Jernalism!

[Mongrel]

Breitbart.com - bringing you only the most cutting insights: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Whitewater

(Check out the correction.)

"Oh oops, sorry, my bad."

[Thad]

It's a 404 and you made me go to breitbart.com.

STOP MAKING ME CLICK ON THINGS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN STILL NOT FIND OUT WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

[François]

Huh, it wasn't a 404 when I clicked it. I presume the site pulled the page out of embarrassment in the meantime.

[Mongrel]

Right, I guess they did wind up pulling it after all. It's not like I didn't go to the page myself (oh no Breitbart got a click from me!) before copying it.

Basically, they had an article up about how Loretta Lynch was the same Loretta Lynch who was on Clinton's Whitewater defence team. Only she's not. They're separate people. But instead of just pulling the article, they put a correction at the bottom of the article stating actually that was a different Loretta Lynch. It was an article followed by a quick "P.S. Our entire article is a lie."

If we're being charitable, I guess someone was just too quick on the draw, then they threw up the correction as a quick interim fix until they could actually pull it. Which is still sort of interesting to me because under what circumstances is it easier to edit an article than just blanking it entirely? I mean, maybe there's an issue with taking the page down that takes longer, but if you have access to edit the text, surely you could just delete the content.

[Cait]

Who's the other Loretta Lynch, then?

[Blossom]

The current nominee for Attorney General.

[Mongrel]

For fuck's sake, CNN.

[ocksi]

[Mongrel]

Not that "The Pundit Press" was in any danger of being considered a relevant or legitimate news organization or anything:

http://thepunditpress.com/2014/10/08/ferguson-protest-leader-we-will-murder-people-if-darren-wilson-does-not-face-criminal-charges/
"Truth can stand by itself"

Ferguson Protest Leader: We Will Murder People if Darren Wilson Does not Face Criminal Charges
by Aurelius • October 8, 2014

Update: The author who wrote the Guardian article has contacted us and states that Ms. Yates did not threaten to kill people should Mr. Wilson not face criminal charges. We also want everyone to know that the Guardian never stated that she did, either.

CLOSE ENOUGH

[Mongrel]

You might have heard of Malcom Gladwell, a darling staff writer for the New Yorker for two decades now. He's a rather glib pop-cultural pseudo-scientist, one of the more famous and recent of a long line of writers who like to tell anecdotes and then follow with claims that sound true but which don't really stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny. The "10,000 hours makes you an expert!" claim? That's Gladwell. This is of course one of the more insidious forms of misinformation, bad enough when it's say, your slightly loopy uncle with IDEAS, but vastly worse when a supposedly-reputable writer for a major and respected magazine.

Well, oopsies, it turns out he's a huge plagiarist.

[Mongrel]

Fox News commentator describes Birmingham as a "totally Muslim city"; hilarity ensues, including David Cameron "choking on his porridge".

You have to read those tweets.

[TedBelmont]

So the recent hullabaloo over Brian Williams's claims of coming under fire has people taking a look at other anchors' claims of wartime heroism, including Papa Bear O'Reilly's repeated claims that he was on the ground during the Falklands War.

:popcorn:

[Thad]

Good.

I'm with Jon Stewart on the Brian Williams thing: it's unfortunate that he exaggerated a war story when he was sitting behind the anchor desk, but seriously, THIS is the line for where we're going to start getting angry about the news media's lies about Iraq?

Williams's story was harmless and everyone does it. They probably shouldn't, and he probably shouldn't have, but as far as exaggerations and distortions presented as fact on the evening news, it's near the bottom of the list.

And, in fairness, O'Reilly's claims about the Falklands are far from the worst thing he's said or done (though there IS a qualitative difference between him and Williams in that O'Reilly has repeatedly used his false claims about the Falklands to establish that he has more authority than other pundits on the subject of war). But, y'know, if he's going to rant about Williams doing it, he should be prepared for the consequences of that.

But he's not. Because O'Reilly, I think more than any other pundit, actually believes everything he says, no matter how outlandish, no matter if it contradicts something else he just said two minutes ago.

[Friday]

From what little I've read about Bill behind-the-scenes, yeah, he drinks his own kool-aid to such an extent that it seems literally unbelievable to an outside observer.

[Mongrel]

Something something the definition of pathological. The ones who really believe it are the scariest ones, because people can - to a degree - recognize people who really believe what they're saying, and have an instinct to follow those guys hard. Mayor Ford, etc.

[Thad]

I'm not sure I agree. Limbaugh's more popular and influential than O'Reilly is, and he's as authentic as pro wrestling.

[Mongrel]

The thing about guys like that is that after a while they can't hide their lies from anyone who isn't heavily invested in the fantasy. As much as he still has followers, O'Reilly's more in that stage now (again, Ford is a great comparison - he still has his fans, but they're not a critical mass anymore). The danger is all in how far a person like that goes before the wheels fall off.

Essentially, the most powerful Demagogues huff their own fumes. Like Limbaugh, you can become quite powerful without doing so, but there's a cap on that sort of person that the True Believers are not subject to, at least in the short term.

[Thad]

Well, Glenn Beck lost his Fox News show and most of his audience after he started publicly blaming things on The Jews. Short of that, I don't really see O'Reilly's popularity diminishing before he retires or dies.

He's the #2 show on a cable network whose audience is made up entirely of people who ARE heavily invested in the fantasy.

People who watch Fox News don't believe in evolution. They are not people who are going to change their opinions when confronted with factual evidence.

[Mongrel]

I don't think that's really a direct objection to what I'm saying?

I'm making more of a general comment than specifically saying O'Reilly has this power now. At one point he might've, but he's currently just pandering to an established base.

[Thad]

Evanier on O'Reilly.

He notes that, probably above and beyond all else, Bill-O really is a legitimately great showman. I'm inclined to agree. He knows how to turn on the charm, and I've laughed at jokes he's made on The Daily Show. So has the studio audience -- and they're not a friendly crowd. The guy knows how to work an audience; he's chosen who his audience is but he could be just as effective in front of a completely different audience. He doesn't have to rely on manufactured outrage to be popular; he chooses to. Whereas I don't think guys like Rush or Hannity would be able to appeal to any other crowd but the one they've got.

I'll admit a certain appreciation for Jim Cramer being honest enough to admit that he's an entertainer and it's his job to do over-the-top, outrageous stuff to get people to pay attention to him. On the other hand, he's done direct damage in giving people real, terrible financial advice. (Not to say he's the only one; plenty of right-wing pundits give their audience advice to make bad investments in industries they have a financial stake in. Glenn Beck comes to mind.)