Thanks to Bob, ever the historian, for his entertaining up-summing of BeatThePressGate through today.
If you didn’t happen to be tuned into WRKO this morning between 9 and 10 am, I was on with Joe Sciacca (one of last Friday’s fabulous five) to talk more about political blogging. Although he and I continue to disagree on some things, we had a civil and enjoyable conversation. My thanks to Joe for having me on the show.
BtP has announced its intention to discuss on this Friday’s show what happened on last Friday’s show. I’ve been asked to participate in the show by way of another taped interview (I asked to appear in the “live chat” part of the show instead, but that offer was not forthcoming). So we’ll see how that goes.
What do you think Friday’s show should consist of? (Not you, Ernie — I know what you think!)
a suggestion that emily and gb get Trav back on the show this month and corner him into making a public statement about why, under his and Sal’s “leadership”, the legislator is using every sleazy manuveur they can concoct to avoid taking a 2nd concon vote on the citizens health care amendment. what? no? you’re smooth but not that smooth? oh, ok.
<
p>
p.s. i was on gb back in 2000 and got somewhat snookered by a pre-taped segment being used to set me up between a rock and a hard place as the spokesperson for Ballot Question 5. Q5 was seeking to create a binding law for universal health care by 2004 and capping admin. spending by health insurers at 10%. we raised $100k (much less than we’d hoped for but due to the “major health advocacy group” bailing on the campaign after cutting a backroom deal with finneran and hmo lobbyists). when the live show portion began i was caught between the taped segment with its left hook blow to the jaw that was followed by the other live guest, Dick Lord, the CEO of AIM who was the mouthpiece for the HMO’s that had poured $5.4mil into funding a fear-mongering NO on 5 campaign. sorry if this seems off-topic but gb dredges up tough stuff that we’re largely re-playing at present with the hc amendment.
You mean?
what do you mean by “You mean?”? are you looking for an answer to that?
I was just being arch.
BtP anymore, but I used to watch it pretty regularly. I found myself wondering when exactly they were going to aknowledge what was happening on the “Internets”, especially post 9/11, but they never seemed to grasp it. I did watch long enough to see that Dan Kennedy was beginning to have a web presence/savvy, but it was almost a throwaway.
<
p>
As to what they should include in their “Penance” show, maybe a couple of actual bloggers would be nice, to explain some of the stuff that they don’t get.
<
p>
As a point of reference,I would love to see someone mention the Armstrong Williams ca$h for “No Child Left Behind” whoring that he was doing, especially since he was in both print and on TV at the time. There are so many more recent examples of “repectable journalists” taking ca$h or otherwise whoring for the Administration that it makes the whole premise of blogger ethics seem laughable by comparison.
<
p>
How about taking a look at former WH reporter Jeff Gannon, I hear that he has a blog.
Didn’t they just f’up the last taped appearance. At a minimum they need you there live to discuss what they did and the sloppiness of their reporting.
I wouldn’t have agreed to do it without being on live.
or “we invited blogger David Kravitz to appear on this show to explain his view of what went wrong last week, but he refused.”
<
p>
Coulda gone either way. I’m hoping I made the right choice.
I’m not sure what it should consist of, but here’s what it will consist of:
<
p>
30 Seconds: John Carroll admits he got the story wrong and says he was silly for falling for the fake post.
<
p>
Rest of Segment: But those bloggers were so mean to poor John Carroll! They said bad things about him on the Internet! This just goes to show that bloggers are terrible and we were right after all because nobody refuted that they’re not on the take anyway.
<
p>
David, if you can, try to head this off. Otherwise, I may have to watch under the influence.
You are probably right.
thanks for the link.
if you agree with my thesis, perhaps you could posit that the strength and breadth of reponses to what occured on BtP is related to how people in this country are feeling these days about abuses of power. and that when the MSM gets something that is largely good so very wrong and then smears good folk in the process, it is experienced as an abuse of power. and then, rightly so, this elicits a visceral response as it touches on VERY RAW NERVES (r/t the “abuse of power” phenom in the U.S. these past years) that in turn sets in motion the responses across teh state adn across the country that followed the airing of the BtP segment.
I did the interview this morning. But well said (better than what I came up with).
and thanks for the kind words. i do believe my writing has improved a bit thanks to spending time i really don’t have here on BMG đŸ™‚
juvenile to be twisted.
<
p>
I don’t remember what Al Gore actually said about spearheading the funding for research behind developing the internet, but I do remember the often repeated “I invented the internet” that was repeated ad nauseum in 2000.
<
p>
Remember when Maureen Dowd wrote something like “who amongst us doesn’t love NASCAR” or something like that that was picked up and repeated in the media.
<
p>
This is most of the real quote which hardly anyone heard:
<
p>
“This president went to Florida just the other day to start the NASCAR races. There isn’t one of us here who doesn’t like NASCAR and who isn’t a fan, but I’ll tell you what-instead of just saying, “Gentlemen, start your engines” and during the race listening and looking at a race while 350 manufacturing jobs were lost and $171 million was-“
<
p>
They arent exactly equivalent situations but you get the idea.
<
p>
I am glad people picked up on it — hopefully if they are caught enough pulling this nonsense they will be more careful twisting words.
…so we did! >:~)