tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post6734877787267209614..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: High BroderismMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75962742436839486122010-06-18T10:46:33.402-07:002010-06-18T10:46:33.402-07:00The idea that a journalist or a news organization ...The idea that a journalist or a news organization can and should be "just a messenger" (as keith puts it) is bogus.<br /><br />Journalists and news organizations regularly decide which pieces of news items to report, which facts to report in each news story, and how to arrange the facts. Yes, they have the power to decide decide how the news of the day will look like, and they use this power regularly -- they have to, in order to write their stories!<br /><br />Journalists are not "merely" messengers.<br /><br />The main question is, are they using the power which they have in ways that make sense, or are they using it in brain-dead ways?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57099925705356131372010-06-15T19:55:44.547-07:002010-06-15T19:55:44.547-07:00Just to reminder you, Michael, there's an exce...Just to reminder you, Michael, there's an excellent example of amateur climate scientists at work in the for of the project to rewrite the GISTEMP code.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36546990150871004082010-06-15T19:53:57.761-07:002010-06-15T19:53:57.761-07:00Hmm, Michael, wasn't Keith's entire commen...Hmm, Michael, wasn't Keith's entire comment rather along the lines of what you say you axed mine for? <br /><br />Just for the record, in that comment I made a point of listing an example of a journalist (Tom Yulsman) who does good work without exhibiting the Broderist qualities Keith does, so I'm surprised you would interpret my comment to be in any way hostile to journalists as a whole. It wasn't, and BTW there are plenty more I know and respect.<br /><br />I believe the only other thing I said was that contrary to Keith's assertion I have no problem in general participating on moderated blogs, a point which has just been neatly illustrated.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-79412096215249075802010-06-15T17:47:01.268-07:002010-06-15T17:47:01.268-07:00Steve, ironically, you went too far in that last o...Steve, ironically, you went too far in that last one. <br /><br />I like journalists. Many of my friends are journalists. I don't much like their product or their ideology, but I'd like to retain their friendship anyway. <br /><br />Please argue ideas. <br /><br />If you want to bicker and squabble over perceived slights and offenses, please take it to any of the bickering sites out there. I recommend McIntyre's, where it's all bicker 'n' squabble all the time.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76772116150346017192010-06-15T16:17:22.209-07:002010-06-15T16:17:22.209-07:00Nice try, Steve. I deleted one of your comments la...Nice try, Steve. I deleted one of your comments last week and then emailed you personally to tell you why.<br /><br />The truth is you don't like being moderated. (Everyone now is with the new comment system I installed.) That means no more free passes for you to hijack a thread with ad hominems, excessive sarcasm, personal insults, etc.<br /><br />Deal with it or take your act where it'll be tolerated.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76009379846235142102010-06-15T12:03:35.778-07:002010-06-15T12:03:35.778-07:00Rosen: "That is when journalists try to win ...Rosen: "That is when journalists try to win the argument not by having better arguments but by standing closer to a reality they get to define as more real than your reality."<br /><br />This could have been written to describe precisely my recent interactions with kk (who has now taken to censoring me when I push him to produce his arguments -- it's as if his job is at an end when he pronounces someone else's argument "compelling" or whatever).Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-33817622298270165512010-06-15T09:54:37.916-07:002010-06-15T09:54:37.916-07:00Another annoying habit of alleged "Serious&qu...Another annoying habit of alleged "Serious" journalistic commentators (including Curry along with Revkin, Kloor, RPJr) is that they stake out a relative position hastily, then move from that position with sluggish obstinacy. Because the more time you take to initially stake out a relative position, the _less_ "Serious" you are. Because the slower you budge from your initial thoughtless position, the _more_ "Serious" you are.<br /><br />That is why the compulsion for fidelity to objective reality is most definitely "Un-Serious".<br /><br />It is two parts thoughtless conservatism, and one part obsequiousness -- the recipe for mainstream journalism in a mature democracy for a dominant power. This leads to the preference of the "Center-Right". The only reason why England is allowed to have such a sensible lot of genuine conservatives is because England plays a periphery role in global politics.manuel moe ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04878149837118503541noreply@blogger.com