Barney Frank calls John Fund a "liar and coward"

[Kulindahr]

Frankly, I would love to just see Barney lose a race and go down in defeat that way. He is such a bumbling idiot. Almost as embarassing as old Nancy.

That's a toss-up. I'd like to see them both disappear, along with Schumer and Feinstein and McCain....

 

[iman]

Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
National Review
New York Post

The Journal and the Wash Times are two of the papers that Barney called to task for printing the bogus story. The National Review is conservative commentary and the Post is simply not a serious paper, it is a sensationalistic tabloid more akin to a supermarket paper.

If these are the publications that you respect and read, then you need to stop masquerading as a Democrat.

 

[NickCole]

The Journal and the Wash Times are two of the papers that Barney called to task for printing the bogus story. The National Review is conservative commentary and the Post is simply not a serious paper, it is a sensationalistic tabloid more akin to a supermarket paper.

If these are the publications that you respect and read, then you need to stop masquerading as a Democrat.

I didn't say I read them, that post wasn't about me. You asked for an example of a responsible conservative news source and those are as responsible as similar liberal sources. The Wall Street Journal is certainly as responsible and reliable as The New York Times. More so.

And you didn't listen to your own OP video very well: Barney Frank did not call the Wall Street Journal to task for printing anything bogus, he referred to a speech John Fund made and pointed out that Fund sits on the WSJ's editorial board. The story Frank refers to never appeared in the pages of the WSJ.

But on the subject of news stories, The New York Times is widely regarded as the most responsible, reputable, reliable liberal newspaper and yet this, from SourceWatch, is a powerful reminder:

In 2003, the Times admitted to journalism fraud committed over a span of several years by one of its reporters, Jayson Blair, and the general professionalism of the paper was questioned, though Blair was immediately fired following the incident. Questions of affirmative action in journalism were also raised, since Blair was African American. Several top officials, including the chief of its editorial board, also resigned their posts following the incident.

In 2004, the Times made another significant admission of journalistic failings, publishing an editorial letter admitting that its flawed reporting during the buildup to war with Iraq helped promote the misleading belief that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

A second self-criticism by Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent went further. "The failure was not individual, but institutional," Okrent wrote. "War requires an extra standard of care, not a lesser one. But in the Times's WMD coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war - but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. ... Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors. ... The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the WMD stories, but how the Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_York_Times

Standards of excellence have deterioriated and the only way to be well informed is by reading and watching from a wide range of news sources and, when possible, original source material.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Journal and the Wash Times are two of the papers that Barney called to task for printing the bogus story. The National Review is conservative commentary and the Post is simply not a serious paper, it is a sensationalistic tabloid more akin to a supermarket paper.

If these are the publications that you respect and read, then you need to stop masquerading as a Democrat.

Cute way of switching topics to make an attack on someone.

 

[Royal Heart]

"I don't know what they were restoring, but certainly wasn't respect for the truth."

Oh snap! ...

 

[iman]

I didn't say I read them, that post wasn't about me. You asked for an example of a responsible conservative news source and those are as responsible as similar liberal sources. The Wall Street Journal is certainly as responsible and reliable as The New York Times. More so.

And you didn't listen to your own OP video very well: Barney Frank did not call the Wall Street Journal to task for printing anything bogus, he referred to a speech John Fund made and pointed out that Fund sits on the WSJ's editorial board. The story Frank refers to never appeared in the pages of the WSJ.

But on the subject of news stories, The New York Times is widely regarded as the most responsible, reputable, reliable liberal newspaper and yet this, from SourceWatch, is a powerful reminder:





Standards of excellence have deterioriated and the only way to be well informed is by reading and watching from a wide range of news sources and, when possible, original source material.

I don't consider the NYT a liberal news source, rather it is a news source and an excellent one. The errors you site were exposed by the times itself and they hired a public editor to police9ce their own publication. Contrast the Times errors and it's reaction to the innumerable examples of deliberate distortions and lies from conservative media that are documented daily by MediaMatters.

 

[iman]

Here is a good example of how the WSJ has become a spin machine for the Republicans since Murdoch took over.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001300003

The story pertains to the Obama performance in the Q&A with the House Republicans. That performance by Obama was universally termed a triumph for the administration and a bad mistake by Republicans. Nevertheless, the WSJ said:

Privately, Republicans welcomed the exchanges, many of which turned on policy nitty-gritty. The meeting elevated members of the House minority to Mr. Obama's footing and neutralized the Democratic line that the GOP is "the party of 'No,' " said one Republican strategist.

That's just bullshit! Nick, maybe it's not you, maybe it's your news sources. Try The Financial Times for awhile.

 

[JB3]

Here is a good example of how the WSJ has become a spin machine for the Republicans since Murdoch took over.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001300003

The story pertains to the Obama performance in the Q&A with the House Republicans. That performance by Obama was universally termed a triumph for the administration and a bad mistake by Republicans. Nevertheless, the WSJ said:



That's just bullshit! Nick, maybe it's not you, maybe it's your news sources. Try The Financial Times for awhile.

Can you even read? The ENTIRE second sentence is identified as coming from a GOP strategist, not the paper.

 

[JB3]

I don't consider the NYT a liberal news source, rather it is a news source and an excellent one. The errors you site were exposed by the times itself and they hired a public editor to police9ce their own publication. Contrast the Times errors and it's reaction to the innumerable examples of deliberate distortions and lies from conservative media that are documented daily by MediaMatters.

The times is liberal. Very liberal.

The fact that they ran a blatant hit piece on John McCain (full of insinuations of an extra-marital affair) on the front page should have told you as much.

 

[iman]

Can you even read? The ENTIRE second sentence is identified as coming from a GOP strategist, not the paper.

How is your comprehension? Did you read the link? Did you read anything about the meeting with the House? If any GOP strategist said anything like this it is at odds with the everything said about the meeting. It is a total misrepresentation of what happened, which, I realize is how you guys like your news, but some of us prefer the truth.

Using anonymous sources, just like using John Fund, WSJ editor, to say something in a speech rather than editorially is simply an artifice used to spread misinformation.

 

[JB3]

How is your comprehension? Did you read the link? Did you read anything about the meeting with the House? If any GOP strategist said anything like this it is at odds with the everything said about the meeting. It is a total misrepresentation of what happened, which, I realize is how you guys like your news, but some of us prefer the truth.

Using anonymous sources, just like using John Fund, WSJ editor, to say something in a speech rather than editorially is simply an artifice used to spread misinformation.

Well, to be frank, you're letting your ideology cloud your comprehension. It was very clear that it was presented as the republican view of the meeting. Its presence in the story is not an indication of bias; the lack of a republican viewpoint on the meeting and what they think might be the result could indicate a bias in the opposite direction.

(and that's ignoring the fact that, at least for the first part, what that strategist said was true. Meetings like this level the playing field, in a manner of speaking. The president cannot use his bully pulpit in the media, and instead has a frank and direct conversation with those individuals as close as can be to equals)

 

[NickCole]

I don't consider the NYT a liberal news source, rather it is a news source and an excellent one.

The Times is left leaning. Always has been.

Almost every newspaper leans one way or the other. Some very few are practically on the fence, like USA Today, but certainly the old papers who do investigative reporting and also have a strong in-house editorial page like the Times, the Journal, the Washington Post lean liberal or conservative.

They're all news sources and some on both sides can be excellent. But anybody who wants to be informed fully and fairly has to read news reports from both left leaning like the Times and right leaning like the Journal. And it's easy to see who does and who does not.

 

[NineOfClubs]

The Times is left leaning. Always has been.

The fact that iman does not see this, well it speaks volumes.....

 

[NickCole]

Here is a good example of how the WSJ has become a spin machine for the Republicans since Murdoch took over.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001300003

The story pertains to the Obama performance in the Q&A with the House Republicans. That performance by Obama was universally termed a triumph for the administration and a bad mistake by Republicans.

A really good reporter reports what he observes and the information he can gather and take-aways from people who were at the event, not merely to parrot what is "universally termed."

Nevertheless, the WSJ said:

"Privately, Republicans welcomed the exchanges, many of which turned on policy nitty-gritty. The meeting elevated members of the House minority to Mr. Obama's footing and neutralized the Democratic line that the GOP is "the party of 'No,' " said one Republican strategist. "

That's just bullshit! Nick, maybe it's not you, maybe it's your news sources. Try The Financial Times for awhile.

Not only is it not bullshit to report what a Republican strategist says at a politcal event between a Democratic President and Republican Representatives, it's flat-out good reporting.

Darned good reporting! It reports something not seen in other reports, something accurate: the event DID elevate the House minority to the President's footing, and it shows in Obama's annoyance at ... well I'll let his words, trying to cut in on Rep. Jeb Hensarling, say it [emphasis added]:

Jeb, I know there is a question in there somewhere. You are making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with and I have to sit here and listen to them. At some point I you are going to let me answer.

http://www.pddnet.com/news-ap-massachusetts-stimulus-money-tracking-stimulus-mo-020110/

Your bais --and MediaMatters' bias-- apparently wants every report to reflect nothing more than the "universally termed triumph" of Obama's masterful performance. But the truth --and newspapers should report the truth-- of the event is not as flat as that. Some people saw more than just Obama's brilliant performance, and good reporting includes more than the flat "universal" perspective of an event.

The very first excercise on the very first day of Journalism class, the door opened and a few people came into the room and did a few things (predetermined by the professor) and then left. The professor said write a news report of what just happened. Some elements appeared in every report, some in most reports, some appeared in just a few reports and some showed up in only one. The same event happened but we didn't all see the same things. Some duller but substantive details (someone changed something in the "who what when where why and how" written on the blackboard) appeared accurately in only one or two reports while flashier sexier more obvious stuff (like they each kissed a red fire extinquisher, and one girl flashed a breast for an instant, which brought a cheer from those who saw it and turned most eyes in that direction while other things were happening elsewhere) were universally reported. Good reporting doesn't simply repeat what is "universally termed," or most obvious, it reports details and nuance that is often found in the body of eyewitness observations.

 

[iman]

Sorry, I'm not buying the Rashomon explanation. If one's take on an event is totally at odds with any fair judgement of what was a clear cut situation, then it is misrepresentation. I doubt that this anonymous "Republican strategist" even exists, but if such a person is real, then they are more accurately a Republican spin doctor not a strategist. I wonder why the "strategist" was not named if they exist? If papers have an agenda, as all of Murdoch's papers do, I suggest one approach it with a health scepticism - comprehension folks.

Maybe, in 1937, one could find an observer to say that the Hindenburg had a "rough landing", but that really does not accurately reflect what happened. Maybe a company spokesman might say that the "Titanic discharged it's passengers prematurely", but that would not be accurate either.

I know that conservatism depends on lies and distortions and a Groupthink that promotes myths and prejudices, but I would think that at some level, just out of individual self respect, one would resent the con job and want to keep in touch with reality. The Bush disaster was partly caused because they started to believe their own propaganda.


If you don't want to cancel your WSJ subscription because you resent the Murdoch agenda, then at least call them and complain about the incestuous support of Murdoch's Newscorp (WSJ) and Dish Network supporting Glenn Beck.
Unless, of course, you consider Beck a legitimate commentator also.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001290046

 

[JB3]

Sorry, I'm not buying the Rashomon explanation. If one's take on an event is totally at odds with any fair judgement of what was a clear cut situation, then it is misrepresentation. I doubt that this anonymous "Republican strategist" even exists, but if such a person is real, then they are more accurately a Republican spin doctor not a strategist. I wonder why the "strategist" was not named if they exist? If papers have an agenda, as all of Murdoch's papers do, I suggest one approach it with a health scepticism - comprehension folks.

I know that conservatism depends on lies and distortions and a Groupthink that promotes myths and prejudices, but I would think that at some level, just out of individual self respect, one would resent the con job and want to keep in touch with reality. The Bush disaster was partly caused because they started to believe their own propaganda.


If you don't want to cancel your WSJ subscription because you resent the Murdoch agenda, then at least call them and complain about the incestuous support of Murdoch's Newscorp (WSJ) and Dish Network supporting Glenn Beck.
Unless, of course, you consider Beck a legitimate commentator also.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001290046

Your attempts to bait are as transparent as your ideological bias that is causing you to be so ignorant.

The fact that you don't approach the new york times with the same skepticism as you do the wall street journal speaks volumes about the ignorant and uniformed state in which you choose to live.

 

[iman]

^ I approach everything with some skepticism, but the fact that the Times carries a range of columnists, unlike the WSJ, and has editorially supported causes associated with conservatives gives the Times substantial credibility. The Times has a liberal point of view in that it does not subscribe to a particular ideology. Conservatives think that anything or anyone that does not constantly support a right wing ideology is ipso facto a liberal, it's part of conservative groupthink, it's denial. It protects you from the facts.

 

[NickCole]

If one's take on an event is totally at odds with any fair judgement of what was a clear cut situation, then it is misrepresentation.

You do not own the copyright on what is and is not "fair judgment." And you're in no position to judge whether or not, or what, was said privately by one or several Republican strategists.

If you don't want to cancel your WSJ subscription because you resent the Murdoch agenda,

I wouldn't cancel a subscription because I resent the owner's agenda, and I've never understood people who narrow their world of experience in a huff that way. And, further, I'm very interested in what adversaries think and what they're reporting. IMO knowledge is power, the more I know the better equipped I am to deal with what happens, and ignorance is tantamount to idiocy.

then at least call them and complain about the incestuous support of Murdoch's Newscorp (WSJ) and Dish Network supporting Glenn Beck.
Unless, of course, you consider Beck a legitimate commentator also.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001290046

Why would I complain? What business is it of mine? I defend Glenn Beck's right to say whatever he wants. Freedom of speech is not only for those who agree with us or who say things the way we're comfortable hearing it.

Glenn Beck and other fools like him are not anywhere near the problem for our nation right now that Barack Obama is. All Beck does is rant and rave into a microphone; Obama has squandered every opportunity handed to him to get our nation headed in a better direction and failed to lead others with the power to do so.

To people going bonkers about nonsense like this and Sarah Palin scribbling on her hand, I strongly suggest you give your head a good strong shake and restore your sense of proportion.

 

[construct]

Barney Frank catches WSJ Editorial writer in a bald faced lie and then traces the life of that lie in right wing media.

It is a great example of what we all know, which is the right lives on lies, myths and distortions.

Nice going, Barney!

All right, people! Listen to the clip one more time. Never once does Rep. Frank denounce the whole Wall Street Journal of being part of the right-wing echo chamber. He condemns only the editorial page. The only other print publication he includes is the Washington Times. Both are undoubtedly part of the right-wing echo chamber.

Whether it belongs on the floor of the House I don't know. What was under discussion at the time? The clip doesn't show. He's still right about the modus operandi of the right, and he's right about everyone and everything he mentioned as being a part of that echo chamber. What he said was right, and he gave a good example of how it works.

 

[NickCole]

^^ In today's media there is a right wing echo chamber and a left wing echo chamber. For the left, from MSNBC and its day-and-evening-long line up of left leaning political shows to publications like Time magazine, and the usual suspects for the right, that echo is going on constantly from both sides. And Obama adds to that with events like his tete-a-tete with Republicans, which was just both sides echoing the same talking points and insisting the other wasn't telling the truth.

That it happens from both sides is evident right here on this forum.

Barack Obama and his supporters promised change from all this but neither he nor they are anything more than voices in the echo chamber. Change happens as a result of your own actions, not because you tell your opponent to change.