What is sad about this is that it's almost certainly causally related to the differences in their respective blogs' traffic. I sure would like it if people could rake in pageviews doing it Will-style.

Stapler Malone wrote ... "What is sad about this is that it's almost certainly causally related to the differences in their respective blogs' traffic. I sure would like it if people could rake in pageviews doing it Will-style." And what's sad/funny/ironic about that clip you made is that you cut me off in the middle of a sentence. That is, you did the very thing you are bemoaning! Why did you do it? For comic effect/to make a point/to damage my reputation? All of the above?

Quoting Ann Althouse: Stapler Malone wrote ... "What is sad about this is that it's almost certainly causally related to the differences in their respective blogs' traffic. I sure would like it if people could rake in pageviews doing it Will-style."

And what's sad/funny/ironic about that clip you made is that you cut me off in the middle of a sentence. That is, you did the very thing you are bemoaning! Why did you do it? For comic effect/to make a point/to damage my reputation? All of the above?

To bait Althouse into demonstrating how incredibly thin-skinned she is?

Quoting Ann Althouse: And what's sad/funny/ironic about that clip you made is that you cut me off in the middle of a sentence. That is, you did the very thing you are bemoaning! Why did you do it? For comic effect/to make a point/to damage my reputation? All of the above?

This is why. EDIT: No AemJeff, it really wasn't to bait her. I'm not actually bemoaning what I did, or what she does, I'm bemoaning the fact that snappy, sexy headlines with some tease to them get more traffic than thinky head-scratcher posts grappling with complexity. If anything, I'm bemoaning human nature in general.

The Sherrod incident is one of the most illustrative events in the exposing of the left-wing media groupthink so tellingly exemplified with the Journolist archives. The exact same media personages and outlets that have been happy to smear the Tea Parties and just about anyone critical of Obama's hyper-growth of government dependence as racists without any proof now do an about face and condemn Andrew Breitbart for not showing enough footage of SS's speech to allow it to be seen in context. Better still, some are even comparing the episode to Dan Rather's efforts to change an election outcome by using fraud documents to smear GW Bush. They don't even stop to think that while Breitbart jumped the gun and practiced shoddy journalism by failing to ask for comment or find more tape of the speech, he didn't invent one second of the tape that showed SS admitting to racist motives, she provided that herself. These same dishonest folks are also happy to spin lies that Breitbart's ACORN exposes are now fake, when all the footage was of actual ACORN personnel acting

Quoting Ann Althouse: Stapler Malone wrote ... "What is sad about this is that it's almost certainly causally related to the differences in their respective blogs' traffic. I sure would like it if people could rake in pageviews doing it Will-style."

And what's sad/funny/ironic about that clip you made is that you cut me off in the middle of a sentence. That is, you did the very thing you are bemoaning! Why did you do it? For comic effect/to make a point/to damage my reputation? All of the above?

Here's the full Althouse quote (in context, ha)

Its obvious from the Diavlog that Will is a liberal. He mounts the standard liberal defense of Journolist and Sherrod. So why does he write for CATO? Simple, he concentrates on supporting internationalism, free trade, and open borders. And he hates patriotism. And Rich guys - like the CATO institute - also love open borders, free trade, and open borders - 'cause it means low wages and mucho profits. So the greedy millionaires and the unpatriotic liberals find common ground. And Will finds employment. BTW, I'm sad Will is spending time in Iowa. Must be tough. I'm in Frisco now and its great.

The Journo-list story is only of passing interest. Your continual harping on it, much like your fixation on ACORN, only paints you as partisan hack that can't distinguish the signal from the wing-nut noise. Here's a suggestion; Focus on deficiencies in such things as the stimulus, HCR, and Financial reform. An example: EPA will regulate spilt milk? As for the accusations of racism against the tea party; I agree holding up examples of specific tea-party people that were racist and presupposing that this meant anything was stupid. Any movement of any substantial size will have fringe elements. I sometimes wonder if the sloppy thinking of those on the left that are to quick to charge others with racism is a result of them subconsciously falling prey to the prosecutor's fallacy, that is to say they confuse the probability of an unrepentant racist being for small government with the probability of someone that is for small government being an unrepentant racist. Overall I am disappointed with right wing media. With such an active left wing government the right wing media should be ascendant, instead they are moored in stupidity.

Could you please name someone you view as exemplifying the center?

Quoting Stapler Malone: This is why.

EDIT: No AemJeff, it really wasn't to bait her. I'm not actually bemoaning what I did, or what she does, I'm bemoaning the fact that snappy, sexy headlines with some tease to them get more traffic than thinky head-scratcher posts grappling with complexity. If anything, I'm bemoaning human nature in general.

Sorry, Stapler, I shouldn't have slandered you. I took the opportunity of her over-reaction to you to indulge my own lesser nature.

Quoting AemJeff: To bait Althouse into demonstrating how incredibly thin-skinned she is?

Or how utterly unable she is to detect anything that isn't spoonfed to her? What, oh what, is someone to do, if it is desired to hear the next precious pearls of wisdom from she who was cut off mid-sentence? No idea.

Quoting Stapler Malone: This is why.

EDIT: No AemJeff, it really wasn't to bait her. I'm not actually bemoaning what I did, or what she does, I'm bemoaning the fact that snappy, sexy headlines with some tease to them get more traffic than thinky head-scratcher posts grappling with complexity. If anything, I'm bemoaning human nature in general.

By the way - that clip was a damned good answer to her question.

What continues to be glossed over, even by Will and Ann here is that Brietbart DID include the initial retribution quote at the end of the clip he initially presented and he didn't really pull things out of context but presented what he had (supposedly after refusal by the NAACP to provide the video of the full clip.) In any case, Ann certainly has a point about the the fact that this medium requires you to find the big picture before making a judgement.

"...how incredibly thin-skinned she is?" Not thin-skinned. Just a connoisseur of irony. Thought some of you folks might enjoy it too... those of you who aren't tediously, grimly partisan. There are way more comments on this diavlog, over at the Althouse blog, where the amusing people hang out.

Quoting Ann Althouse: "...how incredibly thin-skinned she is?"

Not thin-skinned. Just a connoisseur of irony. Thought some of you folks might enjoy it too... those of you who aren't tediously, grimly partisan. There are way more comments on this diavlog, over at the Althouse blog, where the amusing people hang out.

You certainly have a way of springing the tightly wound around this place. Some here, I believe, watch your vlogs in spite of doctor's orders. Keep up the good work.

Quoting Ann Althouse: "...how incredibly thin-skinned she is?"

Not thin-skinned. Just a connoisseur of irony. Thought some of you folks might enjoy it too... those of you who aren't tediously, grimly partisan. There are way more comments on this diavlog, over at the Althouse blog, where the amusing people hang out.

"Grimly partisan"? No, it's all about you, Ann. (And manners, or their lack.)

Mr. Wilkinson's, JourNoList, analogy was, if not perfect, close and Ms. Althouse's take here is hard to argue with.

Quoting Whatfur: You certainly have a way of springing the tightly wound around this place. Some here, I believe, watch your vlogs in spite of doctor's orders...

With your insight and humor, Mr. 'fur... what's stopping you from taking the Ms. up on the offer... please:

Quoting Ann Althouse: There are way more comments on this diavlog, over at the Althouse blog, where the amusing people hang out.

Quoting graz: With your insight and humor, Mr. 'fur... what's stopping you from taking the Ms. up on the offer... please:

She doesn't pay as well as Bobby does.

Quoting Whatfur: Mr. Wilkinson's, JourNoList, analogy was, if not perfect, close and Ms. Althouse's take here is hard to argue with.

Hard to argue with? She presents no evidence, and doesn't even bother argue the point herself. The assertion itself is vaporously vague, not to say vacuous - basically a characterization of the work product of four hundred people in about three words. See? It was easy to argue. Q. E. D. And damn! While I'm at it: what she said could be summarized as left leaning journalists lean left! Huzzah for insight!

Quoting AemJeff: Hard to argue with? She presents no evidence, and doesn't even bother argue the point. The assertion itself is vaporously vague, not to say vacuous - basically a characterization of the work product of four hundred people in about three words.

See? It was easy to argue.

Q. E. D.

Actually, I don 't see. Your response is not even recognizable as a rebuttal to what she says in that link.

Quoting Whatfur: Actually, I don 't see. Your response is not even recognizable as a rebuttal to what she says in that link.

So you're rebutting my argument that all she presented was an unsupported assertion with an unsupported assertion? What did she say that my response didn't cover adequately?

Quoting AemJeff: So you're rebutting my argument that all she presented was an unsupported assertion with an unsupported assertion? What did she say that my response didn't cover adequately?

In Texas they call what you do self-pollution.

Quoting Whatfur: In Texas they call what you do self-pollution.

Well, my mama told me to stop that, but I just couldn't! Are you trying to riff on 43's "In Texas they call that 'weather'"?

I think Ann misses the all-too-obvious possibility in her Rush Limbaugh soundbite example, that journalists often use the same phrases because they are all reporting on the same topic and often on the exact same report, conference or speech and thus using the same source verbatim as the jumping-off point for their reporting. It hardly takes conspiratorial coordination of message to see how this happens. A quick read on memes and cultural transmission will provide a much better documented possibility for how given phrases catch on rather suddenly. Also, as Ann knows, some words/expressions just sound/read better than others. In an environment that is all about quickly getting news out there, and trying to get as many readers/views/links as possible it seems pretty likely that using the exact same phrase is more a feature of journalistic laziness and bandwagon adoption of a good phrase rather than evidence of some left-leaning illuminati. I would also be curious to hear whether Ann feels like the right-wing media's documented history of private message coordination (Grover Norquist meetings) was somehow less troubling than the great journolist conspiracy?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think Ann misses the all-too-obvious possibility in her Rush Limbaugh soundbite example, that journalists often use the same phrases ...

But "back from the brink"??/??

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ...I would also be curious to hear whether Ann feels like the right-wing media's documented history of private message coordination (Grover Norquist meetings) was somehow less troubling than the great journolist conspiracy?

I don't remember her being troubled. You got a clip? Nor did she seem to consider it any "great journolist conspiracy". The clip I provided and Jeff failed on above, pretty much, has her saying the opposite. You seem to be wanting to invent abuse by her to augment your question. The question could have stood without the blather.

Quoting AemJeff: "Grimly partisan"? No, it's all about you, Ann. (And manners, or their lack.)

That clip is beyond creepy. I'm thinking personality disorder. Who is jessica valente?

Quoting badhatharry: That clip is beyond creepy. I'm thinking personality disorder. Who is jessica valente?

The girl in profile standing in front of Clinton, below. It was Althouse's nasty commentary about this photo that led to Garance asking the question that Althouse used to launch into that obscene performance. Here's a summary: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikt...ake_a_clo.html

Will's remarks about the generals in Afghanistan advising the President on "the best chances for victory" reminded me of an exellent article in the current issue of The New Yorker magazine, about doctors recommending treatment options to their terminally ill patients.

Quoting AemJeff: "Grimly partisan"? No, it's all about you, Ann. (And manners, or their lack.)

I find it really interesting that she claims that her opinions about Jessica Valenti were taken out of context (her next diavlog with Bob is also about this). It's even more interesting how that clearly upsets her. This shows how disingenuous it is to claim that there isn't anything inherently wrong about taking things out of context. If anything I would've expected Ann to take the opposite stance considering her previous diavlogs.

It's a shame such a bright and insightful woman as Ann is such a contrarian. She goes to great lengths to defend Breitbart, but when John Lewis makes accusations of racism, she quickly dismisses them. It is absolutely never okay to take something out of context to make it sound like the opposite of what was meant. Maybe it's not "wrong," but it's hack journalism and it undermines meaningful political discourse. Tactics like Breitbart's make it impossible to have a civil debate and turn politics into a pure "us vs. them" game. It's sad to see Ann enable this.

Quoting jterry4: I find it really interesting that she claims that her opinions about Jessica Valenti were taken out of context (her next diavlog with Bob is also about this). It's even more interesting how that clearly upsets her. This shows how disingenuous it is to claim that there isn't anything inherently wrong about taking things out of context.

If anything I would've expected Ann to take the opposite stance considering her previous diavlogs.

Heh. My expectation is that Ann will take any position that suits her, regardless of any consideration other than attracting attention to herself.

When Ann says this she does something that is surprisingly common; Question the fidelity of Wikipedia. Yeah, sure, it's always good to never hold any source as divine knowledge, but why is this always emphasized when the body of knowledge in question is Wikipedia? Yes, it is open source, so in a matter of speaking the articles are being authored and edited by amateur encyclopedia compilers, but the authors of individual articles will usually by expert on that article subject. This is at least the feeling I get after reading articles like this and this. I can't think offhand of any mistakes I have seen Wikipedia make, and I use it regularly. Almost as bad as this guy; It's also worth noting a few years ago there was this study that purported to show that the error rates in science articles for Wikipedia and The Encyclopaedia Britannica are comparable, and many of the errors from Wikipedia were, in my opinion, more subtle. So yeah, I don't get all the Wikipedia hate, but then again I have only been able to buy booze for a little over a year, so maybe that's why open source (Ubuntu still sucks) doesn't

Quoting AemJeff: Hard to argue with? She presents no evidence, and doesn't even bother argue the point herself. The assertion itself is vaporously vague, not to say vacuous - basically a characterization of the work product of four hundred people in about three words.

See? It was easy to argue.

Q. E. D.

And damn! While I'm at it: what she said could be summarized as left leaning journalists lean left! Huzzah for insight!

I didn't read watch the vlog yet, so I'm not going to jump into the debate. I do, however, find it necessary to pause and commend you for your fantastic alliteration.

Back to back days with Cato Institute dudes, huh? (And, oh, "dudes" is said with a bit of a smirk.) I wonder. What's the record for most Cato Institute employees on Bloggingheads in a month? Maybe there could be over/under bets on the number of Cato Institute folks who'll appear in August? Then we could see if it's topped in September. Or we could bet on how many days Bloggingheads can go without featuring someone from Cato? Ten days? Five? Three? Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Sanchez and Wilkinson isn't egregious, but there's just so many people living off a feudal system of patronage (the Cato Institute) as they promote hands-off free enterprise that I can take before irony overloads and I feel the snark coming on. That's before you even get into how the libertarian love of deregulation has been brutally exposed of late in coal mines, the Gulf oil spill and a Wall Street meltdown of historic proportions. Still, the dudes haven't lost faith, the paychecks keep coming in from Cato and Bloggingheads keeps bringing them back to argue their pubescent philosophy! Now if we could only bet on actual apperance numbers!

Ann does something wrong in this diavlog when she defends misrepresentation of the meaning of Shirley Sherrod's words.

Ann has her facts wrong about what went on in the room at the NAACP meeting. And both of them overlook or don't know the fact that Shirley Sherrod DID in fact end up helping that white farmer and the white farmer testifies to that today.

Too bad Ann is not paired with one of those Journalistas. Another missed opportunity.

I love how Althouse equates criticism of Althouse with partisanship. (I'm not particularly partisan, Ann: I just think you routinely present weak arguments, and that you're often rude to boot.) Not surprised in the least that Althouse offers a (slightly qualified) defense of Breitbart's tactics. Of course, this isn't to say that Althouse is a GOP partisan. Rather, she seems to be a partisan of vapid and irritable contrarianism and a certain kind of mindless anti-elitism. And weird, unsupported speculation. As for the issue of context, it's easy to make a distinction between an out-of-context quote that is fairly excerpted or basically representative of the general tenor of a larger statement, and one which is grossly misleading or unrepresentative. It doesn't surprise me that AA is uninterested in making such a distinction.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: ...routinely present weak arguments, ...often rude to boot....

... seems to be a partisan of vapid and irritable contrarianism and a certain kind of mindless anti-elitism. And weird, unsupported speculation.

...

Put down that mirror and try again!!

Who is jessica valente?

She's a woman with breasts.

Quoting Whatfur: Put down that mirror and try again!!

'fur - really, man, dude... I never had you pegged for sycophancy before. Interesting.

Frank-Ruta is the one with the personality disorder or something, right?

You could have just said she's a woman.

What's wrong with this exactly? Free will and opinion is a bad thing? Complexity in character is to be shunned?

Quoting AemJeff: "Grimly partisan"? No, it's all about you, Ann. (And manners, or their lack.)

Another visit to your lower nature. How grimly petty of you to continually bring this up. Like a scorned woman. Laughable.

Probably because Breitbart published a video of someone's own words, while John Lewis has no video (where video and audio should have been easy to get).

I think the point was being made that Ms. Sherrod initially did not help the white farmer, which she didn't (he was passed on one of his own kind). Of course they know Ms. Sherrod ended up helping the white farmer, but that wasn't the point being made.

Quoting Whatfur: But "back from the brink"??/??

"shoving the health care bill down our throats"? its transparent on both sides. although, I suspect its more a lack of imagination than it is coordination.

Thank you, PK. Exactly the point I was trying to make. Some phrases are just catchy (even if their accuracy can be debated). Both sides undoubtedly latch onto the framing that seems best-suited to presenting their arguments. It's a phenomenon that needs no coordination to explain.

Quoting Whatfur: Put down that mirror and try again!!

What a zinger. Seriously, though: I guess you've got a colorable argument with "rude," since I just accused Althouse of vapidity, but where have I trafficked in "mindless anti-elitism" or "weird, unsupported speculation"?

The best part of this diavlog is near the end. Ann, with a light touch, leads Will to confront the central paradox of Obama's Afghanistan offensive. Will puts himself in the position of trying to explain the policy, and is visibly thrown into confusion trying to do so. (Hey -- I would be too.) Will comes perilously close to suggesting the administration may be conducting this war for political show. A great line of questioning by Ann, and important issues for everyone to ponder. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/296...5:42&out=60:21

Cross posting again because I would be curious to know how Ann feels about this. It seems to me that when it comes to being complete pawns for a political party, the Journolist culprits have a long way to go to meet this standard.

Quoting Rathertired: Back to back days with Cato Institute dudes, huh? (And, oh, "dudes" is said with a bit of a smirk.)

I wonder. What's the record for most Cato Institute employees on Bloggingheads in a month?

Maybe there could be over/under bets on the number of Cato Institute folks who'll appear in August? Then we could see if it's topped in September.

Or we could bet on how many days Bloggingheads can go without featuring someone from Cato? Ten days? Five? Three?

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Sanchez and Wilkinson isn't egregious, but there's just so many people living off a feudal system of patronage (the Cato Institute) as they promote hands-off free enterprise that I can take before irony overloads and I feel the snark coming on.

That's before you even get into how the libertarian love of deregulation has been brutally exposed of late in coal mines, the Gulf oil spill and a Wall Street meltdown of historic proportions.

Still, the dudes haven't lost faith, the paychecks keep coming in from Cato and Bloggingheads keeps bringing them back to argue their pubescent philosophy!

Now if we could only bet on actual apperance numbers!

That's pretty funny

Quoting Whatfur:

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: ...routinely present weak arguments, ...often rude to boot....

... seems to be a partisan of vapid and irritable contrarianism and a certain kind of mindless anti-elitism. And weird, unsupported speculation.

...

Put down that mirror and try again!!

Even judging you only against the standard you have established for yourself, that was particularly weak sauce, 'fur. Wm. is one of the most thoughtful commenters here. This reaction of yours -- just going into knee-jerk tribal mode ... again ... is only solidifying your reputation. If I may use that term that broadly, I mean.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: What a zinger.

Seriously, though: I guess you've got a colorable argument with "rude," since I just accused Althouse of vapidity, but where have I trafficked in "mindless anti-elitism" or "weird, unsupported speculation"?

Queef was correct Bill, I did jump on your post in a knee-jerk reaction. Although I can offer no apology (Queef recently won an award for apologizing so he will be partial to them for a short while), but I guess you do deserve your requested explanation... You have already acquiesced to rude for the single word albeit I would put the whole post in that category. It is 3 paragraphs of Althouse bashing with the only attempt at supporting your "speculation" coming in the last sentence... and there you were mistaken, she makes and understands the distinction.