Posted on 10/24/2009 8:33:16 AM PDT by fiscon1
Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine we are about four years ago. The leak that Bush was using warrantless wiretaps had just occurred recently. Now, imagine that a spy begins to leak information but to only two sources for the most part. One source is Markos Malitsos of the Daily Kos. The other is a relatively unknown left wing blogger. Imagine that initially the unknown blogger leaked their name recklessly. Then, despite this initial breach of trust, both Kos and this unknown begin to not only write about the story but begin to write endlessly about this leaker and present them in a glowing manner. They do this only at about the time when this source, who was initially a conservative, suddenly becomes a liberal. Meanwhile, the unknown blogger will often quote Kos when making their case about how great the leaker is. At the same time, while Kos uses this leaker as a source, he also allows him to be a blogger on his own site. Not only do Kos and the other blogger write endlessly about how great this leaker is, they also often attack the leakers enemies, real and perceived. Eventually, it gets so bad that Kos begins to quote the unkown blogger when attacking the leakers' enemies. Worse than all of that, while they always write glowingly about the source, they usually don't disclose a piece of information about them that paints them in a bad light.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
I noticed the lie by omission. But it was pretty obvious all along, was it not?
“...basic journalistic ethics...”
You keep mentioning this concept of “journalistic ethics.” Can you please point us to the governing association responsible for assuring such ethics are, indeed, ever followed? Perhaps you can tell us the authority that certifies actual “journalists?”
Last I heard, there was no license needed for being called a “journalist,” nor was there any set of standards a “journalist” was required to follow. That’s why such a term really means, literally, nothing.
You won’t receive a reply for awhile. Football is on...
ACORN 8 Defender Rants About Michelle Malkin, Anita MonCrief and Me
"Michelle Malkin doesn't deserve to make money as a journalist...."
Th entire read is fascinating and rips Volpe to shreds.
That pretty much answers the charges here. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further from this source warrants interest. He's an ACORN apologist.
Ummmm, isn't that the very act of becoming a whistle blower? What I mean is that act of 'how she took a company computer and printed out proprietary information without authorization' that you apparently are 'not even talking about'?
I think that the misuse of the credit card (if it even occurred, perhaps ACORN could speak out on this) is relevant, but you seem to think that this lack of disclosure makes this a case of offsetting penalties, to use a football term that I know that you understand. Your writing is becoming more and more chaotic as you seem to be trying to extrapolate condemnations that your original complaint is unable to support.
This sounds more like an emotional issue than a corruption issue. People aren't agreeing with you and it's obviously frustrating you. To borrow from Obama, let me be clear: this is not nearly as relevant as you think it is. Deal with it...JFK
There are O’Bots, RonBots, DemBots.. I guess we now have ACORNBots.
This is a tempest in a teapot - a waste of electrons and bandwith and everyone’s time. There’s no there there.
First, what a waste of a football game.
Boy, this is amusing. Some are saying the piece is horrible. Others are saying there’s nothing there. Yet, others want an answer to every little thing in the piece. Then, others claim that there’s a mountain out of a molehill.
What you all should have done was ignore the piece. If it’s poorly written, that should have been it. Instead, you just spent the better part of three hours attacking someone who was at a bar and wasn’t on the computer. I think it’s pretty amusing that I’m somehow obliged to give up my life because the same people that claim that the piece is written poorly, has nothing in it, I must also answer everything in the piece.
That is interesting. Just so you know, there are many members of ACORN 8, Speaking truth to Power that don’t necessarily have the baggage of Moncrief, but that’s beside the point. If Malkin wants to use Moncrief as a source, that’s fine. I don’t have any problem with that but you can’t willfully not disclose revelant information about her as you write over and over about her.
In one piece, Malkin says that she’s seen documents provided to her by Moncrief. Why not just release the documents and reference them and then this whole thing would go away. If Moncrief is conflicted, then Malkin should just release the documents and reference them. They didn’t steal.
Also, I am no fan of ACORN or Obama and I have linked to plenty of articles against both of them.
You’ve been caught in so many lies it isn’t funny. Go back to watching football, moron.
Why don’t you take a look at Gaynor’s list of articles. He writes four days a week about Moncrief. It’s not up to Gaynor to decide when this is to be disclosed. Malkin has disclosed the credit card a couple times and yet calls Moncrief a whistle blower everytime. If I didn’t read her book or don’t read her blog regularly, then I don’t know the whole story. That’s why you disclose it every time because you don’t know who is reading what you are writing.
If you all are now going to use Gaynor as some sort of beacon that’s hilarious. This guy wrote a piece in which he cut and pasted comments from Big Government in praise of Moncrief. That was the whole piece. He’s done nothing but write glowingly about Moncrief since April.
See post 65. The information has been provided. Over and over again.
You raise some kind of absurd journalistic standard that it must be mentioned in utterly every writing about her. Meanwhile, you made up a completely bogus allegation about Malkin - that Fox won't have her on. A rather strange allegation, give Malkin was just on last month (and that came from less than five minutes with Google) and Malkin has a contributors profile on the Fox News website. So you lie through your teeth on this thread, and the have the temerity to question ANYONE's journalistic ethics? What a pantload.
The reason we are ripping into your pathetic a** is that some folks might believe your lies. So that is why you are getting shredded here.
why are we past 70 comments? You all, on the one hand, say that this is all nothing and on the other hand are hyperanalyzing everything in it.
First, if I said Malkin, I apologize, I meant Moncrief however I was describing things that Moncrief did so it should have been obvious who I was talking about. Malkin is their contributor.
You don’t mention it on occasion but every time. People don’t read all your work. Many people only read one article and so they won’t know what you said before.
As for her book, when Gaynor says she addressed it was one sentence that says, “Moncrief who was fired for charging up a company credit card for less than $2000.” That’s it. She spent a full chapter on her and that sentence. Again, it’s beside the point. What if I didn’t read her book. What if this is the first time I’ve read Michelle Malkin. Then, she says that Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower. I won’t know the whole story. That’s why journalistically you have to mention it every time. You have to treat your audience as though they’ve never read your work before.
No, you don't. That is your own standard, and a contrived one from that. And coming from someone who flat-out lied about Malkin not being allowed on Fox, it seems to me that YOU are the one who needs to re-examine your journalistic ethics.
Because you keep spreading the same crap while refusing to retract your lies, jackass.
He shore did a bang-up job ripping you a new sphincter. And you were dumb enough to link to it. BWAHAHAHA!
Ah, good to see at least that.
So tell us - why did you write previously that you thought Malkin should not get paid as a journalist?
Why did you mention on this blog entry that Malkin wouldn't have you in her Green Room?
Why did you engage in the absurd attempt at moral equivalence between Malkin and the Obama Administration?
Why do you make the absurd distinction that a whistleblower would not print out proprietary information and spread it without permission of those who want it kept secret?
And why do you refuse to acknowledge that Malkin, through Moncrief, broke the story that the Acorn embezzlement was more like $5 million, not $1 million, a claim since verified by another source?
In other words, why are you being a petty, jealous little ankle humper against folks that are doing actual journalism?
Good luck getting answers, dirtboy. Especially the one about whistleblowers printing out proprietary info that the real criminals want kept secret. I don’t think this guy can keep up with the argument...JFK
If you think that then that speaks for itself. If you want long rambling and difficult to follow and understand then you should read that Gaynor piece. I never finished it was so long.
Here’s a couple of really good ones,
“fact, Mike Volpe is jealous”
You think it’s a fact when one person says someone else is jealous even though they’ve never met. No, that’s an opinion.
More than that, Anita Moncrief is not a whistle blower in the sense that you should identify her as such. Real whistle blowers blow the whistle while working for the corrupt organization. The example in the piece is Pat McDonough. He blew the whistle on Chicago’s Hired Truck Scandal. He still works for the city. That’s pretty uncomfortable now almost five years later. Moncrief didn’t blow the whistle on anything until she lost her pay check.
That’s important because that totally changes perception of her. Her motivations are vital to determining her credibility. That’s why it’s so important to disclose everything. If you describe someone as a whistleblower, then the assumption is that they blew the whistle while working for the organization. That’s not what happened. Whistle blowers risk their livlihood to blow the whistle. That’s what McDonough did. Moncrief was already fired when she blew the whistle. That doesn’t mean she’s not telling the truth but you have to disclose it. It’s not your job to determine what the audience should know. They should know everything. Malkin decides to disclose somethings everytime, her being a whistle blower, those things that make Moncrief look bad she discloses almost never. Now, what kind of a picture do you think the audience will draw when you emphasize someone is a whistle blower and marginalize their theft and fraud? It’s not your job to paint the picture you want, but as it is.
All right, I’ve had enough of this debate. You all can go ahead with your attacks without me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.