Student under fire for yelling:"Remember Chappaquiddick

[krabapple]

Cool, can I yell 'Mission accomplished!" at Shrub's next speech?
How about "Where's Osama?"? Or maybe "How *about* those WMDs?" Or maybe "2300 soldiers dead and counting!"

[Matt]

Cool, can I yell 'Mission accomplished!" at Shrub's next speech?
How about "Where's Osama?"? Or maybe "How *about* those WMDs?" Or maybe "2300 soldiers dead and counting!"

Why not? I'm sure that would be real funny.

[Matt]

WorldNetDaily is red meat for the loony right, part of the Bozell/Farah/Ruddy axis of propaganda web sites. The reason you didn't see this anywhere else is because no one else would run such a poorly researched story. "This kid says he yelled at Kennedy and the college may or may not be punishing him! His dad's proud of him! Don't bother to get comment from anyone else, just run it!"

I didn't realize they were that bad. It sounds like WND is like Salon.com.

[krabapple]

Cool, can I yell 'Mission accomplished!" at Shrub's next speech?
How about "Where's Osama?"? Or maybe "How *about* those WMDs?" Or maybe "2300 soldiers dead and counting!"

Why not? I'm sure that would be real funny.

But Matt, just like that college kid, I'm not trying to be 'funny -- I only want to make sure people *remember* the *important* stuff.

[Matt]

Cool, can I yell 'Mission accomplished!" at Shrub's next speech?
How about "Where's Osama?"? Or maybe "How *about* those WMDs?" Or maybe "2300 soldiers dead and counting!"

Why not? I'm sure that would be real funny.

But Matt, just like that college kid, I'm not trying to be 'funny -- I only want to make sure people *remember* the *important* stuff.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, I need to reiterate that I feel everyone should have the right to free speech.

[lukpac]

I didn't realize they were that bad. It sounds like WND is like Salon.com.

You're saying Salon is poorly researched?

[Xenu]

Exactly. Salon.com may be left-wing, but they're not nearly as fringe as WND. Additionally--politics aside--Salon's journalistic standards are generally much higher than WND's.

[Matt]

Salon.com may be left-wing, but they're not nearly as fringe as WND.

That really depends on your viewpoint Dave.

[Matt]

You're saying Salon is poorly researched?

My point was that Salon is extreme, as well, in their political views.
As being poorly researched, I can't say either way. It would be wrong of me to say Salon is poorly researched and make fun of people who read it just because I don't agree with their political views.

[lukpac]

My point was that Salon is extreme, as well, in their political views.

Being against Bush is "extreme"?

The difference, as I see it, is that Salon, while certainly left leaning, isn't just about politics and seems to go fairly in depth with things, similar to a print magazine. It isn't just a collection of "hot" stories. WND, on the other hand, seems to just offer up whatever little tidbits it can to stir shit up without really trying to think critically. Like the story you posted. Or this:

Convicted sex-offender abortionist still practicing
De-licensed California doctor allowed to keep clinics open until mid-April

Even though the sex-offender owner of an infamous chain of abortion facilities– which target Spanish-speaking women and accept cash only – has officially surrendered his medical license to the California Osteopathic Board, he is still being allowed to practice for another six weeks.

Some crazy shit, right? Sure to get people up in arms. But nowhere in the article does it state who is allowing him to stay open or why. Wouldn't that be helpful? The fucking headline says he's allowed to keep his clinics open, but the article doesn't address that at all.

[krabapple]

Salon.com may be left-wing, but they're not nearly as fringe as WND.

That really depends on your viewpoint Dave.

Right. If one's world view is grounded in *reality*, Salon's journalism, while by no means faultless, is clearly of a higher standard than WNDs.

[Xenu]

Matt, my comment was elaborated beautifully upon by Luke. It has nothing to do with viewpoint: Salon has what appears to be actual journalism, and touches on topics besides politics, while WND is all reactionary politics. I remember an article there screaming about some sort of 35 year old dirty dirty homosexual who slept with a teen and wasn't in jail. The article was written from this smugly self-righteous point of view, asking why those bleeding hearts were giving this homosexual special rights. The twist, of course, was that the teen was over the age of consent; consequently, the action was legal. Oops. But the article *never mentioned this*. It existed purely to stir up some hornets'-nest sentiment.

[Matt]

Salon.com may be left-wing, but they're not nearly as fringe as WND.

That really depends on your viewpoint Dave.

Right. If one's world view is grounded in *reality*, Salon's journalism, while by no means faultless, is clearly of a higher standard than WNDs.

I took Dave's use of the word "fringe" in context as meaning that WND had more extremist political views than Salon. I don't agree with that.

I *never* made any remarks about Salon's journalism being poorly researched or any comparative remarks regarding any level of journalistic standards between the two. When I said WND is like Salon.com, it was regarding the similar level of extremist polical views.

[Matt]

Matt, my comment was elaborated beautifully upon by Luke. It has nothing to do with viewpoint: Salon has what appears to be actual journalism, and touches on topics besides politics, while WND is all reactionary politics. I remember an article there screaming about some sort of 35 year old dirty dirty homosexual who slept with a teen and wasn't in jail. The article was written from this smugly self-righteous point of view, asking why those bleeding hearts were giving this homosexual special rights. The twist, of course, was that the teen was over the age of consent; consequently, the action was legal. Oops. But the article *never mentioned this*. It existed purely to stir up some hornets'-nest sentiment.

Dave, your example certainly points out shitty journalism. I wont argue with you. If it was legal then there was no reason other than to stir things up by publishing it.

Looking on Salon, yes they seem to have more substantial articles and certainly more than reactionary politics. They do have a hell of a left slant and are known for incessant Bush bashing.

[Xenu]

But of course there was a reason...to stir things up.

Which is, I think, why I don't consider Salon to be nearly as ideologically extreme. Yes, they don't like Bush (which, going by the recent polls, doesn't really put them that far out of the mainstream). They don't hate the troops. They aren't rabid animal rights people. They're simply not that fringe, although I will freely admit that some of their writers are far more left than others.

But even balancing that ideological content out, they have movie reviews, entertainment content, and a shockingly puritanical advice column.

WND doesn't balance anything. Every time I see an article posted from there, it's something like "Former Hillary lover admits chowing on presidential chooch" or "abortion provider doesn't clean up after dog" or "Are dark, sinister forces controlling world?" or "HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA" or "The Life and Religion of Mohammed
Learn the ugly truth about the founder of the world's most violent religion" (for those not looking at WND, those last three are not shit I made up). Salon, meanwhile, has a piece on William Jennings Bryan entitled "God's Demagogue," something about Wallace and Gromitt, something called "Impeach Bush" (there's your leftwing content), and a whole lot of shit about the Emmys.

Matt, I understand your position, and I realize where you're coming from, and at no point am I going to deny that Salon is left wing. But to compare it to WND fails on all counts: the purpose is different, the intent is different, and the level is different.