I think once an opinion is formed around a certain emotionally charged issue (”KO is a sellout because he kowtowed to GE” “KO is being dishonest because he gave two contradictory opinions) it becomes very hard to dissuade people from it.

Exactly. It becomes very much birther-like.

I think once an opinion is formed around a certain emotionally charged issue (”KO is a sellout because he kowtowed to GE” “KO is being dishonest because he gave two contradictory opinions) it becomes very hard to dissuade people from it.

It’s doubly ironic that you brought up the birther issue – the very same thing occurred to me when I see comments saying “KO should just come clean” – it completely correlates to Lou Dobbs and Chuck Norris saying, “President Obama should just come clean”.

Tell you what: How about we all sit down and have a beer? ;)

And thanks for actually seeing that the infallible Glenn Greenwald, the guy who so seriously and studiously picks apart everyone else’s mistakes and inaccuracies, made an error himself. That’s okay, but I thought that to make such a huge one warranted a strong response. I was just giving Glenn a dose of his own medicine.

As to thanking me… yeah, right. If you can follow all the links, this is how he thanked me.

http://tiny.cc/9srP2

But I’ll play. Here’s what Glenn said:

I can’t and don’t vouch for its authenticity (UPDATE: there’s good reason to believe it’s not from an Israeli attack), but it’s certainly reflective of the carnage in Gaza.

Now let’s transpose that kind of wishy-washy talk onto Lou Dobbs, Hannity and the birther wingnuts.

“I can’t and don’t vouch for its authenticity… but this story of Barack Obama not being born in Hawaii could be true because no one has produced a birth certificate.”

Would that be sufficient under your “acceptable standard for journalism,” Jane?

As to Glenn saying “it’s certainly reflective of the carnage in Gaza,” well that’s just flat-out pathetic. I could post the same video and say it’s certainly reflective of a suicide bomber blowing up a pizza parlor or a Passover service. One could post any video of the bloody aftermath of an explosion and claim it’s reflective of carnage to manipulate opinion. And when someone does, it’s usually called propaganda.

So is propaganda now an “acceptable standard for journalism”?

I notice you show an avoidance to the particular question of the “acceptable standard for journalism,” you set up. You seem to avoid it when it doesn’t suit you. Could it be that what Glenn did was not an acceptable standard for journalism and you have no good answer?

As to calling me a “tool,” what an intelligent and sophisticated way to make your point.

Stay classy, Jane.

I was going to respond but emerson @ 112 beat me to it. :)
I do have to add something though: had it not occurred to you and GG that KO was indicating, diplomatically, that while a meeting of sorts did take place, that the assumption that he was ordered to censor himself was flat out wrong? That he was leaving GG an out so as to allow an ideological ally to save face?

Granted this is speculation on my part, but as KO has forcefully denied that he was ordered to stop the Faux bashing nor would he agree to such a deal, and has backed it up by slamming them on Monday, I simply have no reason to distrust his word at this point.

How about we step out of the circular firing squad and leave the infighting to the GOP? ;)

(edit:sorry for the double post. iPhone + bad reception: post fail)

I was going to respond but emerson @ 111 beat me to it. :)
I do have to add something though: had it not occurred to you and GG that KO was indicating, diplomatically, that while a meeting of sorts did take place, that the assumption that he was ordered to censor himself was flat out wrong? That he was leaving GG an out so as to allow an ideological ally to save face?

Granted this is speculation on my part, but as KO has forcefully denied that he was ordered to stop the Faux bashing nor would he agree to such a deal, and has backed it up by slamming them on Monday, I simply have no reason to distrust his word at this point.

How about we step out of the circular firing squad and leave the infighting to the GOP? ;)

1) Were you aware Richard Wolffe worked for one of the largest corporate lobbies in the world, whose president and CEO was a major player in the Bush White House? Who hired him as an analyst for your show and how was he vetted (chosen)?

Jane, if this is the passage you’re referring to as confirmation, I don’t think Greenwald has it. If KO says he’s “found nothing materially factually inaccurate about it” that could be true to his knowledge. He’s talking about the relationship between MSNBC and Faux and he claims he has no firsthand knowledge.

That can be consistent with KO saying (in that same paragraph) there is no deal with him personally. The fact that he voluntarily adds he would “never consent”buttresses that, as well as the fact that his bosses “would never ask me to.”

I think either you or Glen should call KO on the record and ask these questions outright:

1)Were you ordered not to run true (or negative) stories regarding O’Reilly’s show and his subject matter?

2)Has MSNBC or NBC News ever spiked stories or censored any story ideas that might prove detrimental to O’Reilly’s or Faux’ programming?

3) Was it suggested to you by MSNBC or NBC News to take your vacation at the time of your pledge to stay away from O’Reilly stories on June1, and after the murder of Dr. Tiller?

4) Do you have complete editorial control over your program, and if not, who has the final say?