everywhere else, so is it really that big a deal when you know what you're being fed?

In Obama’s Choice, a ‘Very Personal Decision’ -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/pol...

the AP doesn't only exclusively push GOP lies, and the NYT doesn't only exclusively push Democratic lies, and all media is open to it and welcomes it.

for comparison, before the Times got the official Obama spin on Biden, this is what they said yesterday --On Obama-Biden Chemistry, Clues are Scarce -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

the article i linked to above from today comes directly from the Obama Campaign with their preferred take, as the Fournier thing is the GOP take.

...especially the immoral view of cheating's fine for our side (since we're the 'good' guys--with no recognition of how getting to the ends with bad means--lying, being untrustworthy, insulting people with prejudice--is not actually getting to where we want to be.)

Exactly:
"Apparently, then, it’s OK when “our” (D) side does it, but not OK when “their” (R) side does it, except that “our” (D) side is claiming that the entire distinction between R and D is to be “abandoned.”"

and also shows that Fournier almost went to work for McCain -- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive...

People who are upset by Fournier's Bias already know of it (and it's online people who are raising a stink), yet Obama getting p.1 of the Times and the cover of the magazine and multiple articles inside the Times every single day -- and most columnists in favor of him daily too, don't remark on it--or Obama having Time mag and MSNBC and CNN and ... either.

All media means the vast vast majority of online and offline media, new and old--they all have biases.

"Here's how it works: the president makes
decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down.

Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

He was talking about the White House, but it pretty much applies to all politcs now.

------------------------------------------------
“Payback is a PUMA”

part of the growth of "new media" is specifically because of the fact that ppl have recognized that they don't get truth offline from old media--it's not news to the country that the big media isn't trustworthy and has biases.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRele... -- "A Sacred Heart University
Poll found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they
believe all or most of media news reporting. In the current national poll,
just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media
reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. Just under one-quarter, 23.9%, in
2007 said they believe little or none of reporting while 55.3% suggested they
believe some media news reporting.

"The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and
partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical
consumer of information in the U.S.," ..."

their instructions re: Fournier

"Attack! Sic 'em!"

As far as political commentary goes that article is as bland as cafeteria meatloaf.

------------------------------------------------
“Payback is a PUMA”

"It takes a lot of energy to maintain a stable mental platform on constructs like that, so I can see why this issue has become so charged."

Helps me make sense of more formerly very anti-Hillary friends and family continuing to say great things about Hillary, many even saying they wish she was the VP nominee now...it's "safe" now to tell the truth? (Okay or more of the same, and it's safe to say these things to get my vote.)

1. Was what Fournier wrote true? Or, given that it’s an opinion article, reasonable?

not only was it "true"* and reasonable, it was glaringly obvious.

2. Is Fournier “in the tank”? (Since this article could be an exception on his part — though I’m sure the article isn’t an exception).

According to conventional "progressive" wisdom, there is no question he is.

3. Why does is it matter that Fournier regurgitated R talking points, given that both the presumptive D candidate and His platform assure us that “a great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division”?

I dispute that Fournier was regurgitating talking points -- he was just stating the obvious -- sometimes "talking points" are the obvious.

What matters is that Fournier is in the tank, and should not be cited for his "analysis" even when it is "obvious" because by citing him, you are implying that he has credibility that he does not deserve. When something is as glaringly obvious as what Fournier wrote is, there is no problem finding credible sources who have drawn the same conclusions -- or you can just make the same analysis yourself.

4. How is the press regurgitating an R talking point different from the press regurgitating the D talking point where Obama smeared Hillary on the RFK assassination? *

its obviously not -- which is the rationale behind answer #3. sources that are cited for their analysis should be consistently credible, except on those rare occasions when less than credible sources are making unique observations.

And even under those circumstances, its better to just write your own analysis citing the "non-credible" for as an "inspiration" (e.g. "While Ron Fournier is not a credible source, he raises an issue I hadn't considered....)

(I put "true" in quotes because Fornier's emphasis on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience misses the point. Picking Biden was (as I've said elsewhere) "triage" for a campaign that looked like it was going to red-line. The combination of Obama's hubris and inexperience had voters thinking there was a strong possibility that Obama would "drive us over a cliff". He desperately needed to demonstrate that he would listen to "wiser heads" before it was too late, and the only way to do that was to choose one of the ultimate Washington insiders as his running mate. The damage caused by the fact that Biden is the antithesis of everything Obama has been running on for the last 18 months --let alone Biden's 'not ready' statements -- can "hopefully" be addressed later (much like re-starting someones heart with a jolt of electricity isn't exactly the best thing in terms of brain function). Biden was a "radical" choice in terms of where the campaign had been heading, and such a radical move could only have been precipitated by disasterous news.

we're not their customers or audience--other media is--they buy/subscribe to their feed and then reprint as they wish--or don't.

Most if not all papers don't really reprint "analysis" from the AP i don't think--they subscribe to columnists/op-eds, or have their own for that kind of thing.

it's like the opinion syndicates--various papers all over pick and choose from the menu of options/articles/columns and present it in their own papers.

Fournier's "analysis" will not get propagated the way Broder/Noonan/Kristol/Krauthammer/Novak/etc do.

it seems Fournier gets speaking fees from right wing groups, so it is a question of payola.

... by the Obama-loving media:

>>When something is as glaringly obvious as what Fournier wrote is, there is no problem finding credible sources who have drawn the same conclusions

I haven't seen any others, except here in the sane wing of the blogosphere.

>>or you can just make the same analysis yourself.

But who cares what *I* think.

>>sources that are cited for their analysis should be consistently credible, except on those rare occasions when less than credible sources are making unique observations. And even under those circumstances, its better to just write your own analysis citing the “non-credible” for as an “inspiration”

Use of these kinds of sources could get awfully wordy, then, but I'll go along.

... and it didn't take.

looking around, the consensus seems to be that it was a safe, boring choice, i think.

this one is rich--
"So it’s Biden. It strikes me that Obama essentially picked himself." -- http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/...

realclear has tons of links -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge

you do. And as long as your analysis makes sense, that is all that matters.

Its the quality of the argument, not the authority of the writer, that is most important when it comes to "analysis." (IMHO, Jeralyn should not have linked to Fornier -- there were numerous commenters in her own blog that were making the same point -- if she didn't want to bother writing her own analysis, she could have cited her commenters.

Fournier is awful and a horrible influence on our news and that he might occasionally be right is no reason to forget that. I totally agree that credibility is the key. I wouldn't believe Fournier if he told me it was Monday without a second source. Kind of like how I don't believe Josh Marshall anymore without a second source (which is sad, but true).

People who lie and make things up don't deserve to have any credibility, regardless of which side of the aisle they are lying for. You can't decide good policy on bad facts. People like Fournier make sure we have bad facts (as do, increasingly, a lot of so-called progressives).