The NY Post reports that Jerome Armstrong went on stock trading chat sites and hyped up stocks without mentioning that he was paid by the company. That's so dishonest I can't even believe it. I found the link via LGF and then followed it to Daily Kos to see what they had to say about the article. Several people seemed troubled by Armstrong's past, but many commenters flat out said that they were skeptical of the information because it came from the NY Post.

Frankly, I'm tired of that crap. Fox News is usually on the receiving end of that kind of nonsense: how many times have I heard someone sneeringly say something like, "Where'd you hear that, Fox News?" Fox may come off as pro-American, but people like to act like Fox is making up news stories. That's complete crap.

Armstrong was charged by the SEC in 2003; there's a civil suit on record. The NY Post didn't just make that up out of thin air. It disgusts me that people find it so easy to dismiss news just because they don't like where they heard it.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Fox News is usually on the receiving end of that kind of nonsense." All media are on the receiving end these days. Yes, Leftists dismiss news from FOX, but Rightists dismiss news from the "MSM" (apart from FOX in most cases, I assume), and some people dismiss news from blogs because they think traditional media are more trustworthy. Why do people dismiss the news? Not all sources are reliable. Who *wouldn't* dismiss news from the Weekly World News? Sources other than one's favorites are regarded as "biased" because they don't tell people exactly what they want to hear - which is their usual gauge of "reliability" and "objectivity."

Posted by: Amritas at June 19, 2006 07:48 AM (+nV09)

2 Amritas makes exactly the right point about conservatives dissing well-respected news sources. I just want to quibble with the claim that Fox comes off as "pro-American." This was a tendentious way to put your point---as if everyone who disagrees with Fox's take on events is ANTI-American. How about saying that Fox comes off as pro-Republican or pro-conservative? Not to beat a dead horse, but you can disagree with a conservative vision for America and still love the country.

Posted by: Pericles at June 19, 2006 10:32 AM (eKf5G)

3 Damn. I just spent 15 min replying and I lost the comment when I tried to post it. God I don't feel like saying all that again. OK. I wasn't trying to hem and haw by using "pro-American", and I didn't mean it as the opposite of anti-American. I am not a Fox News Person. I hate their anchors and coverage just as much as I hate everyone else's. 24-hr news is all annoying filler. You will disagree with me, but I honestly don't think Fox is such a big cheerleader for the Right. Granted, they have more conservative voices on their talk shows, but it's not their fault that other networks don't hire conservatives. Pericles, stop accusing me of saying things I don't say or mean! As for what Amritas said, I disagree that the situation is equal. In my experience, right bloggers think the MSM only presents one side of the story or goes over the top trying to be PC or trying to be too harsh against the President, but I cannot recall a single time they've accused the MSM of lying or making something up (except for Rathergate and the peeing on the Koran stuff, which of course was justified). But I hear the Fox Lies crap all the time. A few months ago we were watching TV and saw there was an explosion in downtown St Louis. The person we were watching with honestly said, "Well, it is Fox News, so who knows what really happened." Are you kidding me? NO ONE in the right blogosphere thinks that regular anchors at CNN are making up stories, but people say crap like that about Fox. Pericles, you used the word "diss", which people on the right certainly do for the MSM, but I have never heard them say that we shouldn't believe something because CNN/MSNBC/etc put it out. Correct me if you can find an example... (That didn't come out the same as it did the first time, but I'm irritated that I had to do it all over again.)

Posted by: Sarah at June 19, 2006 01:02 PM (YL5y0)

4 Sarah, I can look around for some instances of people on the right accusing the mainstream media of outright lying. The problem is that this is the sort of thing that you'll only see a lot of on blogs where some whackos hang out, and I don't spend much time on those whether they are "right wing" or "left wing." You probably spend more time on Kos than I do. There is another forum where I post where I think that I might be able to find such things... but I'm not anonymous there, so I won't be posting any links to it. I do notice that an outfit called "allrightgear" sells a variety of "CNN LIES!" t-shirts through Cafepress. If you don't think that Fox is pro-right wing, by the way, then you just haven't been watching enough. It isn't that Fox has more conservative commentators; it is that besides Alan Colmes, who may be a smart guuy but who just doesn't have the personality to stand up to Sean Hannity, they don't have any liberal ones. CNN has Jack Caferty in their morning show, who is the only omember of the show who I've ever seen make political comments, and Lou Dobbs has a show of his own. Fox's morning show has three lightweight conservative anchors, and no way does a liberal get a show a show of his or her own there, at least not one that includes political commentary. Think about all of the conservatives who had spots on CNN's Crossfire. As far as putting words in your mouth goes... I'm sorry if I did. In the few months that I've been hanging around this place, though, I bet that I've seen you complain about people doing that to you four or five times. If you get misunderstood enough, maybe you've got to start thinking that there is a lack of clarity on your part. I'm not saying that this is a big shortcoming; it is very hard to be clear in this medium. But when someone gets your point wrong, or sees an implication in your words that you didn't intend, then maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were really doing their level best to understand you, rather than acting like they were twisting your words on purpose.

Posted by: Pericles at June 20, 2006 02:50 AM (eKf5G)

5 Pericles, I don't think a lack of clarity on Sarah's part is to blame for your lack of understanding in this post (or any other). You may notice that the people that generally disagree with Sarah on politics are the ones who "misunderstand" her. It has nothing to do with how well she writes or how she puts her posts together. However, people that generally agree with her on politics don't seem to misunderstand her. It's funny, because I read Sarah's description of Fox News as "pro-American," I knew someone on the left was going to have a tantrum - but I also understood that she wasn't necessarily being tendentious - maybe that's because I share a lot of the same views as she. The thing is Pericles - debates are one thing, but constant condescension is another. You seriously need to chill out, dude.

Posted by: Erin at June 20, 2006 10:50 PM (Liogi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm thrilled to be back to watching South Park on TV. It's been three years, so we're behind on new episodes. We happened to catch the Paris Hilton episode the other night, and I loved the moral of the story: "Being spoiled and stupid and whorish is supposed to be a bad thing, remember? Parents, if you don't teach your children that people like Paris Hilton are supposed to be despised, where are they gonna learn it?" I couldn't help but think about this when I was flipping channels today and happened across The View. Apparently Paris Hilton is going to guest on the show tomorrow, and the women were all excited and defending her when some audience members tsk-tsked. Now, maybe they don't get any say in who is a guest, so maybe they have to pretend to be excited even if they hate Paris Hilton, but since when should someone like Barbara Walters ever say that Paris Hilton is a "cute and sweet girl"? What has the world come to when a 77-yr-old woman is defending the honor of a girl who answers her cell phone during sex on a porn video? I don't understand why she's even on The View, or why anyone even cares about her at all, but I guess that's the whole point of the opening scene in this South Park episode...

Bebe: Come on, Wendy, we're gonna miss it.
Wendy: We're gonna miss what?
Bebe: Paris Hilton is making an appearance at the mall.
Wendy: Who's Paris Hilton?
Red: "Who's Paris Hilton?"
Annie: You don't know?
Announcer: [someone takes a picture as he approaches the mic.] Hello, everyone! [drumroll] The Guess Clothing Company is pleased to have as its new spokesperson model, a woman all you young ones can look up to, Ms. Paris Hilton. [she appears and flashbulbs go off amid squeals from females in the crowd. She then lifts her bra and shows off her breasts]
Bebe: Wow, that's really her! Paris! Over here!
Wendy: I don't get it. What does she do?
Annie: She's super-rich!
Wendy: ...but what does she do?
Red: She's totally spoiled and savvy.
Wendy: [annoyed] What does she do?!
Man: [walks by and overhears] She's a whore. [takes his camera and snaps a few pictures]

Posted by: Sarah at 06:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Via CaliValleyGirl via Smink, I heard about this academic paper on milblogs. I haven't read the whole thing yet, only the part that Cali pointed out to me on pg 13.

Neil Prackish is an Army reserve officer and Silver Star awardee for valor; a dentist in civilian life, Prackish recently stopped blogging on his popular site, Armor Geddon, because of his own concerns for operational security.

Um, no, no, and no.

Neil Prakash is an active duty soldier. He is not a dentist, nor does he have any plans to be one (but his parents both are). I would even quibble about the reason he stopped blogging, but since I only know because we've sat in my living room and talked about it, I can hardly fault the authors that one. But otherwise, at least please spell his name right. Neil was hardly secretive or incognito on his blog, so these are things that should've been easy to fact check.

See, I typed "Neil Prakash" into google and immediately found better info on him than this academic paper provides. Of course, I spelled his name correctly, so maybe that's how I found it so fast. Hardy har.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.