by linfar, Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:56:44 AM EDT
I was asked by the Huffinton Post during the Primary Campaign to follow Hillary Clinton on the west coast--using my own dime--since this is when Huffpo was promoting 'citizen journalism'-- and write stories demonstrating she was a liar by writing that in different places she slanted her message to the audience.
Huffpo is screaming NoNoNo this morning at Jim VandeHai of Politico who yesterday asserted that the HuffingtonPost trained Andrew Bretibart, the guy who recently slimed Shirley Sherrod and suckered the Obama Adminstration into firing her from her job.
So Politico's VandeHai is asserting that the Huffington Post uses Breitbart methods of distorting and slanting the news.
Is there anyone who things otherwise? Fox is the conservative shoutfest, Huffpo the liberal fog machine. And both slant, distort and sensationalize the shortcomings of those they oppose
News? It is Gone With The Wind.
Take the facts and distort them to fit the agenda is what is passing for news today and the blogosphere is no exception. During the primary campaign Huffpo offered me the job of covering Hillary Clinton on the west coast. I was to travel around, on my own dime--this was when Huffpo was promoting "citizen journalism"--and write up her campaign appearances. But there was an agenda: I was to catch her lying, i.e. giving different messages according to the different locations.
I supported Hillary, part of a small band of liberal bloggers who did, and I refused the agenda. And Huffpo no longer cared for my services.
So I wrote for dKos until I was thrown off for being a "racist" which is to say that I talked about Obama's shortcomings. During the primary campaign anyone who blogged for Hillary was ipso facto a racist on most of the liberal blogs.
It wasn't a fair fight. And much like Journolist, the liberal blogging forces schemed to put their guy over. Part of this effort was to brand as racist anyone effective enough to make a dent in Obama's pristine reputation.
Peter Daou may be the only prominent Hillary blogger who escaped unscathed, and I am not even sure that is true.
What the Shirley Sherrod "moment" offers is a peek into a shoddy and corrupt practice of smears and innuendo passed off as news by nearly everyone in today's media. No one is exempt. Fox does it brilliantly. And the liberal organizations are playing catch up as fast as they can.
Hold onto your critical faculties. Take nothing at face value or should I say first read. And look for the agenda in Everything. It is always there.
by Bob Johnson, Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM EDT
Peter Daou, the Clinton camp's online guru, has not had his genius go unnoticed.
Earlier today, Daou posted this insightful rip on the idiocy of political pundits at the Clinton campaign's blog.
Every word, genius. And he is so right: Political pundits are idiots.
And then this afternoon, we discover Daou has "sent out another e-mail" touting Hillary Clinton's chances by citing... wait for it... a pundit!
This kind of hilarity has not gone unnoticed.
I have it on good authority that Jon Stewart has just now offered Daou a job as a staff writer at The Daily Show !
by linfar, Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EDT
I was blown out when I read this. What I especially liked is that Peter Daou has done his homework. The assault and negative campaigning against Hillary by the Obama campaign is called out forcefully and compellingly. He marshalls fact after fact.It also throws down the gauntlet. Here is our job.
Peter Daou, Hillary's Internet director, challenges bloggers:
I'm writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.
I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn't run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it's time to put that misconception to rest.
The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?
by susanhu, Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:25:30 AM EST
This morning at 9AM PST:
This morning at 9AM PST:
This is about showing some class as well as honoring a valiant, great fellow competitor. This is not always about making the campaign all about ME, ME, ME. Making ME feel important, and special. This is about the party too. And about a great man and his family who are suffering today, as are his supporters.
by jc, Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:46:33 PM EDT
Just thought I would introduce the phrase "Whack A Mole", to the ongoing discussion of the media distortion of reality, in regards to liberals and progressives.
Peter Daou wrote the seminal theory on this, on The Triangle.
Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom. This is partly a factor of audience size, but it's also a matter, frankly, of trust and legitimacy. Despite the astronomical growth of the netroots (see Bowers and Stoller for hard numbers), and the slow and steady encroachment of bloggers on the hallowed turf of Washington's opinion-makers, it is still the Russerts and Broders and Gergens and Finemans, the WSJ, WaPo and NYT editorial pages, the cable nets, Stewart and Letterman and Leno, and senior elected officials, who play a pivotal role in shaping people's political views
I believe this still is the progressive operating premise - that a reality-based progressive/liberal movement, that wants the truth told, still needs, on some level, the participation of the media and the political establishment.