^ I've made my position quite clear. Whether you like it or not, I am free to answer questions as I see fit--and I usually present more evidence than most of you self-important blowhards present. If you don't like it, tough shit.

The fact is that no matter how much evidence I present, some of you will still cling to your failed ideology/argument. Let me present this again for your edification: I don't--and won't--work for any of you. I present a reasonable amount of evidence to support my positions--and I don't even have to do that. After all, one is entitled to one's opinion.

Clearly, the continual objections to my positions are more about me than my positions. Some of you don't like me--I get that and I couldn't care less. Please stop focusing on individuals and focus on the issues.

You obviously don't understand it but some of you actually need me or someone like me. I represent some kind of conservative bogeyman that you can rally against and mock. But deep down inside, I cause you know-it-alls to question, if even just a little, that comfortable bubble that academia has unfortunately convinced you that you're entitled to. Believe me, you need me more than you know.

BTW, the efforts by some of you to build a case against me and/or bait me are--again--transparent. Just for you, Captain Logic:

11/29/2007 2:47:59 PM

Quote :

"For those with eyes to see and the mind to comprehend, it can clearly be seen that the shameful image fits the dictionary's definition of libel, which I included, and my definition of libel, but probably not the legal definition. Get it? Please just STFU. "

Not really. The picture is essentially a political cartoon. They are not trying to misrepresent or to fool the reader in to thinking that Bush and Co. have actually been arrested and those are mugshots. For something to be defamatory, someone has to have a pre-existing good name, and considering Bush's approval rating and track record, it's not really defamatory. Your bias is really showing here. In causal speech among like-minded individuals, libel would work, and be understood. In an environment where you're suppose to be debating with people of differing view points, you have to be more specific and precise in you language.

At best, it's in poor taste, and worst, it's a dumb move. But only a knee-jerk reactionary or a blind partisan would attempt to insinuate that it approaches criminality.

11/29/2007 2:51:12 PM

Can someone please suspend him? He isn't adhering to the new rules at all.

11/29/2007 2:51:33 PM

"Hey everyone, look at me! I'm right, and you're all wrong, but I don't know how to explain. You just have to trust me."

11/29/2007 2:53:13 PM

^^^ Great copy-and-paste job there. And libel is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

BTW:

Quote :

"essentially a political cartoon"

So, it's not really a political cartoon at all, is it? It's really just an offensive image, right?

^^ That's your ultimate goal in these exchanges, isn't it? Not true legitimate discourse. If that's the case, you should actually be suspended. And note well the following: I didn't ask for any of this new crap, the bedwetting left-wing crybabies did--careful what you wish for.

11/29/2007 3:14:27 PM

Quote :

"Editorial cartoons are a type of gag cartoon found almost exclusively in news publications. Although they also employ humor, they are more serious in tone, commonly using irony or satire. The art usually acts as a visual metaphor to illustrate a point of view on current social and/or political topics. Editorial cartoons often include speech balloons and, sometimes, multiple panels. Editorial cartoonists of note include Herblock, Mike Peters, David Low and Gerald Scarfe."

I said essentially because it's not a drawn image, which is what I consider to be a cartoon. Now I see that it is not 'essentially' a political cartoon at all--it is a political cartoon.

Quote :

"I'm not always going to give the answer that suits you"

I'm just asking for an answer. Apparently you don't give those out.

Quote :

"You obviously don't understand it but some of you actually need me or someone like me. I represent some kind of conservative bogeyman that you can rally against and mock. But deep down inside, I cause you know-it-alls to question, if even just a little, that comfortable bubble that academia has unfortunately convinced you that you're entitled to. Believe me, you need me more than you know."

You've watched A Few Good Men too many times. Too bad you're no Jack Nicholson.

Anyways, thanks for not being able to point out any examples of liberal bias in the article you posted:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/267580_ferryterror21.html

Maybe it wasn't that biased after all?

11/29/2007 5:06:01 PM

So I read the ferry article linked back on the last page... I guess it is not the clearest example of liberal bias necessarily. It is just a bunch of boring statistics blah blah blah and then the interesting tidbit at the very end. Clearly the intention is to devalue the bit about the mid-eastern folks surveying the ferry. Now it's been a while and perhaps it is even the case that it has been clearly shown that these guys were in no way terrorists, perhaps they're just like ferries or something. But, the article seems to wish to downplay the incident,

Seems like this bit should be towards the top of the article,

Quote :

"However, a September 2004 incident briefing report was obtained by cryptome.org, a Web site that often posts classified documents. The report states: "WASHINGTON: Suspicious Activity of Two Middle Eastern Males on Ferry. According to USCG reporting, on 27 September, in Seattle, two Middle Eastern males were observed studying the schematic of the Wenatchee Ferry for an extended period of time. As soon as the two males noticed an employee approaching, they immediately walked away from the schematic and picked up a magazine to ward off attention. At the end of the voyage, the two males returned to their vehicle. A license plate check revealed the vehicle belonged to a rental company. Information from the rental company on the vehicle indicated that it was rented to a business located in Tukwila. The business was unable to be located. An investigation is ongoing." Turner would not comment on the investigation, except to say "the key here is we've got something to follow up on -- a license plate." Laughlin urged ferry riders to be vigilant and report any suspicious activity. "We are tracking down every suspicious incident that is brought to our attention," she said. "It will be followed up." At Seattle's Colman Dock, ferry passengers waiting for the 2:05 p.m. boat to Bainbridge on Thursday took the inspector general's report in stride. "If it's the highest threat here, why don't we have more security here like we do at the airports?" asked Anya Averill, 52, of Portland, who was visiting friends. "I will notice things when I'm flying. I'll go to the desk and say, 'There's a suitcase over there with no person.' " But Craig Swanson, 53, of Bainbridge said, "I would worry more about being hit by a car on the freeway than being hit by a terrorist." Jenn Spies, 16, of Bainbridge, agreed. "If it was a big concern of mine," she said, "I wouldn't be riding on the ferry.""

There have been a few Jihadist-type shootings here and there in the last few years, I don't think they get nearly as much press coverage as they would if they were oh I don't know something like some white boys raping a black girl. Point is that when extremist Muslims act out their faith we shouldn't pay it much mind because that interferes with the popular fairy tail that Islam is almost entirely a peaceful religion.

Anyway, I shouldn't start this because I don't have time to back any of this up at the moment, just trying to give you some inkling for why people might say that article is biased.

The larger point that the media is biased is a much easier point to make, the bias in that article is a more subtle one. IMHO.

11/29/2007 11:53:45 PM

Quote :

"Point is that when extremist Muslims act out their faith we shouldn't pay it much mind because that interferes with the popular fairy tail that Islam is almost entirely a peaceful religion."

Where have you been living the past 15 or so years? Muslims take it pretty hard from what I gather. Everyone over the age of 30 that I talk to thinks that Muslim = extremist.

To me, it seems like Islam isn't any more violent than any other particular Judeo-Islam-Christian religion, it just happens to be the most visibly violent at this moment in history. Hopefully it'll change in the next few years and become less violent, but that just means it'll be someone else's turn to take the spotlight.

11/30/2007 7:21:09 AM

Quote :

"I guess it is not the clearest example of liberal bias necessarily. It is just a bunch of boring statistics blah blah blah and then the interesting tidbit at the very end. Clearly the intention is to devalue the bit about the mid-eastern folks surveying the ferry. Now it's been a while and perhaps it is even the case that it has been clearly shown that these guys were in no way terrorists, perhaps they're just like ferries or something. But, the article seems to wish to downplay the incident,"

I would disagree that placement of the specific incident is an indication of bias. The entire article is about how the greatest number of significant incidents are reported in the Puget Sound area and what law enforcement is doing about it. That particular incident is used as an example--the article isn't intended to be about specific incidents, but rather larger trends and how Puget Sound fits into them.

I don't believe that this particular article is biased. However, I was curious what about the article others might consider to be bias. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Quote :

"a few Jihadist-type shootings here and there in the last few years,"

What is a 'Jihadist-type' shooting?

Quote :

"the popular fairy tail that Islam is almost entirely a peaceful religion."

I never considered this to be a fairy tale. With 1.5 billion followers, Islam is certain to have its share of bad apples. To be honest though, I don't think that current conflicts with the west are rooted in religion. Certainly, many act out through religion and use it as justification for their actions. I won't deny that many of the participants (on both sides), not understanding their actions in a larger context, firmly believe they're defending religion. However, I believe that 'religious conflict' ultimately has a lot more to do with the growing pains of globalization than it has to do with religion. Relgious violence is simply an expression of those growing pains.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 8:01 AM. Reason : Thank mathman for actually answering the question about bias.]

11/30/2007 7:57:48 AM

NBC Decides to Run Conservative-Group Ad

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops. The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season. NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political. But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said: 'We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday.' NBC' head of standards and practices, Alan Wurtzel, notified Freedom's Watch's media consultant Saturday by e-mail, writing: 'This will confirm that the Freedom's Watch spot is approved for air.' NBC initially said that airing the spot would violate the network's prohibition on controversial issue ads. Wurtzel, in an interview Friday with The Associated Press, said NBC found nothing wrong with the ad's content, but rather objected to the link to http://www.FreedomsWatch.org, viewing the Web site as too political. The group's home page is critical of liberals and has a link to a page urging lawmakers not to 'cut and run' from the war in Iraq. The home page also links to another Freedom's Watch page dedicated to ways to assist the troops and provides links to organizations that send care packages to soldiers. News of NBC's initial rejection caused an angry reaction on the Internet. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, appearing on the Fox News Channel on Friday, called for a boycott of NBC. Freedom's Watch, a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers, has emerged as one of the best-financed conservative groups. It seeks to be a vocal advocate of President Bush's current policy in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801250_pf.html

12/12/2007 5:04:02 AM

^ Nobody will defend this, huh?

12/13/2007 1:34:51 AM

Maybe no one gives a shit but you.

12/13/2007 2:29:38 AM

^ Um. . .the Washington Post and a number of other outlets gave a shit. It was a stunning anti-military position that NBC took, and the outrage of a great many people caused the company's reversal--whether you or others have the capacity to recognize that or not.

But, yeah, I didn't think you could defend it--and you proved me right. Thanks.

12/13/2007 2:58:24 AM

Who exactly are you expecting to defend it?

12/13/2007 3:09:46 AM

Or maybe no one is trying to defend it because no one gives a shit. Hence why no one responded to your copy and paste job.

12/13/2007 3:13:44 AM

^^ Um. . .those that claim the US media is not overwhelmingly liberal? Do you always have to ask about the meaning of or how to address a post? Do you have some illness that prevents you from being able to grasp meaning from context? Just wondering.

^ I have already demonstrated that a significant number of informed people "give a shit" about this issue. Don't blame me just because some of you are out of the loop.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 3:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2007 3:16:05 AM

I would say that the media has been slightly liberal only recently, during the downfall of Bush and his friends. Not overwhelmingly so though, you'd have to be a blind zealot to thing that.

But before the '04 elections, clearly it had a right-leaning bias. It's what spawned sites like moveon and DailyKOS to counter the general media.

Also, even if someone believed the media was not left leaning, that doesn't mean there aren't ever left-leaning incidences. It would be probably easier for someone to troll news sites and create a thread just like this with right-leaning incidences of the media. You can't show a trend by posting anecdotal evidence, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 3:21 AM. Reason : ]

12/13/2007 3:19:21 AM

^ Wrong on all points. Here's your data--two polls and a direct admission from an ABC News executive:

Americans See Liberal Media Bias on TV News

Quote :

"By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias. Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin. There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias--Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/pdf/4534

Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News, admits liberal bias

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cSFYNyZmaX0

From PBS--OCTOBER 28, 1996

Quote :

"I mean, start off with the fact that the press, the reporters, and bureau chiefs, as a poll last year showed. 89 percent of a sample of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. 7 percent voted for George Bush. Now to believe that those political feelings have no effect on coverage you would have to believe that you would get exactly the same coverage from an 89 percent Bush press corps. Obviously that's nonsense [emphasis added]. Now I don't think there's standard--there's conscious attempts to influence voters--it's vote for my candidate--that sort of thing doesn't go on in any serious way, certainly not by the standard political reporters who are pretty straightforward. I do think Bob Dole has a point when he says that--and suggests the press has a very much less hearty appetite for news of scandal than with a Democrat administration than it had with a Republican administration. I mean, he cites--this is not in--that doesn't mean they don't cover it at all. Yes, it does come out, but notice on the FBI files, when it was first reported that FBI files of Billy Ray Dale were in possession of the White House long after they fired him, that played on something like Page A-27 of the 'New York Times.' When it became clear that there were 300 files, that also ran on the interior page of the 'New York Times,' and it ran with a lead saying Clinton administration says it's all innocent. The fact is I am utterly convinced that if that had been a Republican administration with one or three hundred with FBI files in the possession of the White House, obviously wrongfully, that would have been front-age news, as it should have been, and as it soon became in the 'New York Times' and many other papers, one must add."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/bias_10-28.html

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 4:00 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2007 3:42:05 AM

^ So do you think that the media's bias doesn't shift at all, and instead remains where it is at all times, forever, and can never change? Because that's what it seems like you're trying to prove.

If this is what you believe, then do you ever ask yourself why this is? Is this a problem with the media or the means uses to determine bias, or what?

Also, do you also realize that there are several (well, at least 2) actual scientific studies (not fully empirical but more empirical than what you posted) that reach the opposite conclusion to what you've posted, that were done somewhere between 2002 and 2004, IIRC.

12/13/2007 3:47:08 AM

^ Way to dodge the "data" you requested. And is it possible for you to just make a post without asking a question?

And you don't know what you're talking about--both of the polls are solid. And Halperin's comments couldn't be more empirical--they come directly from the primary source and can be repeatedly observed! WOW--your post is just dumb!

Quote :

"Rasmussen Reports is pleased that our online audience includes roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats."

Quote :

"Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information. Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, 'One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com.' And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, 'In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.' Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome [emphasis added]. During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

Quote :

"Slate magazine cited Rasmussen as the most accurate pollster of Election 2004."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 3:58 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2007 3:50:45 AM

^ How did I dodge the data?

You posted an excerpt from an article with a dead link. I presume its from the post 04 period where I acknowledged a liberal bias. But, that's a poll of people, and considering 15% of them thought Fox was liberal, at least 15% of the people polled don't know what they're talking about.

Then you posted another article from 1996, which no one here is talking about, that presumes a bias because of how a particular group voted, which is not necessarily a valid connection to make (esp considering Bush I's presidency), especially when they attempt to make it with no proof.

12/13/2007 3:57:36 AM

Quote :

"But, that's a poll of people, and considering 15% of them thought Fox was liberal, at least 15% of the people polled don't know what they're talking about."

That's the exact same thing I was thinking.

12/13/2007 4:06:42 AM

^^ 1. Check the link again--it's not dead.

2.

Quote :

"I would say that the media has been slightly liberal only recently, during the downfall of Bush and his friends."

moron

This is why I posted the article from 1996--because you're incredibly wrong.

3. Are you actually saying that 89 percent of a sample of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs voting for Bill Clinton and just 7 percent voting for George Bush in 1992 had no effect whatsoever on news coverage? If you actually believe that, you're naive--to say the least.

4.

Quote :

"And is it possible for you to just make a post without asking a question?"

hooksaw

No, I guess you can't.

^ And the liberal echo chamber reverberates once more.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 4:12 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2007 4:10:16 AM

This is what i'm seeing at the Rasmussen link there. Are you logged in?

Quote :

"3. Are you actually saying that 89 percent of a sample of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs voting for Bill Clinton and just 7 percent voting for George Bush in 1992 had no effect whatsoever on news coverage? If you actually believe that, you're naive--to say the least."

No. What i'm saying is that doesn't prove the overall media is left/right by itself. Bush was not a great president, and people were clamoring for a change. Clinton won 70-30% that year (by EC). Considering this there are all kinds of leaps in logic I could make by combining the 2 stats that sound reasonable, but would be illogical based on the given data.

Quote :

""And is it possible for you to just make a post without asking a question?" hooksaw No, I guess you can't."

What's wrong with asking questions?

I'm not going to presume I know what your particular position is, then attack that position. That would make me look like an idiot. I'm trying to figure out what you believe and why, and if my belief is better or worse than your belief.

12/13/2007 4:21:04 AM

^ The link is working fine.

Quote :

"And is it possible for you to just make a post without asking a question?"

Quote :

"Do you have some illness that prevents you from being able to grasp meaning from context? Just wondering."

hooksaw

12/13/2007 4:28:09 AM

NBC Reporter Lee Cowan admits liberal bias:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HuYxnQdSAEo

1/11/2008 2:52:08 PM

that rolly eyes icon is beyond annoying

1/11/2008 3:19:44 PM

^ Yeah, I'd focus on a little emoticon instead of the glaring liberal bias if I were trying to avoid the issue, too.

1/11/2008 3:26:49 PM

Glaring?

hahaha

1/12/2008 12:50:13 AM

^ So you admit that the reporter's statement in question reveals liberal bias--just not glaring liberal bias, right?

1/12/2008 4:40:25 PM

In indicates THAT reporters bias.

In no way is it evidence of an overwhelming systemic bias.

Your choice of the word "glaring" though is very telling of your deluded perceptions.

[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2008 4:48:49 PM

^ That example of liberal bias was, in fact, glaring. Some years ago, a reporter would have been fired or reassigned for such a comment.

Brian Williams, anchor of NBC Nightly News, found the reporter's admission to be "courageous." Setting aside the fact that yet another network anchor revealed liberal bias by his apparent agreement with the reporter's comment, what did the reporter do that involved courage?

1/12/2008 5:10:34 PM

These may not qualify--but they're still interesting:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oTZnPFdFZvk

ESPN anchor disciplined after roast rant

Quote :

"An article in The Press of Atlantic City the next day said that Jacobson 'made an absolute fool of herself, swilling vodka from a Belvedere bottle, mumbling along and cursing like a sailor as Mike & Mike rested their heads in their hands in embarrassment.' She was booed off the stage. In a statement released through ESPN, Jacobson called her comments about Notre Dame 'foolish and insensitive.'"

Quote :

"Jacobson's remarks came just two days after another TV anchor was suspended for offensive language. Golf Channel suspended Kelly Tilghman for two weeks for saying on air that young players who wanted to challenge Tiger Woods should 'lynch him in a back alley.'"

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7711904?MSNHPHCP>1=10838

Tilghman remark:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkysGhnbdr0&feature=related

I mean, Rush Limbaugh was forced to resign for much, much less offensive comments than these, remember?

1/24/2008 2:07:16 AM

http://bp0.blogger.com/_pMscxxELHEg/R5e7jGQ3PxI/AAAAAAAABg0/g13emuhncTg/s1600-h/PhillyFed3month.jpg
From the economy thread it shows blue states being good and red states being bad. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

1/24/2008 12:24:15 PM

Talk about this whole messianic thing with Obama, Chris Matthews of MSLSD said of Obama's win in Iowa "the biblical term for it. . .is deliverance."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XE8hcjBFsz4

Quote :

"A visibly moved, sentimental Chris Matthews then chimed in with his account of an Obama speech he attended days before [New Hampshire]: 'It was the best speech I've ever heard. ... And I'm tearing up, and I'm writing down notes, and I'm trying to keep track of this thing. ... His heart must've been broken last night.' It appears Chris' was as well."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/09/chris-matthews-obamas-s_n_80805.html

Good Lord, Matthews et al, get a hold of yourselves.

2/8/2008 11:53:52 PM

2/9/2008 1:30:15 AM

^ So you've got nothing to offer other than that stupid shit, right?

2/9/2008 1:42:29 AM

yeah, I stopped giving a shit a few pages ago

2/9/2008 2:03:57 AM

^ Then GTFO and don't come back.

2/9/2008 2:27:27 AM

The Times own public editor says the paper was wrong:

What That McCain Article Didn't Say
By CLARK HOYT [public editor]

Quote :

"But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked [Bill] Keller [executive editor] why he decided to run what he had. 'If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we'd have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,' he replied. 'But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.' I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide [emphasis added]. The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, 'The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.'"

Quote :

"But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed [emphasis added]."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 4:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2008 4:52:37 AM

matt drudge just leaked that prince harry has been in afghanistan

2/28/2008 12:41:28 PM

he was in afghanistan...i dont see him being there much longer

2/29/2008 1:34:05 AM

wow, go drudge, endangering foreign nationals and all.

2/29/2008 8:09:22 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_re_eu/britain_prince_harry;_ylt=Alv0ZzZriQBAMK9Jb_Kqf1us0NUE


hes not in afghanistan anymore

2/29/2008 11:18:15 AM

where is the outrage?

had the NYTimes posted it on their website hooksaw would be going apeshit with glee as he padded this thread, right?

[Edited on March 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM. Reason : ,]

3/1/2008 6:22:19 PM

^ Because Drudge didn't break the story, and it's really no surprise that some here and elsewhere got that part wrong--it fits their narrative. In any event, I would have preferred that Drudge held the story.

Australian magazine broke Prince Harry story
By Nick Squires in Sydney
Last Updated: 2:18am GMT 01/03/2008

Quote :

"The story was published in Australian tabloid magazine New Idea last month but not followed up by other media. In an article on its website dated January 7, the magazine - nicknamed in Australia 'No Idea' - reported that Harry had seen front line action in Afghanistan despite opposition from the British government and members of the Royal family. New Idea said it could 'exclusively reveal' that the 'maverick prince' had already seen front-line action. The story was then picked up by a German newspaper and, yesterday, the US-based Drudge Report website, triggering world wide interest [emphasis added]. In an online poll on Sky News Australia, 78 per cent said it was wrong for the media to have leaked Prince Harry's deployment."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/28/wdrudge328.xml

3/1/2008 7:38:05 PM

geraldo was on npr this morning pimping his book

3/4/2008 9:08:18 AM

so ....

Matt Drudge, took an unknown aussie tabloid report, publicised it worldwide, and caused strategic and tactical disadvantage to our allies on the front lines in Afghanistan, and put the future King of England's brother directly in harm's way.

way to go, "liberal media"

3/4/2008 1:09:11 PM

It was tasteless for drudge to do that. However, Im not convinced they didnt want it leaked. Its good PR and the prince is now home safe. If it was leaked by their papers, it would look staged. Now its leaked overseas.

3/4/2008 2:08:44 PM

your conspiracy theory fails Occam's Razor.

interesting that "liberal" media outlets are just terrorist-loving freedom haters anytime the publish a picture of a flag-draped coffin... but disseminating classified tactical battleground information when done by a "conservative" outlet is a bit of sharp, covert PR beneficial to The Cause.

3/4/2008 2:31:06 PM