Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Bush wants to boost funding for useless anti-drug ads | Main | How to draw Dick Cheney »

February 08, 2007

Talking about the Edwards blogger brouhaha with Taylor Marsh

Taylor Marsh had me on the radio a few minutes ago to talk about the Edwards' campaign's decision to stand up to the right wing noise machine and keep bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.

Soon, you'll be able to listen to Taylor's February 8th podcast here.

BlogPAC is sending an open letter to the the established media taking them to task for inaccuracies and biases in the their coverage of the Edwards blogger controversy. Edwards may have been the first candidate to come under fire for a progressive blog team, but he won't be the last. As Digby says:

But this is going to be the pattern unless the news media recognises that they have a substantial number of readers who will not tolerate a reprise of the kind of rightwing smear job collusion we've seen in the past. No matter how tittilating the story, when a conservative hitman like William Donohue comes calling with a sob story about how "offended" he is by someone's "vulgar" language, professional journalists should put his phony complaints into context. There's no excuse for this failure to expose the agenda of the rightwing noise machine anymore. With lexis-nexis and Mr Google, it's just too easy to research the accuser and put his comments into context before they breathlessly rush to report the latest little GOP oppo nuggest of misinformation. in many cases, if they do this, they will see that the story is not newsworthy in the first place and if it is, it is much more complicated (and interesting!) than the fake faux outrage.

Click here sign your name to the letter and help support progressive bloggers.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d83517665769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Talking about the Edwards blogger brouhaha with Taylor Marsh:

Comments

I understand your point about Bloggers being able to write off the cuff & still find jobs in politics.

However, I dont think you realize the weight of the combination of a complete ignorance of Catholic teachings. (I believe it goes beyond that, surely they are aware that said teachings have greater purpose than mere prudery or misogyny) Yet they persistently combine such claims along with pictures, epitaphs, slander, and sneer.

You might not like Bill and the Catholic League but the mans a serious player. There are 65 million Catholics in the U.S.A. and most of them are not used to the world of blogging (or the vitriol against religion on the left) ..

Large concentrations of Catholics in the Midwest swing states and early primaries like Michigan will make Edwards fold.

Like I said before, Padagon is just way to fast and lose, they make temperate leftists look good. He should have hired Lindsay

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg1Mzk4YWI1NzU4OTdlOTdhYzMzMTQzYzc2NDA4YjE=

Your wish is my command, Lindsay. I clicked and signed my name to the letter. Hooray for me! So tell me what I won.

I had been leaning toward Edwards because I liked his position on the war more than Hillary's, but his ham-handed response to bloggergate has given me a renewed respect for Hillary's ability to deal with the rightwing spin machine. So maybe we don't need a guy who talks a good game so much as a woman who can play the game. Our battered ship of state is going to need a steady hand at the tiller and an experienced crew by the time the Democrats retake the White House.

This is a great segment on Taylor Marsh. Good job, Lindsay. Nice post!

Lindsay you are developing into one of the finest voices on our side. You get there quick and keep us informed in the finest journalist traditions.

I salute your fine work here. Good job Lindsay!
Doyle Saylor

Fitz, I don't see how Donohue is a serious player or how this has anything to do with how Catholic voters will actually respond. Donohue is a right-wing blowhard who associates with other right-wing blowhards; there are no liberals or even moderates on the Catholic League's board of directors. This group is not the Knights of Columbus or the St. Vincent de Paul Society or even Priests for Life; it's a right-wing organ playing a right-wing game for its right-wing board and donors in a Catholic environment.

Donohue is somewhere between Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, only Catholic.

Bruce
I see what your saying about Bill, However there is a factor you may not have considered. “Anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.” Catholics see a lot of it in the media, publishing industry and university. It has renewed saliency for the left because of predominantly sexual politics.
It makes them angry. And The Catholic League is the only thing we have close to the Anti-Defamation league for Catholics. He documents it, and try’s to shine a light on it. None of those other organizations do.

So, if only by default, Bill will be able to keep these obvious, salient and easily accessible examples of Amanda’s visible to a receptive audience of Catholic voters.

Gotta love Fitz, standing up for the Father Coughlin of our era. I wonder why the sexual politics of the Catholic Church are the ones that Donohue and Fitz are so focused on. I wonder why they're not banging away at the Republicans for their devil-take-the-hindmost economics, which are clearly against the teachings of the Church. I wonder why I have such a hard time finding more than a pittance of scriptural support for "fags shouldn't marry" and have such an easy time finding so much scripture about "help the poor".

And yet, neither Fitz nor Donohue is ever talking about that. Heck, the Catholic League doesn't even have a category for "economics" in their research:

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/researchpapers.html

Mote, beam, sin, stone, get bent.

Fitz is back! Hip, hip, hooray! I would be a master of obviation indeed if I didn't point to this
trenchant commentary on predominately sexual politics
of his:

39. They say Oprah is doing very well in Islamic countries --- we might conquer them in the end with our banality and celebrities. Arabs can often be found in Las Vegas and they seem quite attracted to the more decadent American women --- the Arabs on my campus had to have been finding their dates in cheap bars.

Remember that one, Fitz? Ah, good times... Say, what are the "Arab" dating patterns on your campus nowadays? Has their taste in "American women" improved? I'm sure none of the women you date would consort with "Arabs," or if they did, it would stay in Vegas, as the ads say.

Uh –paperweight…???

And yet, neither Fitz nor Donohue is ever talking about that. Heck, the Catholic League doesn't even have a category for "economics" in their research:

(hat-tip) You realize that the Catholic Leaugue is an anti-defamation, religious freedom organization and NOT a charity like the St Vincent DePaul Society, or Catholic Charities USA
(from their website)

What is the Catholic League?
The Catholic League is the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.

Now, as for “scriptural support for "fags shouldn't marry" well, the Bible starts off with Genesis were Adam and Eve become one flesh & Ends with Revelations which is a Wedding Feast… (you fill in the middle)

John Protevi |

Wrong Fitz John..
Theres Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Fitzgibbons, Fitzhume, It means "son of" as a prefix..

And The Catholic League is the only thing we have close to the Anti-Defamation league for Catholics.

Exactly. The ADL blackmails people in order to silence critics of Israel; the Catholic League screams whenever someone disagrees with Papal social policy.

Fitz, I had you figured for an ignorant bigot, but not for a cowardly ignorant bigot. Be proud of your ignorance and bigotry, like your idol Donohue!

Unfortunately, we'd have to ask Liberty Post for their IP address records to prove the classic "the Arabs on my campus had to have been finding their dates in cheap bars" comment is yours. So just to be clear about it, you're saying that there's *another* ridiculously ignorant bigot using "Fitz" as an internet name?

But this is you, right? It comes from fitzge67@msu.edu, like your comments here.

Im a pig opponent of SSM
What has happened in Mass is a lot more Machevellian than you may imagine.
I know this issue inside out.
Its a cultural coup – they forced it through the Judiciary, now they will sit on it and try an ingrain it into the culture and law as deeply as possible.
Until it becomes a fate accompli.
They know how the entire country will/has responded.
The point is to get this nose under the tent.
Why do you think the supposed “pedophile priest” scandal surfaced in the Boston Herald at the time it did?
They are trying to discredit any opposition.
They are successfully launching this against the majority of the American people and Mass.
See the strategy?
It a CULTURE WAR people – this has nothing to do with fair play or civil rights or what the people want.
Those are just means to an end.

I think "pig opponent" just about sums it up.

Shorter Fitz: I choose to ignore everything in your criticism in favor of reiterating my own bigotry.

Fitz also copies and pastes portion of his comments.

Interesting remarks on the Podcast on centrist Democrats and Little Green Footballs. I can see Evan Bayh waving his finger at us. Little Green Footballs doesn't deserve a comment.

[P]rofessional journalists should put his phony complaints into context. There's no excuse for this failure to expose the agenda of the rightwing noise machine anymore.

You know, for a smart guy, Digby sure can miss the obvious sometimes. The reason these journos don't expose the agenda of the rightwing noise machine is that it is also their agenda and the agenda of their bosses. The so-called "mainstream media" is a key component of the rightwing noise machine, which is why most of it got bought up by the likes of Murdoch and Scaife. In many ways, those media properties are the foundation of the rightwing noise machine, upon which all else is built.

If there was any real danger of a journalist exposing the agenda of the rightwing noise machine, they'd rapidly find themselves looking for a new job.

Dunc, actual studies have repeatedly failed to find a consistent partisan bias in the mainstream US media. There are studies that say CNN, the NYT, the WaPo, USA Today, and so on lean left, others that say they lean right, and yet others that say they have no particular bias.

Fitz -

These bloggers don't hate Catholics. They disagree with the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Anti-semitism means hating Jews, not disagreeing with the beliefs of Conservative Judaism.

If someone makes a joke about Moses parting the Red Sea, I probably won't take that as anti-semitism. Nor should you take Amanda Marcott'es joke about the Immaculate Conception as hatred of Catholics.

You are tossing around terms such as "Anti-Catholicism" and "anti-Semitism" in a way which confuses the issue.

John- That IS me, (and proudly so, I stand by that statement 100%)

But I have never posted on the Liberty site, so you’re barking at the wrong "fitz"

Alon Levy
"actual studies have repeatedly failed to find a consistent partisan bias in the mainstream US media. There are studies that say CNN, the NYT, the WaPo, USA Today, and so on lean left,"

Wow- well this is not an "actual study" just the opinion of the papers own ombudsmen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=all&position=

Eric
I get the distinction, its just one that’s rarely made when it comes to conservatives & comments about blacks, Jews, homosexuals, women or whatever...Also, Amandas posts are NO joke... they are open and obvious hostility to beliefs- combined with derision, profanity, misrepresentation, epitaphs, and a profound ignorance (as stated intentional misrepresentation) of authentic Catholic teachings.

Fitz -

Did you want John Edwards to fire both Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan or just Ms. Marcotte?

Beliefs are fair game. They have to be.

We cannot hold a democratic conversation aimed at setting policy, or really have any dialogue aiming at truth, unless we can subject any belief to the most withering of criticism.

It is one thing to banish a statement like "Catholics suck" from polite conversation, but you have to be able to say things like "the Church's position on birth control is a bone-headed idea that would endanger the survival of the species if too many people took it seriously."

We cannot allow people like Donahue and Fitz to equate criticizing beliefs that are held by Catholics with anti-Catholic bigotry.

Eric
Just Amanda (I have not thoroughly read the other)

Rob Helpy Chalk
It is one thing to banish a statement like "Catholics suck" from polite conversation, but you have to be able to say things like "the Church's position on birth control is a bone-headed idea that would endanger the survival of the species if too many people took it seriously."

"We cannot allow people like Donahue and Fitz to equate criticizing beliefs that are held by Catholics with anti-Catholic bigotry."

For the Hundredth Time

Amandas posts are NO joke... they are open and obvious hostility to beliefs- combined with derision, profanity, misrepresentation, epitaphs, and a profound ignorance (as stated, intentional misrepresentation) of authentic Catholic teachings.

Get it, 1+1+1=3


I didn't say that Amanda's posts were a joke. I was saying that I have no problem with open, very serious, hostility toward beliefs. I also have no problem with derision and profanity. About the only thing on your list that is a real sin in my book is the misrepresenting someone else's beliefs.

So let me try it like this: as I understand it, the Church teaches that the purpose of sex is both procreation and solidifying the marital bond, but that neither of these activities can take place without the other. Thus anytime you solidify your marital bond without at least being open to procreating you are sinning.

I think this idea is butt crazy. I have no clue why anyone would think it wrong to separate the procreative and social functions of sex. The idea is stupid and if widely practiced get us all killed.

Furthermore, I think I should be allowed to say that the Church's position on birth control is crazy in public and not be shunned as a bigot. Why? even if I am wrong, we need to be able to discuss birth control policy openly if we are ever to arrive at a good policy. Policy discussions die if some ideas (not people, ideas) are untouchable.

There should be a "could" in the last sentence of my third paragraph.

The comments to this entry are closed.