So, The Politico is a Republican organ now and you think Obama should keep talking about Rush Limbaugh some more. And The Obama Administration is too clueless to realize they should be on the defensive. They did get the green dye in the fountains, though, which is the change I've been waiting for. That and a Cabinet Secretary named Arne. Question: Who is the girl with cough in the background? Cough Girl reveal yourself.

Quoting PiltdownMan: So, The Politico is a Republican organ now ...

Nope. Always has been. They're just more obvious about it now.

... and you think Obama should keep talking about Rush Limbaugh some more.

Nope. He doesn't need to. That one mention was enough to urge the Republicans to form a circular firing squad and finish the job.

And The Obama Administration is too clueless to realize they should be on the defensive.

Merely repeating the Weekly Standard's empty assertion doesn't make it so. Support your case, if you can.

They did get the green dye in the fountains, though, which is the change I've been waiting for. That and a Cabinet Secretary named Arne.

If these are your biggest complaints, you should be ecstatic.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nope. Always has been. They're just more obvious about it now.

Brendan, I agreed with you until just recently. I agree they write from a perspective contrary to the administration. Really, they're an anti-establishment paper. They write to shit stir. They want to be cited on blogs, get more hits, most importantly get attention on the Drudge. But this is all the goal of being profitable. This isn't done for partisan gains. Politico recognizes that there's an audience for anti-administration or contrarian messaging. Politico launched in the midst of the presidential primaries and throughout that process their message stayed the same. Quite often the articles were anti-Clinton or at least tilted that way. Now we see them tilted away from Obama, why, because that's where the money is.

Quoting sp3akthetruth: Brendan, I agreed with you until just recently. I agree they write from a perspective contrary to the administration. Really, they're an anti-establishment paper. They write to shit stir. They want to be cited on blogs, get more hits, most importantly get attention on the Drudge. But this is all the goal of being profitable. This isn't done for partisan gains.

Politico recognizes that there's an audience for anti-administration or contrarian messaging.

Politico launched in the midst of the presidential primaries and throughout that process their message stayed the same. Quite often the articles were anti-Clinton or at least tilted that way. Now we see them tilted away from Obama, why, because that's where the money is.

I think there is something to this view, and certainly, no one wants another media outlet shilling for the Adminstration the way Fox did for the Bush Administration. But I think they often go beyond that, happily reprinting Republican talking points (usually not entirely honest ones, obvs.), taking a slant on stories presented as straight reporting, omitting facts and clarifications, etc. Here's a recent example that was particularly irritating to me. There are plenty of others, for example, as documented by Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald, TPM, and Think Progress. Are

Ben Smith and some others are also members of the JournList or whatever it is that is a liberals only, elite blog.

Politico is definitely more straight and less biased than Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald, TPM, and Think Progress. Ipso facto those four are biased Progressive voices. You can't just say anything that isn't Progressive is dishonest or full of it. I mean liberals are half wrong on everything, and conservatives half right on everything. So at least half the stuff any Progressive writes is bullshit.

Quoting Lyle: Politico is definitely more straight and less biased than Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald, TPM, and Think Progress. Ipso facto those four are biased Progressive voices.

I grant that MM, GG, TPM, and TP are all lefty sites. That does not change the worth of their scrutiny of Politico. If you sample some of the posts by following the links I gave above, you'll see that they are documenting errors of fact and other provable missteps, and are not just making empty assertions about bias.

You can't just say anything that isn't Progressive is dishonest or full of it.

I don't. Next straw man?

I mean liberals are half wrong on everything, and conservatives half right. So at least half the stuff any Progressive writes is bullshit.

A wholly unsupported, and unsupportable, claim.

Quoting Lyle: Ben Smith and some others are also members of the JournList or whatever it is that is a liberals only, elite blog.

You should check your facts before you type. It's not a blog. It's a listserv. It does not publish. It's a place for people to talk amongst themselves. It's not for liberals only. Also, the name is Journolist. See the relevant Politico story. And that three Politico staffers participate in this group does not dissuade me of my view that Politico has a noticeable overall rightward tilt. I think the title of the piece linked to above pretty much makes that clear. [Added] Also worth a look: John Cole's comment, which leads to Journolist founder Ezra Klein's blog post/statement.

I'm fully aware of the tilt Politico articles. I've written about it in my blog and we've discussed them previously. But the motives behind this tilt is what I'm getting at. They do use GOP talking points. But that's because they're in a race against time. They publish so many articles on relatively minor stories always hyping up the contrarian or anti-establishment POV. This TNR article is worth a read. It shows just how and why they get the text they end up with. I enjoyed Ezra here more than I usually do today. I think Matt buttered him up just enough that he could flex his intellect. It was a nice side of him.

Quoting sp3akthetruth: I'm fully aware of the tilt Politico articles. I've written about it in my blog and we've discussed them previously. But the motives behind this tilt is what I'm getting at. They do use GOP talking points. But that's because they're in a race against time. They publish so many articles on relatively minor stories always hyping up the contrarian or anti-establishment POV.

If they just want to be the next Drudge, or the DC version of Page Six, fine. But this doesn't wash as an excuse if they want to claim to be a respectable news source. I'd also point out that there is no doubt they could find just as much filler by retyping Democratic and lib groups' press releases bashing the GOP Congressional leadership, doing updates on the Republicans' latest obstructionist tactics, whatever crazy stuff their spokesnuts said, etc.

I enjoyed Ezra here more than I usually do today. I think Matt buttered him up just enough that he could flex his intellect. It was a nice side of him.

I've long liked Ezra's appearances. He is the first person to talk about health care wonkery that I've ever enjoyed listening to.

Quoting bjkeefe: You should check your facts before you type.

A message that could also be directed at Erick, Son of Erick, Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of the RedState Trike Force.

It's not that they want to be the next Drudge or Page 6, it's that they want those rags to source them. Republicans aren't in power. There's very little of the contrarian/anti establishment argument to make on their behalf. They are cited by every blog because they get the story first, of ten times through short handed/stunted reporting, but always fast and always timely. There headlines often don't even match the article. They are crawling for Drudge links. You see there's two issues here, disagreeing with the administration is more attractive to readers. Even those who get angry or frustrated by Politico. Politico still get the hits.

Then what, pray tell, is Ezra Klein?! http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/184...2:43&out=12:53

Quoting sp3akthetruth: [...]

Sorry. I've never bought into the preference for getting it first over getting it right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I suspect the concern and curiousity about the private Ezra list is that it is reserved for Jews predominately. What with jews being the principals in so much of public events, the news, if true, that the democrat Jews reporting and commenting on these events have a private network in which they talk amoungst themselves is something people would like to know about.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I suspect the concern and curiousity about the private Ezra list is that it is reserved for Jews predominately. What with jews being the principals in so much of public events, the news, if true, that the democrat Jews reporting and commenting on these events have a private network in which they talk amoungst themselves is something people would like to know about.

Am I crazy or has Steve stepped over the line here?

Quoting AemJeff: Am I crazy or has Steve stepped over the line here?

I think he's disappointed that most of his recent trolling attempts have failed, so he's ramped it up a bit.

Oh, and ...

Quoting PiltdownMan: And The Obama Administration is too clueless to realize they should be on the defensive.

... I guess the latest Republican running for office didn't get the memo either.

I don't get why people gush over the Seattle P-I. Yeah, it's old, but it would've been out of business decades ago if the Seattle Times hadn't rescued it. There's nothing remarkable about it besides its age and its sweet logo.

Quoting AemJeff: Am I crazy or has Steve stepped over the line here?

I tried to word the question in a neutral way. Is there a private list somewhere where the facts of Jews involved in public issues are discussed with a degree of mutual trust? Every now and then I read that the rest of the world sees American society as controled by Jews. I think they are wrong, but to what degree?

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry. I've never bought into the preference for getting it first over getting it right.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't see why you two have to agree to disagree. There's a way to settle this, which we can grasp if we just review the dialectic so far: You agree that Politico is a "Republican organ". This seems to me to imply that its writers are Republicans. sp3ak said they're not Republicans, it's just that, right now, they support Republicans because Republicans are out of power, and contrarianism--opposition to power--is a way to make money. You admitted that there's "something to this". But you went on to say, "there is no doubt they could find just as much filler by retyping Democratic and lib groups' press releases bashing the GOP Congressional leadership, doing updates on the Republicans' latest obstructionist tactics, whatever crazy stuff their spokesnuts said, etc." I take it that your point is that they are right-wingers because if they were just interested in profit they'd be repeating liberal as well as conservative talking points. Since they mostly repeat conservative talking points, they must be significantly interested in

Quoting Bobby G: You agree that Politico is a "Republican organ". This seems to me to imply that its writers are Republicans. sp3ak said they're not Republicans, it's just that, right now, they support Republicans because Republicans are out of power, and contrarianism--opposition to power--is a way to make money. You admitted that there's "something to this".

I disagree with how you've framed this premise. It's more a partisan organ if its policies are set in terms of partisan goals. That's not the same thing as the bylines belonging to members of a particular party.

What news sites are "respectable" news sources?

Quoting Lyle: What news sites are "respectable" news sources?

Why don't we start by listing necessary criteria? I'll begin. 1) Is not run by Matt Drudge.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I tried to word the question in a neutral way. Is there a private list somewhere where the facts of Jews involved in public issues are discussed with a degree of mutual trust? Every now and then I read that the rest of the world sees American society as controled by Jews. I think they are wrong, but to what degree?

I'm not sure that question can be asked in a neutral way. It's based on a non-neutral premise: that a private conversation among Jews is somehow more sinister than other private conversations. The parts of the rest of the world that sees the US as being controlled by Jews also sees 9/11 as being intentionally caused by Bush. I think they're wrong, but to what degree?

That's great... but what news sites do you think are "respectable" news sources?

Quoting Bobby G: I don't see why you two have to agree to disagree. There's a way to settle this ...

An interesting analysis. I wish I had the motivation to study the issue systematically, but I have to confess it's hard to get started when the results, even if they come out as I suspect, would be largely ignored.

Quoting Lyle: What news sites are "respectable" news sources?

There are many. Most of the MSM names you could come up with are reasonably respectable, I'd say. (Almost by definition.) They all have their shortcomings, and they all make mistakes, so I don't treat any of them as gospel on anything that matters, but I do trust they mostly make good faith efforts to get things right. Probably the biggest complaint I'd make about any of them is what they choose not to cover, or how much emphasis they give to the periodic non-story.

More Journolist hilarity on Wonkette. Also, graz has another angle, in the "Gossip about the 'heads" thread.

I have to confess, Jeff, I don't quite get what you mean. Are you saying that Politico is a partisan organ or not?

Check my facts? I was casually stating something I had read the day before... that there's a listserv or blog or online something for elite left of center journalists/writers/elites to go on and talk about (i never said its publish, where'd you get that from?). I know nothing about it. I don't care about it. I have no opinions about it. Oh no. The point in bringing it up was to point out that liberals write for Politico. Is that true or not true? At least I didn't say Keith Olbermann or David Schuster are a part of this "thing". I knew that much, since Schuster is having a fit about it. By the way what's your problem keefe? Why is everything have to be a battle with you? I didn't say what I said was accurate. This is just a casual conversation, and I'm not trying to defeat you. And next time understand why I brought the listserv up... not to talk about the listserv, but to show that liberals write for Politico.

Quoting Lyle: Check my facts? I was casually stating something I had read the day before... that there's a listserv or blog or online something ...

No. You said it was a blog. From your earlier post:

Quoting Lyle: Ben Smith and some others are also members of the JournList or whatever it is that is a liberals only, elite blog.

The "whatever it is" referred to your apparent uncertainty over the name, and not to what you were claiming it was. Back to your latest ...

... for elite left of center journalists/writers/elites to go on and talk about (i never said its publish, where'd you get that from?).

Because you said it was a blog, which unequivocally implies that it's being published.

I know nothing about it. I don't care about it. I have no opinions about it. Oh no. The point in bringing it up was to point out that liberals write for Politico. Is that true or not true?

There were three Politico staffers named as belonging to Journolist. I don't know anything about Lisa Lerer. From what I've read and heard from Ben Smith and Mike Allen, I would not describe them as liberals. There is also evidence to suggest that either they

keefe, I called it a blog, I used the wrong word (i meant something like online forum, which I should of wrote)... so what? It's a listserv, my bad... that's not the flipping point. Liberals write for the Politico... that was the point. What do you not understand about that? We're not at war keefe, we're not a war. So chill out. Calling people out over picayune shit is not what this is about... it's about Politico having liberals writing for it. Do you get that? I don't take all this stuff that seriously man, so calm down.

Quoting Lyle: keefe,

I called it a blog, I used the wrong word (i meant something like online forum, which I should of wrote)... so what? It's a listserv, my bad... that's not the flipping point. Liberals write for the Politico... that was the point. What do you not understand about that?

I understand everything about that. You wanted to rebut my view that Politico is a right-leaning outfit by suggesting that "liberals write for" it. I've already addressed this, twice. I disputed your erroneous statements because if we're going to have a debate, it's worth taking the time to correct the founding assumptions before proceeding.

We're not at war keefe, we're not a war. So chill out. Calling people out over picayune shit is not what this is about... it's about Politico having liberals writing for it. Do you get that? I don't take all this stuff that seriously man, so calm down.

Sounds like you ought to take your own advice. If it's "picayune" and you don't "take all this stuff that seriously," why do you keep responding, at length, and in such an aggrieved tone?

Quoting bjkeefe: A message that could also be directed at Erick, Son of Erick, Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of the RedState Trike Force.

And will someone please explain to him the first rule of holes? Sadly, he does not seem to have heard of it.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sounds like you ought to take your own advice. If it's "picayune" and you don't "take all this stuff that seriously," why do you keep responding, at length, and in such an aggrieved tone?

Couldn't it be that he doesn't take the Politico stuff that seriously, but does take the issues of tone between you and him seriously? Given that that seems to take up the lion's share of his latest response to you, I don't think that's a bad interpretation.

Quoting Bobby G: Couldn't it be that he doesn't take the Politico stuff that seriously, but does take the issues of tone between you and him seriously? Given that that seems to take up the lion's share of his latest response to you, I don't think that's a bad interpretation.

I might believe that if he had acknowledged his original error succinctly, and not instead gone off in all different directions, saying first that it didn't matter, but then it did, because he was trying to make a point, but then he didn't care about it, but then one word is the same thing as another word, etc. Seems to me he is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, on his original statement. Also, he keeps reasserting a claim about liberals writing for the Politico. Three times, so far. That seems at least somewhat serious. Therefore, that a better interpretation -- informed in part by past behavior -- is that he would like not to have to admit he made an mistake, that he would like to keep pushing the idea that Politico, overall, is liberal, and that his long-winded griping about my refusal to let him get away

keefe, The problem is you missed the entire gist of the original post... that Politico has plenty of liberals writing for it. That's why I continue to repeat myself. Liberals write for Politico. Liberals write for Politico. Liberals write for Politico. You're more bothered that I called something a blog whether than a listserv... oh so egregious, so egregious. Obama slipped in a speech once and said there were more than 50 states. Guess nobody should trust anything he says ever again. What an idiot.

Quoting Lyle: keefe,

The problem is you missed the entire gist of the original post... that Politico has plenty of liberals writing for it. That's why I continue to repeat myself. Liberals write for Politico. Liberals write for Politico. Liberals write for Politico.

You're more bothered that I called something a blog whether than a listserv... oh so egregious, so egregious.

Obama slipped in a speech once and said there were more than 50 states. Guess nobody should trust anything he says ever again. What an idiot.

Next question, Bobby G?

Quoting Bobby G: I have to confess, Jeff, I don't quite get what you mean. Are you saying that Politico is a partisan organ or not?

No - I think it is, but that wasn't my point. I was talking strictly about the test you constructed. I don't think that the overall party ID of the writers constitutes a dispositive test. It's suggestive, but doesn't really answer the question.

What an incredibly strange and coded comment DenvilleSteve. Having a private conversation with a group of people with whom you have a common interest does not equal anything noteworthy. Please don't equate criticism of Isreal's policies with implications of anything else.

I suspect the concern and curiousity about the private Ezra list is that it is reserved for Jews predominately.

Yes, that's true, Steve. But we are thinking of letting a couple of circumcised Gentiles buy in, if they renounce Jesus without crossing their fingers. We are also thinking of letting some Gentiles get a piece of the action in Hollywood and on Wall Street, which we currently own, operate and control. Did you notice, by the way, that all the people on Ezra's list who worked in the World Trade Center did not show up for work on 9/11? I wonder why.

Quoting Wonderment: Did you notice, by the way, that all the people on Ezra's list who worked in the World Trade Center did not show up for work on 9/11? I wonder why.

And that can be proved, because they're all still alive. Clearly, the reason Steve has gone quiet is because the ADL got to him and circumcised his keyboard.