The difference between lefty debunkers and right wing blowhards
By Libby
When a liberal site like Media Matters debunks a myth, they offer links to support their statements. When a right wing windbag like Hindracker at Powerline "refutes" said debunk, he merely repeats his false points - with photo aids for his less than literate readers I suppose - and makes another round of unsupported and demonstrably false statements.
Hindrocket simply can't come up with a single link to support his contention the false allegations were proven to be true, so he merely reposts the orginal debunked smear ads and declares them to be true and undebunked. Not to mention, he doesn't at all address the original premise of the Media Matters post that he made a demonstrably false declarative statement in alleging the ads were never even challenged.
Well, that may be good enough for his fans, but the rest of us thinking Americans prefer fact based information over the blogviations of a self-important blowhard in love with the sound of his own voice. Small wonder blogs like Power Line are slowly losing their influence in the public debate.
When a liberal site like Media Matters debunks a myth, they offer links to support their statements. When a right wing windbag like Hindracker at Powerline "refutes" said debunk, he merely repeats his false points - with photo aids for his less than literate readers I suppose - and makes another round of unsupported and demonstrably false statements.
Hindrocket simply can't come up with a single link to support his contention the false allegations were proven to be true, so he merely reposts the orginal debunked smear ads and declares them to be true and undebunked. Not to mention, he doesn't at all address the original premise of the Media Matters post that he made a demonstrably false declarative statement in alleging the ads were never even challenged.
Well, that may be good enough for his fans, but the rest of us thinking Americans prefer fact based information over the blogviations of a self-important blowhard in love with the sound of his own voice. Small wonder blogs like Power Line are slowly losing their influence in the public debate.
Labels: bloggers, Blogtopia, neo-conservatives, spin
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:36 AM
8 Comments:
When a liberal site like Media Matters debunks a myth, they offer links to support their statements. When a right wing windbag like Hindracker at Powerline "refutes" said debunk, he merely repeats his false points
Ok so then why don't you link to Hinderaker's response to Media Matters so we can judge for ourselves whether you are describing it fairly?
anon - if you go to the mediamatters link you will find the link you are looking for in the first paragraph where it says, "Hindraker claims."
I've read both sides and being an independant who tends to be up the middle of liberal and conservative, I have to tell you, Eric makes a pretty good argument with lots of supporting data while Hindraker continues to spout on. His contention is that perhaps one Swift Boat ad has been discredited, but what about the other whatever number ads that ran? I don't know how to tell him this, but once a person has been discredited, anything else they might say about the subject would be equally unbelievable. Time tends to blur the edges of reality and these guys, Kerry included, trying to give accurate statements from so long ago is probably not a good way to obtain a historical account. Any legal practitioner will tell you that the worst information in a criminal case is eyewitness testimony, especially if there is more than one witness. See this link for support of this statement.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html
Hindraker just doesn't provide any additional evidence that the swift boats ads are anything more than a smear campaign aimed at Kerry.
Anon - I believe Media Matters linked to it for one thing so why should I give the power-liars one more link? For another, it's my policy not to link to promoters of false information.
For yet another, Power-liars and others of their ilk like Malkin, never link to the leftys that prove them wrong, so why don't you go bitch at them for setting the precedent. If you're interested you can certainly find Hindracker anyway.
Rocky - I should have read your comment before I bothered to answer this guy. You ever notice the staunch defenders of the right wing bilk machine are always afraid to identify themselves?
I have no use for either Media Matters or Powerline; I only read them today at your behest, and the tone and spin and skew of both only confirmed me in my repugnance.
PL says Swift Boaters broadly vindicated, on balance of the evidence. MM says Swift Boaters all liars, based on their worst example. PL says, you cherry picked my post. Blah, blah.
They took their shots at Kerry, and they tried to smear him. Some of it was factually accurate, some of it was not. I believe Americans on balance generally can recognize a smear, and generally reject it, unless they're rabidly partisan. And I don't think most of us are. I've seen that scenario play out dozens of times in my 20-some years in newspaper coverage. Our voters impress me. They just don't make a lot of noise about it.
The Swift Boat attack on Kerry was useful, to me and at least some others, not for its own sake (I already knew about Kerry's anti-war record) but for what it allowed us to see about his response. Like Bernie Shaw's blindside question to Dukakis in the '88 debates or Clinton's "bimbo eruptions." I wouldn't mind if every presidential candidate had to face such a public trial by fire during the campaign.
I'm perplexed by your use of "neo-conservative." It seems to apply broadly, here, to anyone on the right or in the GOP. The Powerline guys strike me as somewhere between old-school blue-blood country club conservatives and GOP shills. Neither of these is included in my definition of neo-con. Have you ever detailed yours? It would help the readers, I suspect, if they understood what you meant from one post to the next when you use a word.
FWIW, Powerline's response links to the MM critique.
Malkin just blitzkriegs through a story and moves on. She seldom returns to the scene to see who's taken her to task, unless racist insult or death threat is involved, and it often is. But I didn't think she was a role model for blogging style.
Callimachus - good points. Both sites are partisan and cherry pick their quotes. Hell don't we all? But I give MM a lot more credence because they provide links to back up their statements. PL provided no evidence outside of his own declarative statements. I find that especially egregious in a blog of such wide reach. It's the same problem I have with Malkin, LGF and Glenn Reynolds for that matter. They mostly keep their hands clean by approving linking to the smearers that say what they would if they weren't forced to be more polite. I know they're not stupid so I can only conclude that they deliberately promote false information solely for their own benefit. I find that selfish and irresponsible.
For the record, I'm not a fan of Kerry. He was my senator for many years and I thought he was the worst candidate the Dems ever put up for president. And I actually agree that the Swift Boating was useful in that it provided a look at his response, which was dismally ill-advised.
Nonetheless, this push to give the Swiftboaters credibility cannot be ignored. They didn't just skew, they lied and that's my bottom line. I can't leave that unchallenged and I certainly don't want them to be put in a position to dictate the terms of debate in the next election.
As for the use of the term neo-con, whatever its original meaning was, I use it as a shorthand for right wing extremist who still subscribes to and promotes the dismally failed PNAC plan in order to advance their own interests against the wider good of the entire country.
I think that meaning has become the accepted norm of reference. I use it to differentiate between reckless partisans and thinking conservatives and moderates who who promote their views in a responsible manner and offer their opinions for the greater good instead of self-aggrandization.
I see. Thank you for the clarification on "neo-conservative." It is not at all how I use it, but your description seems to fit how you use the word. I might suggest that, rather than (or in addition to) being a purely present-tense term of opprobrium, as it is for you and some others I know, "neo-conservative" also represents a distinct trend in American political philosophy with a 30-year (at least) history.
Wikipedia (god help us) actually has a useful summary of its history.
As one who considers myself a neo-conservative, on the side of Scoop Jackson and against Henry Kissinger, I don't recognize Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (whom I dislike) as teammates, or Condoleezza Rice (whom I do respect). I can't find "right wing extremist" anywhere in my sense of the word. And I couldn't even tell you what "PNAC" stands for.
Your use of it, to me, is kind of puzzling, like calling every non-Catholic a "Protestant." It's up to you, of course, to decide what best serves your readers.
I also can't help but notice that, while the Media Matters post cites much information, and names some sources, it does not link to any of them. All the actual links (except the one to Powerline) are to other Media Matters posts.
I don't think that's necessarily customary for MM Callmachus. I believe if you drilled down into the links you would find orginal source material at the earlier posts.
Since this is a rehashed story from so long ago, the source links obviously would not be current. I don't use MM that much as a source myself, but I do believe they customarily provide such links.
In any event, I think my point fits the difference between the partisan sites in general. The right wing extremists tend to link to each other after one of them makes an unsourced declaration and the link is passed around among the group and becomes conventional wisdom. I did a post illustrating how that works about a month ago with a site that actually gave source links for their cherry picked quotes but the sources didn't support their arguments.
In my experience, the left wing sites tend to base their declarations on the source material. I'm not saying they're never wrong, but to me they feel more honest and I don't just say that because they tend to support my arguments.
In any event, I wrote this post in haste and irritation and I have to admit that I don't read PL or any of those blogs I complain about with any frequency. I prefer to get my right wing POVs from the people on my blog roll who I have found to be honest and responsible, even if I often think they're wrong.
I'm always hoping to be convinced about the error of my thinking. Sadly, I haven't found I've been wrong about much that I predicted about this administration.
Post a Comment
<< Home