(A bit of cheerful satire, not directed at anyone here. Just some train doodling while procrastinating on what I was supposed to be doing.)
Cross-posted at Blue Hampshire. All examples are fictional.
1. No mention can be made of the mainstream media without a negative aside. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, aka the Challenged News Network, had this to say –
2. Candidates above a certain level must be criticized for playing the game too well. Obama’s advance people are “advanced” alright, with their Gap-like headsets. Candidates below a certain level must be criticized for not playing it well enough. The “Browniebacks” tasted great, but where was the milk?
3. A campaign’s receptiveness to bloggers is the surest sign of its virtue. Kucinich blew me off to talk to the lead political columnist from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Well I checked, and only 25 people e-mailed his last column, whereas I’ve been averaging 92 hits a day. Time to reassess, Denny.
4. No matter how momentous and/or serious the event is, inject yourself into it. As Tancredo struggled through his withdrawal announcement, his wife and children wept openly. And I wondered what might have been. For one thing, I might have returned those Blockbuster DVDs on time.
5. Acronyms are the bomb (AATB). To hear the MSM tell it, HRC is a lock. But, IIRC, they’ve been wrong before, and IMHO, they’re wrong again.
6. Each campaign represents not a person and his/her staff, but some sort of grand metaphor, aka a frame.
7. Gut feel outweighs all rational considerations when forming your opinion. Sure, Richardson has experience, but he’s told me too many times, and I’m “experienced” out.
8. Nothing can be taken at face value. McCain’s support of the war reflects either a complete disconnect with reality, or, more likely, a grand old pander to the Republican Party, a sort of blaring orchestral version of “Flight of the Valkyries.”
9. Quotation marks are your friend. Senator “Clinton” announced a “policy” that I “didn’t” “like.”
10. Try not to present your entire argument; make the reader click your friend’s blog too. As Toby observes and Julia comments, my “good friend” Sam will be eating crow a la mode.
Is totally directed at me. Ha.
Anything with which one does not agree can be easily dismissed as a “talking point.”
to show how independent and serious you are.
<
p>
Or better yet, combine two GOP talking points in one comment
Example:
<
p>
Afterward, deny that they’re GOP talking points.
Your postis obviously just an inane talking point cribbed from the Daily Kos.
…if so, do you have any information as to who posted the comment using your ID?
<
p>
Otherwise stated, if it is your’s, what is the context of the comment?
of them myself. Sometimes gut has to outweigh rational considerations – since nothing can be taken at fact value.
Plus — the only political world that counts is the online world. If a movement or campaign has legions of supporters, but few of them are blogging/making websites, they don’t really count.
fora etc. ??
<
p>
I understand that there is a hierarchy based on traffic, fashion, and star power
<
p>
Then there are the user categories. How do these sound?
<
p>
The landlords: People with there own big blogs/fora/websites
<
p>
The Owners: People with there own personal websites with blogs
<
p>
The Condo owners: People with a blog like on eblog or a Facebook, myspace type page.
<
p>
The Renters: People who participate on blogs–can be regular participants with a lease or peripatetic sometimes homeless posters who live on a blog for a while and then once in a while go to stay on a blogger friends couch.
Instalanche is when you get linked to a huge blog like Instapundit and get hundreds of hits jsut because HIS traffic is in the millions.
<
p>
What would your equivalent be – Huffington Post?
know that much about blogs but I bet you are right about Huffinton post being the most likely to do that.
<
p>
I guess I would call a site that does this a REIT.
A few points
<
p>
Regarding (1) When did they change the acronym for CNN to the “Challenged News Network”? It had long been referred to as the “Communist News Network,” before, of course, Clinton (Bill) came along. Of course, with their hiring of bloviator Glenn Beck, they will avoid that attribution. (That last is intended to be ironic. CNN opponents will not change their mantra.)
<
p>
I had long ago adopted the line for FNN, the Faux News Network, but that was for a reason. Remember when, in March 2001 (or so) China forced down an American surveillance plane? Faux was carrying it virtually 24/7. I was watching it while changing at the gym very early one morning. The Faux News “reporter” said that they had no idea what was going on, but that they would continue carrying it anyway. Blathering on, with pictures from what must have been another surveillance plane. It was hillarious. “All the news that isn’t fit to print because we have no idea what’s going on but we’ll continue to talk about it anyway and we have time to fill between commercials.”
<
p>
Regarding (5), you don’t really have enough acronyms. You need an acronym for “no, you don’t recall correctly” (NYDRC?). YOIS (your opinion is stupid/silly).
<
p>
What acronym would go well with “you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”? I would use “PROVE IT” but that’s not really an acronym.
<
p>
Regarding (9), you are somewhat correct about use or over-use of quotation marks. For those of us of the older generation, use of quotation marks–unless, of course, we were actually quoting–meant “self-described,” “so called,” and so forth. Now, for some reason, they have been transmorgrified into “scare quotes.” To continue a theme, that is silly.
Uh-huh.
<
p>
We have reasons for calling CNN challanged, too – Coyote Blitzer the least among them.
It is probably just sloppiness on my part, but I use quotation marks a lot when I should be using block quotes. It’s easier when doing a hit and run post at work
<
p>
Ha ha — the use of quotation marks to express doubt has become a real cliche. I still do it but it does sometimes look silly.
…use blockquotes. If its short, feel free to just italicize (which I do) or use quotation marks.
<
p>
This stuff about “scare quotes” is silly.
I definitely use a lot of “quotation” marks.
<
p>
2. Yes, it is meant to be funny. Thanks if you liked it.
<
p>
3. I’m not sure what’s meant by scare quotes in this context, but my joke about quotes was mainly directed at people who say stuff like this: So I watched the “debate” last night, and here are my thoughts …
to communicate without the benefit of eye contact voice and body language while at the same time being more like a conversation than a print or broadcast media. Some of these quirks (the word quirk is overused online) are probably necessary.
<
p>
What’s new gets old easily