Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

You cannot shame the shameless.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

Also, are you sure you want people to rate your comments?

This chaos was totally avoidable.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Everybody saw this coming.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

You are here: Home / This Is A Scandal?

This Is A Scandal?

by | 10 Comments

This post is in: 

This piece in the Opinion Journal is the dumbest non-scandal ‘scandal’ I have EVER heard about:

In an article on Howard Dean’s fund-raising, The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress, offers the interesting revelation that as part of his effort “to maximize his online fundraising punch,” Dean has been “paying ‘bloggers’ or professional Internet surfers to keep the enthusiasm up on his website.”

We’re all for free enterprise, but this does point up an advantage of “old media” over bloggers. Professional journalists may have their biases, but those of us who work for big-media outfits are bound by codes of ethics under which taking money in exchange for favorable coverage would be a huge no-no. Many bloggers, of course, genuinely are independent commentators, but there’s no easy way of knowing which ones are on the take.

Hunh? Here is the article BotW refers to:

Dean has done other things to maximize his online fundraising punch, like reinvesting money into expanding donor lists and paying

Reader Interactions

10Comments

  1. 1.

    Moe Lane

    Thought so. First rule of thumb for the Internet: if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

  2. 2.

    Ricky

    I think Taranto (and several others, maybe) misread that. On their behalf, it could’ve been written better, but it appears he read it with a jaundiced eye.

  4. 4.

    Jim

    Not to defend BOTW, but the article says that Dean has been “paying ‘bloggers’ or professional Internet surfers to keep the enthusiasm up on his website.” Like you, I read that statement to mean that he’s paying his own bloggers to provide content on the website. But it isn’t crazy to read it as saying that he’s paying other outside bloggers to blog about his blog.

    In other words – while dumb, BOTW is certainly not guilty of the dumbest statement of the week.

  6. 6.

    M. Scott Eiland

    To recycle an old cliche, I’d slam Dean for spitting on the sidewalk if the opportunity arose, but this is an asinine thing to get on his case about.

  7. 7.

    Ricky

    The WSJ published an update & admitted that they misread.

    YOU CHARGED THEM WITH LYING, Oliver. To say that you owe them an apology is an understatement.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. I TOLD YOU!

    I told you people’s reading comprehension sucks!! Dean has done other things to maximize his online fundraising punch, like reinvesting money into expanding donor lists and paying