I want DeLay gone as bad as anyone, but this is just appalling:
On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.
The goal of the NY Times should be to accurately chronicle the abuses of power and the subsequent investigations of Tom DeLay. If they want to write an op-ed condemning DeLay, more power to them- it is their editorial page. But actively seeking out non-columnists to write guest editorials that appear to be sincere and motivated by passion for an issue, particularly in a case like this, crosses the line.
This is nothing more than the NY Times acting as partisan hack.
You’re taking Bob Novak’s word on this? The guy should be serving time for outing Plame.
I have to say I’m inclined to think there is fire behind this smoke, Sue.
Exposing the far too common, but blatantly dishonest practice by news organizations of soliciting not just an opinion, but rather, a specific opinion, is quite appropriate. It may benefit
Bob Novak, but how does acknowledging that make it okay? If you want to make an editorial point, then durn it, write an editorial. Don’t presuppose your opinion and then go get someone to parrot it for you.
Wasn’t the NYT one of the organizations to jump all over the Bush Administration for paying journalists to shill for them? Isn’t this another form of the same? They are trying to shape the story, not report it.
Don’t worry about it. I’m sure all the other reporting that got you so fired up about DeLay was straight up and down honest.
I’ll bet all the other stories were completely reliable. Not fudged at all.
And your righteous indignation based on that previous reporting was well justified. I’m just sure of it.
/not being skeptical
The state employing a press where anything they report which redounds to a conservative’s credit is automatically true and anything they report as a negative for conservatives is not only a dastardly lie, but also proves that the press never tells the truth, except when they do, which is only when they say something positive about conservatives, which is never.
In Birkelvania, logic, like Thomas the Tank Engine, runs in circles and gets just as far.
Only in Birkelvania.
How cute. You made a joke out of my name.
Nash, try this on for size. I tend to be critical of all reporting. If you tell me you know Barry Bonds took steroids I’m gonna ask you how you know. And you know what? If you tell me that leaked grand jury testimony proves it I’ll be skeptical of that because grand jury testimony is sealed and therefore can’t be verified.
If you tell me the economics department at MIT is better than the one at Harvard I’m gonna ask you how you know. I’m going to demand proof. Because, you see, circumspection is a good idea all the way around.
And if you tell me the InstaPundit eats blended babies I’m gonna need more than a photoshop.
Mine is a principled stance. You gotta treat me like I’m from Missouri all the time on both sides of the political aisle.
But then I’m sure you don’t automatically take every anti-Republican story as truth and every anti-Democrat story as part of the VRWC plot, now do ya?
tend to be critical of all reporting.
This may be true in the Birkel of the non-blog world, or the Birkel of your mind, but it is a flat out lie when applied to the Birkel who posts here. You run on about liberal press lies and almost never, hell, never, have an equal derision for the lies of say, FNL or Wash Times or National Republic etc.
I’m sticking with my cute play on your name. You want me to think otherwise, start giving me reason to.
I amuse myself with my non-Freudian slips–many would indeed say that TNR is on the right side of the line. I’m not going to go there. The reasoning side of my mind meant National Review. They are just meant as examples.
You act as if I know what the FNL is. I don’t. I also don’t read the Washington Times. I very rarely read the National Review.
So are you finished assuming you know anything about me at all or not?
In the mean time, you’ll find that I’d be skeptical of the NYT positive reporting about Republicans if I could find it. Where do they bury that stuff?
So we’re clear: I do not claim to be non-partisan. I am a conservative with a strong libertarian bent. I think liberalism is a wrongheaded philosophy. I think the annointed of the Left are a dangerous lot. I think the Republicans ought to quit spending so much of the people’s money to accomplish the politicians ambitions. And yes, I think the MSM is overwhelming liberal and therefore takes sides in the political debates.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not skeptical of them generally because I think they’re sloppy far too often. I think they write the story and then look for proof.
Oh, and just so you know, I don’t much care whether you intend to continue your sophmoric use of my name.
The Big-H Hypocrite:
I don’t give a damn what conservative publications you read. The list wasn’t a statement of *your* reading list and you know that. And I am most certainly not interested in getting your approval concerning how I use your name. But I *am* happy to be getting under your skin in this way.
With smug self-satisfaction thickened with overweaning sarcasm, you lay into Kevin and say:
I’m sure all the other reporting that got you so fired up about DeLay was straight up and down honest. I’ll bet all the other stories were completely reliable. Not fudged at all. And your righteous indignation based on that previous reporting was well justified. I’m just sure of it.
This from the guy who says in another thread that he takes the “principled stance.” There is nothing principled about your actions, Birkel, because you are incapable of the intellectual honesty which would compel you to speak out with equal vehemence about the misdeeds of all parties, not just those with whom you have a partisan bone to pick. Saying that you do not claim to be non-partisan is the only honest thing you have said recently.
Of course, you have immediately preceded that with another lie:
you’ll find that I’d be skeptical of the NYT positive reporting about Republicans if I could find it. Where do they bury that stuff?
You won’t find it because you don’t want to find it, Birkel, not because it’s not there. For the record, I will stipulate that the NYT is left of center, more so on the OpEd pages than in news coverage, but even there. However, honest people could easily find dozens of examples of credulous reporting by the NYT about the Bush Administration and other Republicans over the past 4+ years. You couldn’t. You aren’t honest, and you are not principled.
And yes, I think the MSM is overwhelming liberal and therefore takes sides in the political debates.
The “MSM as side-taking defenders of all that’s liberal” meme is an objectively rightwing position. It isn’t true because it isn’t defensible. You are good at spouting. Now prove it, Birkel.
Under my skin? If you say so.
The only thing you have managed to do is spout ad hominem
“There is nothing principled about your actions…”
“…you are incapable of the intellectual honesty…”
“…you have a partisan bone to pick…”
“You aren’t honest, and you are not principled.”
“It isn’t true because it isn’t defensible. You are good at spouting.”
Not one argument to be had. And kinda boring too.
So boring you just have to keep responding. Poor little Birkel goes all weepy on mean ol’ Nash and all that nasty ad hominem stuff. Take a lesson from Sav and ignore me Birkel.
Meanwhile, if you must respond, how about providing a number of examples, say 10-20 of news organizations that you include in the MSM by your own definition. That would be a place for us to start on the “MSM is all liberal” dodge.
Newsweak (I know the spelling.)
Thanks for the list, I will try to work on a response.
BTW, inserting the word “all” into my mouth did not escape my notice.
Try more subtlety.
Wow, you got me there, Birkel. I bow to your intellectual supremacy. No reason to continue the charade of thinking I could joust with the Birkel.