OK, I'll admit it. Charles has a somewhat of a scoop with this post. The Associated Press did make a hash of this headline:
You got 'em Chuckles. Somebody in AP wrote a frankly awful headline. But hey, don't you notice something Charles? Don't you spot something sadly lacking in your coverage? While you're hyperventilating about a headline another thing continued to happen on Wednesday the 24th of January 2007 that AP and other news agencies covered. In fact they covered it in the piece with the sucky headline. That's right Charles, the Iraq War. Remember that? How is that war you supported from behind your monitor so valiantly going?
Oh.
Little Green Footballs
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Charles, reality clash in blogosphere
Posted by Bobby Dazzler at 07:49
Labels: Charles Johnson, hypocrisy, iraq, media
17 comments:
I don't get it, your post does not even address Charles post that you are referring too...
The only thing I can derive is your angry that Charles is posting about a particular news story....
uhh....isn't that what your doing with Charles site with *this* post?
Yes it does. Charles has a point about there being a mistake in the headline. Big Wow! Is it bias or a bad headline?
The point of the post is to ridicule his coverage of Iraq, where only the MSM get a rough ride while he completely ignores the disaster that is unfolding there.
Charles is a joke.
The point of the post was to point out the rather tragic attempt at reporting Charles makes himself. A pro-war blogger who's only coverage of Iraq is pointing out badly written AP headlines is really clutching at straws.
Oh I see, the point was to illustrate the triviality of that particular post on LGF. I wonder what that makes this post?
Oh the irony.
***
interestingly enough, that 'trivial' post on LGF was not 'trivial' enough.
The headline was changed....
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/24/shameless-ap-journalistic-crime-of-the-day/
I guess those straws Charles was clutching mattered enough for a re-write....
I guess those straws Charles was clutching mattered enough for a re-write....
AP rewriting a bad headline vs. 'Celeb' pro-war, anti-Muslim blogger ignoring the carnage in Iraq?? Jeez, I wonder which is more worthy of a post?
Wow, those AP people must be quaking in their boots, eh?
Listen it's easy,(by the way, how does a person with one head manage to be so stupid?), if yesterday, the best story you can dredge up about Iraq is a badly structured headline whilst people are being slaughtered, troops are being lost and the entire country is disintegrating......then you're eitehr a partisan Republican hack or very fucking stupid. Or both.
PS The point of this post as stressed before wasn't to just point out the triviality of Chuck's post. It was to point out his absolute idiocy in making a big deal about a poorly written headline and completely ignoring the consequences of the war he cheered on.
You're making the classic mistake. You're forgetting the standard response by LGF and other right wing sites
MSM = Terror enabling treason monkeys
Poorly executed headlines = proof
War on Terror = fantastic victory
Bush = our nation's sweetheart
AP rewriting a bad headline vs. 'Celeb' pro-war, anti-Muslim blogger ignoring the carnage in Iraq?? Jeez, I wonder which is more worthy of a post?
Wow, those AP people must be quaking in their boots, eh?
Nobody said AP is scared, what I did say was the headline was confusing enough to warrent a re-write.
Listen it's easy,(by the way, how does a person with one head manage to be so stupid?), if yesterday, the best story you can dredge up about Iraq is a badly structured headline whilst people are being slaughtered, troops are being lost and the entire country is disintegrating......then you're eitehr a partisan Republican hack or very fucking stupid. Or both.
LGF, posts many stories in a day (unlike this site). This particular one about AP is one of many of that day. You may feel that it was the most important one of the posts that day, but I don't see Charles donoting any of his stories as the "Top" story of the day.
As for partisanship, of course LGF is partisan, the same way this site is leftist. LGF does not try to say it's on the left or the middle, it's always clearly associated itself with conservative organizations.
PS The point of this post as stressed before wasn't to just point out the triviality of Chuck's post. It was to point out his absolute idiocy in making a big deal about a poorly written headline
As I pointed out before - Charles "trivial" critique on AP, was not trivial enough since AP had a re-write. That would prove Charles's point wouldn't it?
You have the right to disagree whether the post was trivial; you can disagree with Charles and the AP re-writers - that of course is your right.
...and completely ignoring the consequences of the war he cheered on.
MSM media and leftists blogs does a good job letting us know about the horrors and setbacks of the Iraq war. The left likes to emphasize any setbacks America suffers, the right likes to emphasize the victories America achieves. That's just the current state of political presentation.
I would say a more accurate viewpoint of conservatives is the following:
MSM = biased toward the left
Poorly executed headlines = proof of that bias
War on Terror = must be taken seriously.
Bush = made a lot of mistakes, but not-preoccupied on paiting him the anti-christ.
"As I pointed out before - Charles "trivial" critique on AP, was not trivial enough since AP had a re-write. That would prove Charles's point wouldn't it?"
No it wouldn't and pointing out AP's grammatical error wasn't the point of Chuck's post at all.
"the right likes to emphasize the victories America achieves"
So that's why coverage of Iraq on LGF's been strangely absent.
"Poorly executed headlines = proof of that bias"
Please tell me you don't work in law enforcement. If you do we're all fucked.
"shameless-ap-journalistic-crime-of-the-day"
So a bungled headline is a crime to these people?
Yes it is. Remember it was 'those' people who told us that Abu Grahib was not torture, that Jews were about to be forced to wear Yellow Star's in Iran and that Pajamas Media was going to rival the MSM and be the dawn of a new age of citizen journalists...
No it wouldn't and pointing out AP's grammatical error wasn't the point of Chuck's post at all.
Yup, Chuck's point was that MSM is biased.
Please tell me you don't work in law enforcement. If you do we're all fucked.
It doesn't take a genious to acknowledge that MSM media by and large is slanted left. Be intellectually honest. I can acknowledge the WSJ, FOX and Talk Radio is slanted right...
So that's why coverage of Iraq on LGF's been strangely absent.
Actually, LGF and other conservative sites often highlight positive news stories about Iraq. Definitely a lot more then say *this* site or Daily Kos.
So a bungled headline is a crime to these people?
Nope, as I stated before - it was shown as an example of Media bias.
"Nope, as I stated before - it was shown as an example of Media bias"
No it shows somebody made a mess of a headline.
Actually, LGF and other conservative sites often highlight positive news stories about Iraq.
Considering the number of Arabs who are dying in Iraq, every day is probably sunshine lolliop and candy day for Chuckie and his little neocon peanut gallery of cheetoh stained mouth foaming racists.
Maybe they can hold hands and sing.
"I love you and you love me
and we love car swarms le de de."
Or maybe
"It's a beautiful day in my settlement
a beautiful day in my bibically donated land
and it's all mine you dirty arab
it's all mine"
"It's a bulldozerly day in my stolen land
a neighborly day for a crushed moonbat
and it's all mine
it's all mine"
I have never wanted to have a dirty Arab neighbor like you
I have never wanted to share the land with an untermenchen like you.
So let's not make the most of this beautiful day
Since we're together we might as well say
get out
get the fuck out
get the motherfucking hell out
you dirty arab."
hey lgf retard i dont think u know how "bias" works.
If a democrat president had led us into the war in iraq who would have covered it differently?
Fox News
that's it
Bias isn't about a fucked up headline, it's about the stories you chose to cover.
hey lgf retard i dont think u know how "bias" works.
If a democrat president had led us into the war in iraq who would have covered it differently?
Fox News
that's it
Yes, I know liberals don't acnowledge that the Media slants left...However, I find it odd you bring up Fox News, when I already demonstrated intellectualy honesty and mentioned that Fox, (like WSJ and Radio) slants right.
Bias isn't about a fucked up headline, it's about the stories you chose to cover.
I acknowledge the headline may just have been a gramatical error. But to believe that MSM has no bias, (yet fox does) in my opinion is not realistic.
No it shows somebody made a mess of a headline.
Quite possibly true. But a mess is still a mess.
Post a Comment