities-
CORA:
To try to be
Popular with the populace.
BOYS:
She's unpopular with the populace!
ALL:
Unpopular with the populace,
Unpopular with the populace,
Unpopular with the populace...
CORA:
Everyone here hates me at length,
Probably lynch me if they had the strength.
But me and my town,
Me and my town,
We just wanna be loved!
BOYS:
We just want to be loved!
We just want to be loved!
CORA:
Just loved!
BOYS:
A friendship is lovely
And a courtship sublime,
But give her a township-
CORA:
Township!
Every time!
ALL:
What'll we do, me and my town?
Gotta do something or we're gonna drown!
Give me my coat,
Give me my crown,
Gimme, gimme your vote
And hurry on down!
CORA:
Show how much you think
BOYS:
Yeah!
CORA:
Of me!
ALL:
Love me,
Love my
Town!"
David Ehrenstein |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 8:03 pm | #
It's notable that he still doesn't allow comments on his own blog, which renders his arguments redundant.
jurassicpork |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 8:05 pm | #
Angry is the New Shrill:
Jim Brady Joins the circled wagons
by Stirling Newberry
Brady refers to Howell's "inadvertant error", then goes on to repeat RNC talking points.
He claims to have "10 years spent in online media", yet his feathers get ruffled when he's insulted by random people. It's as if he's never seen a message board, blog comments, or a usenet forum in his life.
Re: the rest of his rant - Wanker of the YEAR.
VictorLaszlo |
02.11.06 - 8:51 pm | #
...and of course there's the fact that the entire rant dovetails nicely with the "Angry Left" meme the Fascists have focus-grouped and subsequently launched.
VictorLaszlo |
02.11.06 - 8:57 pm | #
"But what do I know? I'm an idiot."
After this last one? Yeah. Without a doubt.
hello |
02.11.06 - 9:00 pm | #
Angry is the New Shrill:
Jim Brady Joins the circled wagons
by Stirling Newberry
Great post here! A small quote:
"We see here the basic problem: the commercial interests of the Washington Post for access are in clear conflict with their readers need for information. The Washington Post hires people who are both ethically blind, and malicious, who prove that they use their authority to censor and then procede to engage in defamation of those they have censored."
mikeb |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 9:09 pm | #
John offers to give Brady free advice on using the internet:
[The following is the text of an email I just sent to Jim Brady at the Post, with copies to Howell, Milbank, Pincus, Dionne, and a NYTimes editorial board member named Taubman. Enjoy.]
_____________________
Ten years in the online biz and yet you publicly self-gratify yourself by dumping on someone else. Why? Trouble with impulse control? Could it have been so you can:
1) Feel right subjectively when you're really objectively wrong?
2) Create a smokescreen of victimhood to cover your and Howell's innocent but damaging mistakes?
3) Downplay Howell's Abramoff mistake when the truth is that such lazy indifferences to fact and accurate analysis truly characterize your paper's (with certain reportorial exceptions) unerring complicity in Bush's invasion of the Arabic oil and gas regions?
4) Reinforce your own illusions about journalistic neutrality and decency?
Ten years from now, will you still be trashing someone else in public while not giving them space to respond also in public? Oh, is that why you didn't give Jane's name or website, so you wouldn't be obligated to give equal time, so that your readers wouldn't get to see how superficial and deceitfully omissive your arguments are? How brave and ennobled you are. What class! What professional standards, with exemplary and unchallengable ethics! Bravo and huzzah!
Now, have I been obscene too? Pithy and disdaining, to be sure, but no moreso than you in your own published column. Hmm, maybe you're more about calling the kettle black than either of us might have realized, sir. I probably am also but can admit it to myself. And you?
(In case you wonder, you do not have my permission to publish my name or email address.)
Larry Aaron Piltz
News Nag |
02.11.06 - 9:15 pm | #
isn't there someone else at the WAPO that might find Brady's handling of this curiously absurd not to mention Howell. Is he baiting and why, does he miss us?
ppp |
02.11.06 - 9:17 pm | #
WTF, everyone else is weighing in on this, why not me?
Btwe, I'm emailing this to Keller and I don't care if people say that I'm falling into his trap by using four letter words. This will have to be sent in a private email, so I won't be able to publicly embarrass him (except within the confines of my humble blog).
jurassicpork |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 9:19 pm | #
Mr. Brady will get a slightly edited version of the text below under my own name:
If this WaPo-blog flap is ever important enough to document for history, I think Mr. Jim Brady is going to look very bad. The fact is that the outright error stated by Ms. Howell stood completely uncorrected for four days, and the last I heard, there was still no correction attached to the piece, as good journalist practice indicates. I just checked and it still appears to be uncorrected (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400859_pf.html). Some one tell me if I am looking in the wrong place, or if a correction to the original piece exists. If this were a BLOG, I would expect to see a correction there with the original repot. Why cannot this supposedly much more distinguished organization with so much more integrity do as much?
Mr. Brady did not explain anything or answer any quesions that addressed the complaints before the "blogger manners" panel. I read some of Mr. Brady’s statements on other blogs, and unfortunately they were mixed with a great deal of misrepresentation, a repetition of the error Ms. Howell initially committed, and what I believe to be outright lies. So if Ms. Hamsher didn’t strictly adhere to a discussion of blog etiquette at the “blog manners” meeting, I can certainly understand why she would not. He said very disputable and provocative things publicly between the time he organized it and it took place. Mr. Brady’s behavior is like some one who wants to schedule a discussion of manners after a bitter argument with some one, then slanders them behind their back and then blames them for not sticking to a discussion of etiquette afterwards. Does it not occur to him that it might appear to be acting in outrageous bad faith to now complain that everyone did not strictly adhere to the narrow little agenda.
Mr. Jim Brady misrepresents the posts of the bloggers who analyzed his claims regarding the removal of supposedly unacceptable comments. The ones I read did not claim to have every comment or message, they did do an analysis of the ones avaialable that showed the Mr. Jim Brady’s account was very unlikely. They also displayed several comments that were not unacceptable in any way, except that they contained criticisms and questions of the Washington Post that apparently could not be answered. Mr Brady has not answered any of those charges, to my knowledge.
Mr. Jim Brady’s statement that his paper “broke” certain stories is neither here nor there. No paper can retain credibility after ignoring major investigations by the US Dept. of Justice. The paper had to report that news. Progaganda requires credibility be retained.
I had thought well of Mr Brady until the Froomkin flap, because I thought the WaPo blog was more balanced and more accurate than in the paper, and knew he was the one in charge. But now after his latest pathetic screed I am forced to conclude that he acted in bad faith with his little "blogger ethics" panel stunt (and in several other ways as well), that he has lied repeatedly, and that he is (either knowingly or not) a corrupt journalist. That is my firm opinion, but it does not make me happy.
I note with much dismay the irrelevant personalization in his complaint that people are judging him who have not met him. Well, so what? I am not judging him as a neighbor, or a family man, or a bridge partner, or how well he treats his pets or kids, any such thing. I don't care how he votes. I don't care whether he hates Bush or loves Bush. I am judging him as a journalist, and right now, my judgment is that he a very bad one and a corrupt one. Sorry, but my opinion is that Mr. Brady has acted in bad faith and has told lies that he has yet to fess up to, and has not yet taken action necessary to restore the credibility of his news organization.
anon_1 |
02.11.06 - 9:20 pm | #
I was embarrassed for Brady when I read that unprofessional rant.
He has ruined any remaining credibility he had (which didn't amount to much after the rude and dishonest way he treated Jane).
I stopped reading the Post six months ago and sadly won't start again as long as people like Howell and Brady are associated with it. Which makes me very sad because I was a subscriber for 20 years when I lived in the DC area.
It used to be a great paper.
dab |
02.11.06 - 9:29 pm | #
I think it's great that Brady can't let this go. Clearly Jane is under his skin and he is trying to draw her out. It's also very clear why he is so upset -- he was embarrassed in front of his friends. An emotional adversary is always the easiest fuck with. Have fun Jane!
MochaDem |
02.11.06 - 9:46 pm | #
Brady is still playing games.
He has the time to write 1,800 words that tell us essentially nothing new (except perhaps that he's no longer willing to throw around the term "hate speech"). He also has the time to cruise blogs and catalog various names he's been called. What a shame that he doesn't have the time to even pretend to respond to the questions I asked him more than two weeks ago (in my diary which Jane was kind enough to cite in her article at the top of this thread). The questions are fair and relevant. I documented those questions in excruciating detail. Brady seems to be determined to continue to duck those questions.
Here are some of the key questions, in a nutshell:
1) You claim you couldn't keep up with the flow of new messages. Then why not simply turn off the ability to post new messsages? You went much further than that; you removed 100% of the messages that had already been submitted and accepted, even days earlier. Why?
2) I proved that you selectively suppressed messages based on politics, not profanity. Why did you do so?
3) You have stated that you would restore messages that met WaPo standards. Yet many messages remain unrestored, even now, for no apparent reason, other than their political content. Why have you failed to make good on your commitment?
4) You still offer this assertion (in an attempt to dismiss some of the proof that's been presented): "such a page is merely a snapshot in time and would not have displayed comments that we had removed." This is baloney. You have claimed there were a high number of highly offensive messages. You have claimed they were arriving so quickly that you were overwhelmed, and couldn't delete them quickly enough. But 100% of the messages that so offended your human moderators were visible to the world, on your blog, for some non-trivial interval. Therefore at least a few of these messages would have inevitably been captured in one or more of the various archives that I've cited. However, this didn't happen, which tends to create the impression that your explanation is bogus. I have explained this in detail elsewhere. Why are you repeating the same nonsense, weeks after it's been proven to be nonsense?
5) You could put this whole matter to rest very easily by finding a way to simply release, for inspection, these hundreds and hundreds of offensive messages you have described. Why do you fail to even acknowledge that you've been asked to do so?
(Apologies for some cross-posting.)
jukeboxgrad |
02.11.06 - 9:50 pm | #
Jukebox:
Without mentioning you and your fine Kos entry (this time; I'd mentioned it in my third-to-last Assclowns of the Week), I'd alluded in my last post about Brady and his latest hissy fit to the 420 missing comments that still, as yet, remain MIA (and always will, I fear).
jurassicpork |
Homepage |
02.11.06 - 9:55 pm | #
thanks, jukeboxgrad
"Why are you repeating the same nonsense, weeks after it's been proven to be nonsense?"
My only disagreement with your comment is that I do not think Mr. Brady is repeating nonsense. I believe that he is engaged in a public disinformation campaign, is deliberately misrepresenting your analysis, and I think he is lying again.
There are items in your analysis that are quite plain and simple and easy to understand. Mr. Brady claims that only messages that contained profanity or presonal attacks were removed. You showed one permanently deleted message that contained neither, but was prefoessionally embarrassing to his blog. Mr. Brady has never responded to your charges, has not restored the message. And now he misrepresents your analysis. I reluctantly conclude that he is lying.
You explicitly explained what you were doing, and explicitly said that you did not every have, and did not claim to have every message that was sent. Now Mr. Brady asserts that you did say that. I read your analysis with my own eyes, and I know what you said. So, I relucantly conclude that Mr. Brady is lying.
I also reluctantly conclude that Mr. Brady knowingly acts in bad faith. Note that he carefully avoids naming any names. I conclude that he is doing this in order to preserve plausible deniability. Everyone knows that Jane Hamsher was the blogger who participated in his panel. Everyone knows that your analysis of the posts at DailyKos is by far the most widely known and influential. If he had named the obvious names, it could be quickly discovered that many of his assertions are not true.
As I said above, I had admired the fellow because I thought his blog was doing a better job than the Washington Post in many respects. Now I honestly think he is a corrupt journalist. Too bad, but that that is all that I can conclude until he is more responsive to his critics.
anon_1 |
02.11.06 - 10:21 pm | #
"he is a corrupt journalist"
I'm inclined to agree with you.
By the way, you might be interested in this exchange I had with Jay Rosen, a couple of weeks ago. I said this: "it would be enormously helpful (and I think I'm not alone in feeling this way) if you could offer some explanation for why you're inclined to look away from the gaping holes in the story Brady has told."
Jay responded: "Good questions. Can't answer them now. I am working on a new post. But I'll think about it: why am I defending Jim Brady? Just because I think he's a good guy? No, it's a lot more than that. So I'll have to get back to you on it."
jukeboxgrad: I am looking forward to it as well. Please post it at Daily Kos when it comes in.
If Brady ever really responds to any specific charges at all I hope you post that too.
Those folks must have not known about how the internet works for them to have been caught so red handed in their bad faith.
I think his latest piece is an attempt to have last say, try to make appearance that things have wrapped up in his favor. Something his allies can link to and say "see" he was right all along.
I don't think it will wash for anyone who does even minimal research on episode.
thanks again for your research, it was invaluable.
anon_1 |
02.11.06 - 11:04 pm | #
Just sent this to the whiny Mr. Brady
Dear Mr. Brady,
As a newspaperman, I'm sure that you've heard as much cursing and invective in the newsroom or in the bars, as you recently heard from your internet readers concerning the maladroit Ms. Howell. People were angry, and I think justifiably so, for her attempts to make the Abramoff-Republican scandal somehow bipartisan.
Bristling defensively, rationalizing away the blatant falsehoods propagated by Ms. Howell, and then shutting down a website because a few people have uncivilly cursed her is a rather jejune response to criticism, don't you think? Besides, most of the criticism seems to me to be valid, even if some of it was "inartfully worded" -- as Howie Kurtz described Ms. Howell's reporting.
Now, you continue to misconstrue the truth, while admitting that Ms. Howell erred (although you say it was "inadvertent"). It may have been careless on her part, but why then didn't she immediately admit her mistake and apologize? Deborah Howell printed blatant falsehoods in your paper. Ms. Howell wrote: "[Abramoff] had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." This is not poor wording, it's a lie. Jack Abramoff never gave one red cent to Democrats or to the Democratic Party.
To pretend, to insinuate, to print anything contrary to that true fact is to fabricate, to prevaricate, and to do steno-spin for the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.
And yet you continue repeating the canard that "In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties." What is your proof of that? How do you know for a fact that Abramoff "directed" the tribes to give to Democrats when I believe that the factually proper statement is that the Indian tribes, after contact and association with Abramoff, actually REDUCED their contributions to Democrats. So, in reality, Abramoff was busy directing money away from Democrats and toward Republicans.
Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a nonpartisan firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets, did an extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Abramoff's tribal clients. Their analysis shows that:
• In total, the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients to Democrats dropped by 9 percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up.
• Five out of seven of Abramoff's tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones.
• Four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on.
• Abramoff's clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP.
Jack Abramoff is only the tip of the iceberg of purely Republican scandal and corruption. There's nothing bipartisan about this one. Or about DeLay's. Or Libby's. Or Rove's. Or Cheney's. Or, dare I say, Bush's. The chickenhawks coming home to roost are all Republicans.
If you would, please have your crackerjack investigative reporters look into this. And then, if I'm right, please print an apology to me and all of your readers in a prominent place on your website.
Well. Credibility is the key here, and we can say with some certainty that Howell has none, and neither does the ombudsman position at the WaPo so long as she is there. She lost that credibility for herself and for her position by publishing lies about Abramoff campaign contributions and refusing to correct them in a forthright and timely manner. Once lost, that credibility cannot be restored to the paper until she is gone. It's that simple.
Howell was supported in her lies and errors by many of the big wigs at the WaPo, including Howard Kurtz and James Brady, both of whom -- but Kurtz in particular -- provided cover for her lies and for her failure to correct those lies, and provided her with the statement "she should have said," which she parroted almost word for word in her later "clarification" and much later "correction." This shows that the credibility problem at the WaPo is systemic, it's not simply a matter of the inartfulness of one employee but is a problem of the institution itself. This credibility problem at the WaPo is mirrored throughout the big media in this country, all of whom, to a greater or lesser degree, are guilty of sloppy reporting (some of which has contributed to massive death and destruction), failure to correct errors in a timely and forthright fashion, and denial of doing anything wrong. It's not just the Washington Post. It's everywhere, constantly in the big media, and it's not just newspapers, it's in every form of media available in this country.
The recognition of this institutional failure is pretty general these days. Does anyone really believe anything they read or see on teevee or hear on the radio? Well, some do, yes, but it is a diminishing number over time. We've been in this situation before, during the Gilded Age, when newspapers were mostly unreliable, and sloppy, sensationalist reporting (accountable only to corporate boardrooms) was leading the country into wars of conquest and empire.
The corrective didn't come easily.
When institutions are so thoroughly decadent and corrupt as the mass media institutions in our country are today, the obligation to replace them becomes critical. This medium (the blogosphere) is not a realistic replacement for major mass media -- it's nature is antithetical to mass media.
But soon enough Howell and Brady and Downie and Keller and so forth will be irrelevant to the issues at hand. They have undermined their own credibility -- and they continue to do so.
Without that, they have nothing.
Ché Pasa |
02.12.06 - 7:07 am | #
A C&L commenter has posted an email they got from Brady. I point out that the email is simply more of the typical Brady nonsense.
If that sounds interesting, start here and scroll down.
jukeboxgrad |
02.12.06 - 7:47 am | #
Folks,
Almost all of Brady’s latest missive is recycled trash. He is embarrassing himself and shows that he still does not understand the basic facts underlining the credibility problem he and Deborah Howell engineered.
However, the biggest load of crap in his latest “[Wh]ien Kampf” is Brady’s tacit, but bold, admission that he has completely divorced himself from reality:
Brady writes -- “Either way, they're [blogs and commercial media] connected. They co-exist like this: The media writes articles or files reports, then blogs use them as starting points for discussions.” -- HELLO!
So Brady alleges that the Post is a cutting edge, to the fore, primary source originator of ideas while the journalism that occurs on blogs is, in fact, only a secondary reaction to that oh-so-good journalistic first-responder toiling at the WAPO. In Brady’s world, big media comPOST is the great end-all organic news and information achievement, while the fruits and grains growing above the compost are, to him, merely ancillary and secondary detritus. It’s bad enough Brady cluelessly believes that his regurgitated information tail is actually wagging a journalistic dog. Worse, however, he doesn’t even realize the difference between the primary informational nourishment on which the dog feeds (e.g. BLOGS), versus the processed information (with all its nutrients sucked out) which the dog eventually shits into the gutter (e.g. self-serving Post columns blithely reiterating yesterday’s conventional wisdom and today RNC talking points).
Just add “delusional” to the list of Brady’s qualities. This is his contribution to the WAPO’s hapless attempts to bring value to any journalistic or news discussion of merit.
Caoimhin Laochdha |
02.12.06 - 10:01 am | #
Jane, Have you written to the Post demanding a right to reply in the Op Ed section? If not it might be amusing to raise some money to place an ad, maybe in the NY Times
Eli Rabett |
Homepage |
02.12.06 - 3:06 pm | #
Dear Mr. Brady;
"Howell's inadvertent error ..." Ms. Howell merely repeated an RNC talking point (that the Abramoff affair is a bipartisan affair). It was not inadvertent, it was negligent. Good journalists don't rip-and-read. You're spinning, which has been a hallmark of this whole affair.
"To my dismay, matters only got worse on Jan. 19 after Howell posted a clarification on washingtonpost.com." The reason people remained upset was that it was a half-clarification. You're implying that she made the whole mistake good, which she did not. More spinning.
You claim you shut down comments because of all the nasty (obscene?) posts. When are we going to see them, in some protected niche that kiddies can't get into of course? When others claim they have seen all the posts and they are not as you describe, you're not going to get away with a 'trust me' defence.
You complain about Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake, whom you called 'Columbo' because she wouldn't stop asking questions you had ".. answered in other forums." You also say that you have been called 'gutless'. Perhaps I can tie the two issues together for you. You did not answer her questions in *that* discussion (the ethics round table); in fact, you controlled the whole debate and did not allow some of her answers to others' aggresive questions to appear (I have read the entire transcript). You have, it seems, refused to engage in a one-on-one discussion with her that you do not control. Now far be it from me to call someone I don't know a gutless coward, but let's just say you don't remind me of Robert the Bruce either.
In short, mainstream media is in a fight for its life. You seem to be more interested in doing CYA for Ms. Howell, and being snide about a medium that is growing like Topsy while yours shrinks like a cheap shirt. You're behaving as if you're really close to being vested in a rewarding pension plan, not as if you were a journalist.
Argonaut |
02.12.06 - 3:50 pm | #
