Some online rag I've never heard of posts a story and doesn't cite specific sources, some blogger links to said online rag,/. links to blog and posts Microsoft hates gays!
Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?
Not only is it "some blogger." It's the same blogger who, a few months ago, launched a campaign of personal destruction against a reporter he didn't like, linking that reporter to not merely homosexuality but to homosexual prostitution in order to humiliate him and drive him out of the press corps.
Bafflingly, this blogger claims to be homosexual himself.
If that's true, this blogger is the most openly bigoted homosexual person I've ever heard of.
It's the same blogger who, a few months ago, launched a campaign of personal destruction against a reporter he didn't like, linking that reporter to not merely homosexuality but to homosexual prostitution in order to humiliate him and drive him out of the press corps.
What? Why do you say that? Of course he was a reporter. He was employed by a news organization that paid him to write news stories for publication. That's what "reporter" means.
Are you one of those "I say he wasn't a reporter because he didn't write what I wanted him to" kind of people?
I guess the bright side is that you provided an excellent illustration of what I was bemoaning.
1. Who cares what he's a former of? 2. People whom you disagree with are as free to publish as anybody else; that's what "freedom of the press" means. 3. Try a little tolerance on for size. You might just find that you like the way it fits.
it's possible that gannon technically meets the definition of reporter.
but there's a much more accurate term for a reporter like gannon; that term is 'shill.'
there's nothing baffling about a homosexual outing another homosexual. gannon's softball questions serve to aid and abet a fiercely anti-homosexual administration. in other words, he's a hypocrite. it is the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality, which is bothersome. among other unanswered questions, such as how and why did an ex-prostitute hack for a
I haven't even read anything that Gannon has written, so I have no clue whether or not I would "like it."
A reporter doesn't just write, he investigates. Consider this exchange between Gannon and McClellan:
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jeff.
Q: Thank you. The imam [Yassin M. Aref] that was arrested in [Albany] New York last week was discovered because his name appeared in a Rolodex in a terrorist training camp in Iraq before the war. The book was found after, by U.S. troops, but he was in Iraq before the war. Is this another piece of evidence showing the direct terror ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, that's an ongoing investigation. I think the questions related to those particular individuals are best directed to the Department of Justice. And so that's -- I would refer any questions about that investigation to the Department of Justice. We are continuing to wage the war on terrorism on many fronts, both abroad and at home. And I think you're seeing that through the actions that we are taking.
Q: Let me follow up with a second question. How damaging was the revelation of the deepest mole that we've ever had in al Qaeda? The publication of that man's name by The New York Times -- how damaging is that to our war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry -- which specific instance are you referring to?
Q: The New York Times published the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was described by intelligence officials as the only deep mole we've ever had within al Qaeda.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure where it was published, first. Obviously, it was published recently -- the capture of this individual. It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing operations underway. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind. And sometimes we aren't able to go into as much detail we would like to because of those ongoing operations. And I think everybody has a responsibility to keep that in mind.
That's not reporting, that's espousing propaganda, only in a cleverly disguised Jeopardy-format where you must present your propaganda in the form of a question -- and the lack of an answer signifies tacit approval.
He reasserst the fictitious Iraq - Al-Qaeda conneciton, then he implies the (liberal) NY Times is undercutting the War on Terror. Central tenets of the dittohead community.
The end result is that Gannon is the mouthpiece for the mythology this adminstration would like us all to believe, and McClellan does nothing to disabuse the American people of those notions.
Not only that, it takes time away from what might be a real question.
Sure, we're all hypocrites. But we're not all shills. Gannon was. I'm surprised you persist in not seeing this.
But don't take my word for it. If Gannon were a real reporter, why isn't he attenting press conferences anymore?
More here http://mediamatters.org/items/200502020014
Dude, your copy-and-paste skills are certainly above reproach, but can we just get right down to it, please? You don't like conservatives. Anybody who's a conservative, who expresses a conservative opinion, you describe as a shill, a dittohead, a mouthpiece.
You give liberals a bad name, man. I hate Bush. Hate him with a fiery passion. I think he's an idiot redneck Christian who can barely string a sentence together. He embarrasses me every time he opens his mouth.
Holy Christ. Al Qaeda was in control of Iraq? That's precious.
Is that really how you want to do business? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, toe your party line, gets fucking anhiliated?
We spent $70 million and give a special prosecutor free reign to dig up something -- anything -- on President Clinton. Meanwhile the 9/11 Comission, grudgingly appointed by President Bush, gets a budget of $14 million.
That's the real world, pal. Open your eyes -- and watch where you step!
Your statement that I "don
The reason that every major university maintains a department of
mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.
This passes for journalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
Bafflingly, this blogger claims to be homosexual himself.
If that's true, this blogger is the most openly bigoted homosexual person I've ever heard of.
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:1)
Jeff Gannon was not a reporter.
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
Are you one of those "I say he wasn't a reporter because he didn't write what I wanted him to" kind of people?
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:0)
2. Talon News was an online-only propaganda organ of GOPUSA.
3. You're full of shit.
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
1. Who cares what he's a former of?
2. People whom you disagree with are as free to publish as anybody else; that's what "freedom of the press" means.
3. Try a little tolerance on for size. You might just find that you like the way it fits.
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:3, Informative)
but there's a much more accurate term for a reporter like gannon; that term is 'shill.'
there's nothing baffling about a homosexual outing another homosexual. gannon's softball questions serve to aid and abet a fiercely anti-homosexual administration. in other words, he's a hypocrite. it is the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality, which is bothersome. among other unanswered questions, such as how and why did an ex-prostitute hack for a
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
Please. All that means is that you don't like what he writes. Calling people with whom you disagree names is grammar-school stuff.
a fiercely anti-homosexual administration
Okay, we'll that's demonstrably false. Calling somebody with whom you disagree a bigot is also grammar-school stuff.
in other words, he's a hypocrite.
Everybody's a hypocrite. I'm a hypocrite. You're a hypocrite. Everybody's a hypocrite. It's part of the human condition.
When a hypocrite claims to hate hypocr
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
A reporter doesn't just write, he investigates. Consider this exchange between Gannon and McClellan:
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jeff.
Q: Thank you. The imam [Yassin M. Aref] that was arrested in [Albany] New York last week was discovered because his name appeared in a Rolodex in a terrorist training camp in Iraq before the war. The book was found after, by U.S. troops, but he was in Iraq before the war. Is this another piece of evidence showing the direct terror ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, that's an ongoing investigation. I think the questions related to those particular individuals are best directed to the Department of Justice. And so that's -- I would refer any questions about that investigation to the Department of Justice. We are continuing to wage the war on terrorism on many fronts, both abroad and at home. And I think you're seeing that through the actions that we are taking.
Q: Let me follow up with a second question. How damaging was the revelation of the deepest mole that we've ever had in al Qaeda? The publication of that man's name by The New York Times -- how damaging is that to our war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry -- which specific instance are you referring to?
Q: The New York Times published the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was described by intelligence officials as the only deep mole we've ever had within al Qaeda.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure where it was published, first. Obviously, it was published recently -- the capture of this individual. It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing operations underway. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind. And sometimes we aren't able to go into as much detail we would like to because of those ongoing operations. And I think everybody has a responsibility to keep that in mind.
That's not reporting, that's espousing propaganda, only in a cleverly disguised Jeopardy-format where you must present your propaganda in the form of a question -- and the lack of an answer signifies tacit approval.
He reasserst the fictitious Iraq - Al-Qaeda conneciton, then he implies the (liberal) NY Times is undercutting the War on Terror. Central tenets of the dittohead community.
The end result is that Gannon is the mouthpiece for the mythology this adminstration would like us all to believe, and McClellan does nothing to disabuse the American people of those notions.
Not only that, it takes time away from what might be a real question.
Sure, we're all hypocrites. But we're not all shills. Gannon was. I'm surprised you persist in not seeing this.
But don't take my word for it. If Gannon were a real reporter, why isn't he attenting press conferences anymore?
More here
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502020014
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
You give liberals a bad name, man. I hate Bush. Hate him with a fiery passion. I think he's an idiot redneck Christian who can barely string a sentence together. He embarrasses me every time he opens his mouth.
But at least I'm honest. Seriously, at lea
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:2)
Is that really how you want to do business? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, toe your party line, gets fucking anhiliated?
We spent $70 million and give a special prosecutor free reign to dig up something -- anything -- on President Clinton. Meanwhile the 9/11 Comission, grudgingly appointed by President Bush, gets a budget of $14 million.
That's the real world, pal. Open your eyes -- and watch where you step!
Your statement that I "don