When did reporters become such pansies about language? Here’s John Burns (via Crooked Timber) whining about the angry reaction to his piece on Julian Assange:
Burns said he doesn’t “recall ever having been the subject of such absolutely, relentless vituperation” following a story in his 35 years at the Times. He said his email inbox has been full of denunciations from readers and a number of academics at top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and MIT. Some, he said, used “language that I don’t think they would use at their own dinner table.” Such heated reactions to the profile, Burns said, shows “just how embittered the American discourse on these two wars has become.”
Burns relentless pimped the Iraq War, but the real crime is when he gets emails using the f-word, just as a blogger using the phrase “curb-stomping” is much worse than a mob engaging in actual curb-stomping.
Keith
Fixed. Now why doesn’t he write an anti-tea party article and see what kind of fan mail he gets.
stuckinred
Fuck him if he can’t take a joke!
mistermix
Yet it was all over nothing, because there was nothing to see in the Wikileaks revelations.
Nick
Oh please, every reporter gets e-mails like this. I get them all the time, so do my colleagues.
Cry me a fucking river douche.
though I’m pretty sure this is his bosses trying to get him sympathy.
MattF
What’s happened is that barriers have been lowered– so Burns now gets to hear what people actually think, rather than what they used to tell a “reporter from the New York Times”. As a reporter, he ought to be pleased by this, rather than OMG offended.
jinxtigr
Stuckinred beat me to it. Burns? Fuck him ;)
Will
The comments to that piece were priceless. It was a blatant hit job, complete with purple commentary about how unpleasant and strange this Assange character is, and the readers picked up on it right away.
Live by the government sponsored propaganda. Die by the government sponsored propaganda.
mai naem
He sounds like Frank Burns.
El Cid
I would like to convene a committee for the upcoming launch of Americans Against Vituperation, to be held at an afternoon tea at an appropriate time, preferably in pleasant weather, and moderate and indirect lighting.
me
I do declare, such language, I believe I’m getting the vapors.
Omnes Omnibus
@El Cid: If the gentleman would accept a friendly amendment that we first form an exploratory committee to look into forming a committee for the upcoming launch of Americans Against Vituperation, to be held at an afternoon tea at an appropriate time, preferably in pleasant weather, and moderate and indirect lighting, I would be happy to second his motion.
Comrade Javamanphil
@Omnes Omnibus: I am afraid none of this can begin until the lemon-soaked paper napkins have been delivered. Sorry for the delay.
El Cid
@Omnes Omnibus: Upon carefully considering your response, it does occur to me that we may risk a calamitous plunge in moving forward so quickly with abruptly forming an exploratory committee. Perhaps some months of written correspondence, upon invitation to those of appropriate behavior, albeit with very indirect suggestion of the purpose of those invitation, so as not to upset the delicate constitution of those who may not share our interests.
Menzies
Hmm, maybe I should’ve sent in my two cents. I couldn’t care less what some reporter thinks of Julian Assange, but this sentence:
Buddy, I drop more f-bombs in the kitchen or dining room than anywhere else, statistically. What’s more I usually curse in at least two languages.
What a fucking baby. It’s like Todd Henderson and Rand Paul got together, had a love child, and sent him off to write for the NYT.
Ash Can
@El Cid: Good, that will give the rest of us extra time to practice proper vituperation.
Omnes Omnibus
@El Cid: Oh, okay then. I guess we tried.
John Cole
Did you see the update with Glenn?
Capri Sun-Bagger
El Cid: Your celerity is most offensive and discomfits me to the utmost. You should prepare yourself for the receipt of a strongly worded letter, to be delvered by my footman within the fortnight. And with that, I bid you good day, sir, good day!
El Cid
@Capri Sun-Bagger: I shall apologize most humbly and repeatedly. I daresay it was a flight of irresponsible passion to even momentarily consider the nature of harsh vituperation against the honorable Mr. Burns.
El Cid
Give the TeaTards some credit for having the ‘nads to venture into otherwise unacceptable territories.
This from a TeaTard-backed candidate for the Illinois Senate, at an event sponsored by the local NAACP:
Why is it that people always think that the TeaTards are racist? Clearly this guy is trying to help all those black and Latino men, most of whom sell drugs or try and get into professional sports.
SRW1
Thumbs up to El Cid and Omnes Omnibus. You fellas are priceless.
geg6
@El Cid:
Jeebus. Just…jeebus.
terraformer
Who knew that MSM journalists (sic) were such delicate flowers?
Capri Sun-Bagger
El Cid: Please sir, restrain yourself. Your intemperate rhetorical diversions, even when applied reflexively, leave me most unsettled. I request, most reservedly, that you comport yourself in a manner more fitting for polite & genteel society, and that you eschew further excesse of language and emotion.
Yr. humble srvnt,
CSB
Dennis SGMM
Well, fuck. In addition to having people call upon us to appreciate the wealthy, people calling upon us to apologize for that gal in Kentucky interposing her head between someone’s shoe and the curb, we now have this thin-skinned little fuck of a Burns whining that people are being mean to him and using strong language while doing so.
Well, Burnsy, if you’d have actually done your job in the first place maybe 109,000 people would still be going about their lives and maybe we wouldn’t have thrown a few hundred billion down the shitter.
Your voice, Burnsy, was one of the unanimous chorus describing a lying, duplicitous, sociopath as “a popular wartime president.” You should have him, and his VP, shoved all the way up your ass.
Barb (formerly gex)
You continue to act as though specific actions are objectionable and that the rule applies to both sides.
Wrong-o, bud.
It is all relative. And it is always just as bad or usually worse if a liberal uses harsh words to describe harsher actions by conservatives. If you know that conservatives are *always* the victim, then you will have a rule of thumb that applies. It works better to predict the Village reaction than reacting to the actual content of the actions.
Barb (formerly gex)
@El Cid: I wonder how shipping all jobs except financial services out of the country is going to help provide incentives for those young men.
The only incentive people on the right have for young black men is to avoid the beating, tazing, shooting, or incarceration that is the main growth industry in our country that involves black men – not as real players, but as the widgets that are managed for profit.
Teejay
DougJ:
You may be entirely right, Burns is a whinning pansie who pimped the war— relentlessly. Any chance you could buttress charges, allegations, name calling and labels with an example to support your assertions? Ya know facts and evidence that illustrate or prove your charges ( pimping the war relentlessly) to distinguish ourselves from the tactics of Republican hacks.
General Stuck
I have no affection for Mr. Burns, and don’t care if he is whining or not. His article quotes named sources and is fairly balanced standard reporting imo. Greenwald, however, per usual, is a polemic dipshit with a clear agenda/
General Stuck
@Teejay:
And also this.
wenchacha
Strong language, oh my! Did someone tell Burns to “go fuck himself?” Can you imagine anyone ever using such coarse language in the public arena?
I can, strangely enough.
Does Mr. Burns understand that many Americans, lots of them liberals or Democrats or both, receive death threats in their mail? The Warbaggers are truly a bundle of WATBs.
jbb
100% Grade-A bullshit.
And even if what you said was true (which anyone with an IQ over 50 can determine for themselves that it is not), that doesn’t change the fact that the article was designed explicitly to draw attention away from the hard documentation of a decade of lying by the Department of Defense and its compatriots in the American media. For the two straight days that the NYTimes deigned to “cover” the Wikileaks docs, the Assange smearjob was the only article on the front page, and the rest of the coverage was intentionally buried. Whether or not Assange is a sleazeball (my gut feeling is he is) doesn’t have any effect one way or the other on the evidence his organization publicized, but the NYTimes has worked overtime to convey the opposite in order to demonstrate proper deference to the war machine.
@Teejay:
See Greenwald’s column today, among many other pieces.
General Stuck
@jbb:
Dumbass Glenbot. The article simply reported what was already known about Assange from the authorities in Sweden.
The rest of the article has quotes from sources that are named, saying that Assange is the one who released the Afghan docs without removing names of Afghan contractors to the US. Over objections from his own associates. Not to mention causing Amnesty international to side with The Pentagon against wikileaks and Assange.
Greenwald however, does a genuine smear job of Burn using quotes Burns made about Gen Macrystal, but neglects to include the one where Burns agreed with the general getting fired for bucking civilian leaders.
Now go back over to Salon and wank in that fever swamp. On second thought, there seems to be a large number of GG worshippers right here on BJ>
jbb
@General Stuck:
Yawn. If that’s really the best you can do at ducking reality, I’d suggest it’s time to hang it up.
General Stuck
@jbb:
With any luck, someday I will. Unfortunately, for my personal sanity from responding to morons like you, that day is not today.
And an addendum. I think Burns did disagree with Obama on firing Mchrystal, so I was wrong about that, but that has nothing to do with the article by Burns on Assange.
Uloborus
@General Stuck:
I haven’t read either article, so I can’t comment on this one, but Glenn’s followers really do not seem to understand that Greenwald leaves out any fact he considers inconvenient to his arguments. I stopped reading him regularly because of his tendency to go off on rants about what he assumed was someone’s motivation. I stopped trusting anything I even heard from him when I caught him leaving out legal details even I knew that a constitutional lawyer had no excuse pretending don’t exist.
General Stuck
@Uloborus:
Yea, and actually, in a way, I don’t mind him doing what he does, so long as he and his followers are honest about it. He is arguing like a lawyer to convict a suspect, or defend one. Using all the rhetorical and argumentative tricks of his trade, which is creating impressions with juries by recreating history with selective evidence that favors his case, that is libertarian quasi liberal politics. The problem is, he and others, mistake this as objective fact finding and honest debate. But maybe that is what blogs are really about, and I am the one in the wrong place.
Chris
See, when I call someone an accessory to war crimes via propaganda, I use the f-word so I can be sure I’ve got their attention.
I would’ve thought it was laughably insufficient, but apparently it’s the only thing that people like Burns really care about.
Ruckus
@stuckinred:
I always heard it as
Joke him if he can’t take a fuck.
But I’m dyslexic so maybe I just remember it backwards.
JWL
Nixon obliquely chastised JFK during the 1960 campaign, after Kennedy had publicly dropped the “damn” bomb. The habitually foul mouthed dick even had the gall to drag Eisenhower into it, holding him up as a leader who never disgraced himself (or his country) by cursing. Of course, Ike swore like the trooper he was, as Nixon and everyone else either knew or assumed.
Fiddle-dee-dee! Burns is full of beans.