Slashdot Mirror

So go back there. Here's a link.
Bye.

No political bias on CNN either.

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

I have spent the time to follow a lot of his stories to excruciating details, and I have yet to find one that didn't pan out.

Do you remember the "Kerry affair" story that Drudge pounded for days, until finally the "woman involved" said it was ridiculous and pointed out that there was no substance to the story at all? Eventually Drudge apologized.

He posts uttery false crap all the time, but because he's not a "real journalist" nobody is supposed to mind.

I have spent the time to follow a lot of his stories to excruciating details, and I have yet to find one that didn't pan out.

Do you remember the "Kerry affair" story that Drudge pounded for days, until finally the "woman involved" said it was ridiculous and pointed out that there was no substance to the story at all? Eventually Drudge apologized.

He posts uttery false crap all the time, but because he's not a "real journalist" nobody is supposed to mind.

I have spent the time to follow a lot of his stories to excruciating details, and I have yet to find one that didn't pan out.

Do you remember the "Kerry affair" story that Drudge pounded for days, until finally the "woman involved" said it was ridiculous and pointed out that there was no substance to the story at all? Eventually Drudge apologized.

He posts uttery false crap all the time, but because he's not a "real journalist" nobody is supposed to mind.

I have spent the time to follow a lot of his stories to excruciating details, and I have yet to find one that didn't pan out.

Do you remember the "Kerry affair" story that Drudge pounded for days, until finally the "woman involved" said it was ridiculous and pointed out that there was no substance to the story at all? Eventually Drudge apologized.

He posts uttery false crap all the time, but because he's not a "real journalist" nobody is supposed to mind.

A submission from Indomitus, a left-leaning reader (nothing wrong with that) comes in citing the dailyKOS as a source of news, and the editor doesn't even explain that that site is so unbelievably slanted as to be unreadable.

Just as a test, I've submitted the following story just to see what response I get. I'll be FLOORED if it gets through, although it is at least as accurate as the post Michael approved.

Submission:

The DNC has now confirmed that the excerpt from their Training Manual reported on the Drudge Report is authentic.

The excerpt calls election workers to issue press releases and give interviews about voter suppression, and that, "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike".

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

Manual Watch this story, slashdotters; it's going to be BIG. It looks like the Dems are doing their best to steal this election or at the very least, tie it up in court for months. They've already admitted it for Heaven's sake!

In all my years of voting and observing elections, I've noticed that every case of vote fraud has ALWAYS been Democrats. Democrats are opposed to any measure to cut down on fraud, such as voter ID. No wonder people like the Democrats; you can vote for years AFTER you die!! Hell, you can vote even if you don't exist! They even let you vote more than once if you want to!!

I don't think this claim is a far cry from what Drudge had up this morning. Take these types of claims with a grain of salt. It is easy to say all kinds of registrations were thrown in the trash if you don't actually have them. Its a totally different matter when registrations linked to the Democratic party end up registering dead people and dogs and things like that. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

Drudge Report is running an article about Tennessee Democrats Compare Republicans To Special Olympians.

Sean Penn's a bit peeved.

Veteran Hollywood reporter Nikki Finke has learned that actor Christopher Reeve is dead, according to sources close to the actor. He died suddenly Sunday. News of his death has not been reported publicly yet. His family will make an announcement Monday at the earliest. Reeve was just mentioned Friday in the second live presidential debate by John Kerry. Noting he was a friend of the paralysed Reeve, Kerry said he was in favor of further stem cell research because Reeve could walk again one day thanks to such science....

I just heard some sad news on the Drudge Report is reporting that Christopher Reeve was found dead in his California home yesterday. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone will miss him; even if you didn't enjoy his portrayals of Superman, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

DrudgeReport reports that he has died.

And Kerry took a note out of his pocket and Badnarak wasn't even allowed to show up and nothign of substance got discussed.

Please, can we stick to something that matters?

or what about technology to analyze what it was Kerry pulled from his pocket right before the debate

Michael: When you rip off posts from Drudgereport.com, The New Scientist and other well-read sites, make sure you follow the thread through to the point where they explain that the story was nothing more than a political hit piece.

For instance, check out an earlier NY Times piece that actually reinforces the administration's position. Or you could review that this hit piece was to be joined by CBS News in another attempted effort to push fraudulant information and sucker all the sheep out there.

Or should we expect a post from you about "critical national guard documents damage Bush" and experience a deja vu Slashdot experience?

Slashdot readers - you too can read it before Michael (or some alleged anonymous reader, just like the CBS anonymous sources) reads it and makes up a libelous headline damaging Slashdot credibility and objectivity:

Drudge Report
The New Scientist

and other excellent critical reads include:

Power Line
Weekly Standard
Little Green Footballs

Oh... I should warn you - if you're determined to vote for Kerry in spite of everything, do NOT go to the any of the above sites. It'll destroy any opportunity for ignorance you might have.

Could this get any more bizarre?

According to the Drudge Report, the NY Sun is quoting Bill Burkett's lawyer as saying that they are planning to sue CBS News for defamation of character and libel.

• http://www.polipundit.com/
• http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/
• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• http://oxblog.blogspot.com/
• http://www.instapundit.com/
• and of course, http://drudgereport.com/

I go all over for my political blogging...

For crazy news from the Left, I like DailyKos; it's most blog-o-riffic.

For crazy news from the Right, even though it isn't really a blog, Drudge Report.

In dealing with legal / technical slants on political issues, it's hard to top Larry Lessig's blog.

I like To Be Determined, becuase it's my blog ;) But there's always witty political content there, both locally and globally, that interests me!

And finally, for a news for nerds and stuff that matters , it's hard to top Slashdot!

> Drudge Report

The original, the unbeatable.

Drudge put the Internet on the news map; all bloggers follow in his footsteps. And unrelentless in his watch over the old media, he's got the story the elites won't run. I like his lighter side, too -- he's always got the latest on celebrities from The Smoking Gun, etc.

Little Green Footballs
IMAO
RWN
and musn't forget
Drudge Report.

Drudge Report

It's the "stupidest question ever," because everyone already knows that politics and journalism are linked.

A more salient question for the day would have been "How has the internet changed the relationship between politics and journalism?" Ten years ago, it was unthinkable that grass-roots journalism could question the authenticity of a CBS News report, and even more unthinkable that they could cause CBS News to flinch.

Six years ago, Matt Drudge scooped a news story that Newsweek was sitting on. Newsweek had the Monica Lewinsky story and did not want to run it, possibly because of the potential of the story to upset politics in an election year. Then there was also the possibility of the story to impact Paula Jones's civil suit against Bill Clinton, and the impeachment of the President by Congress.

Whichever side of the fence you were on politically, it was this story that marked the end of an era. The end of the Big Media News monopoly on the news business, and the beginning of grass-roots checks and balances.

Big Media hates people like Matt Drudge and the "bloggers in their pajamas". Granted, they don't have the investigative resources that the big news organizations have, but they have the power to raise questions about the direction of the news.

It used to be said that the liberal NY Times set the headlines across the nation every day. I doubt this is the case any more. The internet is able to provide reporters with far more story options, and provides readers with vastly more story choices.

I agree with the op-ed pieces that have looked at Memo-gate and procaimed the era of Broadcast News to be over.

This is a good thing.

He's referring to the "respected in the world" part of the Democratic platform. It's pretty nebulous, but given recent events, it can only mean giving in to France and Germany when they say "stop."

It also means giving up the long-term strategy for getting rid of terrorism, bringing back appeasement tactics, and again treating terrorism as a criminal act.

Right-wing conspiracy theorists (which the parent poster may or may not be - it could have been hyperbole) can also throw in Kerry's ties to France - including his hairdresser. I'd say those might be a small factor in his decision-making. But my first two paragraphs are pretty much fact, and IMNSHO they're horrible ideas.

Linkey linkey
If that doesn't work, it'll be here

Wow, it took a blogger to take them down, what does this tell you about the media. No wonder Brokaw wants to get rid of internet news, they catch their lies.

I'm not a republican but this makes me really pissed.

Linkey linkey
If that doesn't work, it'll be here

Wow, it took a blogger to take them down, what does this tell you about the media. No wonder Brokaw wants to get rid of internet news, they catch their lies.

I'm not a republican but this makes me really pissed.

Drudge

Kinda like how Kerry does too?

Bush lied [tinyurl.com] to take us to war. Clinton lied about a bj. Who should be impeached?

KERRY COSPONSORED BILL BANNING GUN HE WAVES. Is Kerry just retarded or does he flip flop?

Kerry admitted that his first purple heart was the result of a self inflicted wound (more than a week after the supposed incident he wrote in his own log that they had yet to be fired upon) and the third one came from rice that was lodged into his butt after he threw a grenade into a rice pile that was too close. Add to that the lie he told several times of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and what do you have? Then again I could care less what he was doing before I was even born. I'd like to hear what he's been doing for the past 20 years in the Senate including the bill that he sponsored last year that would have banned the gun that he's holding here.

It's odd that I'd agree with a self-proclaimed marxist... But it's true, people run around saying that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote, and so the only other options are bad and equally bad.

I think it's your right to not vote if you don't want to, Also, a lot of these 'get out the vote' groups are targeting only small and specific demographics which they can overlay voting demographics onto as well.

http://drudgereport.com/kerrymtv.htm

I don't think you're going to find any single source that's never been accused of bias. There's just too many viewpoints out there-- and any source that tries to go straight down the middle of the road, like CNN, tends to be pretty dry.

So, my solution: Read a lot. I mean, a lot, and, by exposure to many viewpoints, you'll be better off when it comes time to form your own opinions.

If you're asking about specifics, I try to take in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Drudge Report, Slate, Salon, Al-Jazeera, the International Herald-Tribune, and the Guardian. Of course, all of the above have their strengths and weaknesses.

If you don't want to spend the time on all of those, though, I recommend Slate. It leans slightly left, but has good analysis from both sides of the aisle.

Read, read, read. Don't assume you're getting the whole story from a single source.

BTW #1, why do I want to subscribe to Slashdot (grin)??? This SETI potential-find was first posted on Matt Drudge's website very early this morning with a link to the NewScientist article that was "Drudged" vice Slashdotted almost immediately.

BTW #2, there are actually a bunch of candidate signals

--
I believe the SwiftVets and also ...

Marionette puppets are used throughout the film to mock terror threats, and media figures who dominate the nation's airwaves. But Parker and Stone save most of the mocking for left-wing pundits and Michael Moore.

"Bush is not even in the film," Parker said Sunday night from Los Angeles during the DRUDGE REPORT radio broadcast.

"I would ask that people wait and see it, before passing a judgement."

Kerry's campaign announced it had 'filed a legal complaint against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating the law with inaccurate ads that are illegally coordinated with the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign'

So sayeth Drudge! YES! FINALLY!

Don't misunderestimate that man's ability to take a vacation. Oh, I'm sorry, a working vacation. Yeah.

As for John Kerry, he's only missed over 80% of the senate votes this year (from the AP). What's he been doing, instead?

Remember the outcry in 1996 against Bob Dole, and how he was so busy, and couldn't have enough time to be a senator and run for president, and that everyone insisted that he drop out of the senate... and now the dems have two senators, and there's been no such outcry yet.

actually, until July 12th 2004 the Hitler ad was still on Moveon.org's servers at this address:

http://www.moveon.org/images/renamed.again.renam ed .mov.FKbxnT3hzaHCcOR7vWvRYmZpbGUtMTM4OQ--.mpg

It's gone now. This was (suprisingly) pointed out by drudge.

too cute

Do you want to have a freaking pair of liberal, east-coast intellectual, man-loving pair of presidents in 2004?

No way!

Bush/Cheney 2004! Keeping America strong! Letting the freedom ring!

I would challenge the notion that there is a distinct category of books that are self-published. To some extent the categories of publisher and self-publisher are anachronistic.

I've made the argument that there is no such thing as self-publishing in more detail elsewhere, but to summarize:

• Many independent publishers publish the work of a small number of writers.

• Many writers establish "publishing companies" to distribute their own work.

• And at this point, technologies like Lulu.com make publishing accessible to anyone and everyone.

The real difference, insomuch as there is a difference, is in the branding. O'Reilly, for example, has a brand that information seekers trust. So an O'Reilly book by an author you've never heard of is probably more appealing than a Lulu.com book by an author you've never heard of. But what if an author develops his own brand?

Along those lines, last week I found myself in the middle of a back-and-forth with a prominent tech journalist. His position was in essence that most of what is written is crap and that the editorial control exercised by publishers is essential. Fair enough. Most of what's written is crap, (although that doesn't seem to stop people from buying it when it's put out by major publishers).

But the dilemma you allude to, as I see it, is comparable to the dilemma presented by the emergence of the World Wide Web itself. "If anyone can put up anything on the Web," railed skeptics, "the whole thing is going to be useless. If you can't find the worthwhile information in the mountains of rotten information, what good will it be?"

Venerable institutions like the New York Times (justifiably) shuddered that individual sites--Matt Drudge's, for example--could compete with their own as sources for information. And yet, it has come to be. The Internet provides the means by which authors can develop their own brands. Matt Basham (the CISCO prof), for example, is in the process of developing his.

I read the Drudge Report. I get enough mail in my mailbox, and I hate always going out to get the mail, so the last thing that I want is paper periodicals. So I stick to internet.

His page has links to all different kind of news, some interesting, some important, and some just funny or weird. Its simple html with only two banners, and he often breaks news of his own.

In fact, it was Drudge who first leaked the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He found that before any other huge newspaper!

The other thing I like about him is his "mission". He used to work for foxnews, and his editor scolded him once for showing some news that he did not get approval for first, so he said "I don't need approval for what I show on my own program, so I quit!" He turned to the internet as a basis to show what he wanted to show, with no censorship. And now it is a huge success; one of the most viewed and searched for (it is about 46th right now). I love supporting a success story like this on the internet. That is exactly what the Internet should be for.

Ah, but it's news to ./ story submitters and editors because it's the headline right now on Drudge Report.

I've noticed a trend over the last 12 months... more and more stories show up on slashdot within hours of appearing on drudge. Sad.

For those of us who seem to forget what real evil is, here's a reminder. (warning - graphic)

His crime? Being an American.

It is official; Drudge confirms: Reagan is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered GOP community when Drudge confirmed that Reagan's life span has dropped yet again, now down to less than a few days. Coming on the heels of recent GOP problems which plainly state that the GOP have lost more popularity, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The GOP is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by Reagan falling dead soon.

You don't need to be a Joan Quigley to predict Reagan's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Reagan faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Reagan because Reagan is dying. Things are looking very bad for Reagan. As many of us are already aware, Reagan continues to lose life. Red blood flows like a river of blood.

President Ronald Reagan is the most endangered of them all, having lived for 93 years. The sudden and unpleasant departures of his mind only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Reagan is dying.

(Linked via the Drudge Report -- hopefully more articles like this will further add to the drumbeat of realization... by the public at large):

Single mom overwhelmed by recording industry suit

here

God is Great!