Slashdot Mirror
Does the GOP Pay Friendly Bloggers?
jamie writes "According to the conservative political journalism site Daily Caller: '"It's standard operating procedure" to pay bloggers for favorable coverage, says one Republican campaign operative. A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that "at least half the bloggers that are out there" on the Republican side "are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales." Or in some cases, it's the ads themselves: ads at ten times the going rate are one of the ways conservative bloggers apparently get paid by the politicians they write about. In usual he-said she-said fashion, Daily Caller finds a couple of obscure liberal bloggers to mention too, but they fully disclosed payment and one of them even shut down his blog while doing consulting work, unlike Robert Stacy McCain and Dan Riehl."
I doubt a single one of the people self-righteously attacking the GOP right now has the integrity to attack the Democrats and the way the mainstream media covers for them.
In the last 2 years alone, there have been scandals involving the Democrats that would have crippled the GOP by the time the media was done harping on them. Take, for instance, the scandal involving the Black Panthers. Now that Obama's in power, he's not considered a whistleblower. He's considered a "disgruntled ex employee of the DoJ." The left and mainstream media have largely taken the same "no evil here, move along people" stance on that issue that the Bush Administration did over the NSA wiretapping and its whistleblowers.
The media is even being prohibited from going near even clean up sites on the beach in the Gulf under penalty of imprisonment--under a statute that BP helped create. Where's the media? Where's the outrage over a majority Democratic Congress and President shackling the press? I could go on, but I think I've made my point for those who've been paying attention these last 2 years.
So don't click it.
It leads to the "Ace of Spades" blog, wherein there is an article that deconstructs this stupid Daily Caller story and also crosslinks to Dan Reihl's blog where he also responds to the Daily Caller story.
You don't want to click it, fine. Your loss and your choice to remain in ignorance.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
People who earn $250,000 a year are not rich, and the current administration has already raised taxes on people who make far less than that: tobacco, tanning, and anyone who doesn't want health insurance. It's almost certain that taxes will be raised on nearly EVERYONE next year, as the W tax cuts will expire and Congress has not moved much on extending them. Even if the Republicans got out of the way as Obama wishes (I'm not sure how a minority gets IN the way), the Democrat plan does not extend the cuts for the top two brackets. This means that people making as little as $171,000 a year-- again, NOT RICH-- get a tax hike.
We'd all be a lot better off if we realized two things: one, that wealth comes from building assets, not earning wages-- thus "rich" people aren't people who just make more than you; and two, that money isn't a zero-sum game. We can ALL benefit from a capitalist, but lawful and ethical society.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What about the charges that weren't false? Were they exonerated of those?
The left has been hiring protesters for some time, which is why you often see familiar faces at differing rallies. As has been mentioned, there are plenty of funded left-wing blogs. As usual, it's only an issue when it's right-wing.
What's funny here, if you RTFA, is that these are hardly huge blogs and certainly not really news blogs per se' and doesn't appear to be coming from the RNC. So we're talking about certain Republican campaigns. Much ado about nothing.
it describes how republicans voted
its not an opinion
its a fact
here's a protip for you: facts actually still exist in this world. and 2,000 bluster-filled blatantly partisan blogs don't dispute the facts
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The pot is black. Underneath its painted on exterior the pot is black, and it is only because the pot pays lots of money to be painted that it ever appears to be white. Often the money changes hands slyly so that people can't realize that the pot is black. In fact lets show you this very black pot over here to demonstrate how black the pot really is. This is a pot that payed a lot of money to be painted white but we caught it. Oh and the kettle is also black.
Thanks slashdot for showing your political bias as always. The article was bad enough, but when it was posted on slashdot it became even more one sided. "Does the GOP pay friendly bloggers?" Yeah that's unbiased. Also, don't pose a question when you are going to tell the readers something. Be honest about your slant: "The GOP pays for friendly bloggers." Would be a much nicer headline.
So what class do you place yourself in?
You're an 'enlightened intellectual,' correct? And your track of thinking isn't a track at all. It's the complete truth. And while you would never claim to have it all figured out, you consider yourself way ahead of most others and 'if you were just in charge' things would be better.
Correct?
but I think you could make a pretty good argument that whichever party is out of power always leads that category
Could you? I'd be interested in seeing that. It seems that the Republicans were leading that category by just as much when they were in power (WMD, anyone?).
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
i am of the people, for the people. i want the policies that are best for them
your packaged response would be: "you don't speak for me"
fine, i won't speak for the wackjob fringe
then this is where you either:
1. assert your policies. thereby speaking for the people. thereby being a complete hypocrite of committing the same crime you accuse me of
2. assert no one should speak for anyone. as if this is possible in a society. if you wish to not be a part of society, then fine: fuck off, go away, shut up, and let those who actually care about society care for society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"you reject OBVIOUSLY NEUTRAL NEWS SOURCES"
My ass. There are no "neutral" news sources. If a lib recommends it, then it supports liberal views. If a conservative recommends it, then it supports conservative views. If a frigging NEOcon recommends it, then it's radical as all hell. Have you forgotten that every sumbitch on the internet has an agenda? That includes you and me.
For "neutral" news about America, you'll probably do best to read the BBC. And, they aren't even really neutral.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I didn't miss it. I'm only pointing out that when explained fully, it isn't necessarily funny any more.
A better angle would be that watching Stewart on Comedy Central would also be funding terror, via Viacom links to both AOL and Disney.
Daily Caller finds a couple of obscure liberal bloggers
Do you mean "a couple of obscure Democratic bloggers?"
Because by contrasting "Republican" and "Liberal" you make it look like you are implying that Republicans are, in any way, conservative.
This is bad for your image of credibility among thinking individuals.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
It kind of does, though. I mean it's still ludicrous, but it lacks edge.
The line of reasoning is:
1) Guilanni rejected money from guy for terrorism-related reasons
2) Guy may be behind funding of mosque, implication being that it should likewise be rejected
Now compare the two punch lines...
3a) Guy also owns Fox, should be rejected /kneeslap...
or
3b) Guy owns everything.
Maybe I'm just more critical of comedy than you are, but I see the latter as far less humorous.
The fact someone believes there are neutral news sources is part of the problem. Every reporter in existence colors their 'facts' with their beliefs, rejecting or providing facts based on their personal concept of 'accuracy'. Editors help, but they can't add missing data if they don't know about it.
Blogging has been going on since paper and the printing press became fairly common. And political parties influencing it has been going on all along. If someone can't figure out that a blog is prejudiced one way or another, they have a problem. Ben Franklin used to write under a pseudonym to try and convince people that someone other than he had an opinion about something, hoping it would lend more credence to the discussion.
When one assumes neutrality of any given media, that is when they have joined the herd.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
You were simply Fox bashing, because that's what the cool kids do. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's nothing special about it either.
Well, perhaps you're wearing the 'Team Evil' shirt, whereas I'm wearing the 'Team Stupid' one. I see it as more ironic, really.
Did he now? Why didn't he care enough to track his own money as well? Because he, rather like Fox, declined to tell the whole story, wherein the guy is connected to Viacom as well as to Fox.
Just let it go.
are the ones hurt the most by Republican policy.
I call shenanigans. That line of bullshit might work on people who are under 30 and/or have no memory of the suck-assery of the Carter Administration. We had a "benevolent liberal" in the White House with complete Democratic control of the House and Senate. What did that get us? Double digit inflation. Skyrocketing interest rates. High unemployment. Gasoline shortages. Hostages in Iran. I could go on, but we all get the point. There's a fundamental lack of understanding about basic economics on the left.
We hear the unending cries about how "The Corporations" or "The rich" are evil. Tell me, when is the last time you were hired by someone who didn't have more money than you? You can't earn money without giving someone else a chance to earn money as well. If someone digs ditches, s/he has to buy shovels and someone has to make and sell shovels. You can sit on your ass and cry about how it's not fair that someone else is making money digging ditches while you're not making any sitting on your ass or you can get up and dig ditches for someone until you can buy your own shovel.
No one is promising that it'll be easy. No one is guaranteeing success, but it's certainly possible. I make nearly double what I made 5 years ago. How? I worked my ass of. 3 college degrees in four years. I did it, almost anyone can. IF they want to.
liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.
I'll never vote for a liberal because I'm pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-America and pro-keeping my money in my own pocket. No liberal is palatable to me.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano