We need to get John a DU account, and other ramblings

[LittleClarkie]

then folks couldn't attack him, call him a liar etc, as he would be protected from such things, as Mark Crispin Miller is, because he's be one of us, thereby protected by the rules.

Other thoughts: When did Miller start talking for "most Democrats" saying that Kerry has to redeem himself to them? Has he spoken to most Democrats? I hate it when someone claims that MOST people agree with them, even though they can't back that up.

Actually most of the Dems I've encountered in my part of the world, if they believe in the fraud, don't blame Kerry. They don't see what else he could do. Some only see problems with the last election that need to be fixed, but not enough problems to flip the election.

It is a somewhat extreme position, and there are not as many people who agree with it as the Fraud Squad would claim.

I also think Miller did dirt to Sen. Dodd. And that wasn't fair either. "You were robbed" "I know" does not compute with "Sen. Kerry now believes the election was stolen".

Is Miller a reporter? Or an author? Anyone read his stuff? Folks are calling him a reporter. I'm not sure that computes either.

Either way, why should his word be golden and John's be crap.

Thanks for opening a wound that was starting to heal over, Mr. Miller. Thanks a whole bunch.

And I can't tell you how happy I am that you have now opened John up to the ridicule of the likes of Sean Hannity, making him sound like a fat, bearded, crazed Al Gore, freaking out after the loss of an election. Sean saw the story on Raw Story, so I know he had to have also seen the rebuttal. He ignored it though.

Yeah, make Kerry a cartoon. That'll help the fraud issue. Riiight.

(rant off)

[Mass]

1. I just went to his blog and my feeling has changed since yesterday

I dont know whether Kerry and him had this conversation or not and frankly, I dont care because it is by no way important. The important thing is that people were not allowed to vote.

However, until a few moments ago, I thought he was candid. Now, it is clear that he has been using this discussion with Kerry (true or false) like a way to promote himself, because he does not have anything new to say. His blog has 4 articles about Kerry. This is purely a business deal: trash makes sell.

[LittleClarkie]

2. But he's not a politician, so that makes him

more believable for some reason. God forbid anyone should question his character and motives. He might have the biggest ego, or have his own agenda. But since Kerry is the polician, he's the liar.

I am quite pissed at this person for creating an unnecessary shit storm.

He is either promoting himself or crusading for the fraud issue, or both.

Kerry's spokesperson didn't call him a liar, they just said he was misrepresenting what happened. And I think he is.

I should go and look at his blog too and see what you saw.

[Mass]

3. I think Kerry's spokeperson was at best awkward.

For example, she makes things so categorical that you cant even see whether Kerry thinks there was fraud and anomalities (though he said so at other occasions).

And you can always speak about misunderstanding rather than misrepresentation.

This is why some people are so angry, I think.

This said, Miller was trying to get some publicity on Kerry's back, IMHO.

[kerrygoddess]

6. Exactly!

That's what JK's press person said.

[paulk]

4. Miller's being unprofessional

which makes me unhappy, since I'm kind of a fan of his...

"The Bush Dyslexicon" is worth reading, IMO, and he's written some good stuff pre 2000 about the role of media in our society.

I think it's likely that Kerry said exactly what Miller said he did - he just didn't expect that Miller would use it to "promote" a controversy. Wasn't it Kerry's daughter that invited him to the party? Not a very considerate guest.

The last thing Kerry wants right now, what with the Bush admin. imploding, is for the MSM to find some excuse to change the subject. Like, "Is it true you think the election was stolen, Senator Kerry?"

As far as the foamers at DU - it's to be expected. This site caters to that crowd. It's too bad, really. I always thought DU could really be something other than what it's become... a site for cranks and malcontents to vent their spleen.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Well that's the internets for you

No matter the subject matter, it's still the internet. And that promotes a certain mode of behavior, sadly.

Would Miller be better described as an author rather than a journalist as some are describing him?

[paulk]

12. Miller is not a journalist

he's a college professor who's written a couple of books.

He's a blogger now, too - maybe he thinks that gave him the right to publicly reveal a private conversation. I think that's a real breach of ... journalistic integrity? I'm not sure what to call it, since he's not technically a "journalist". Maybe we need some rules for the internet. In the meantime, the court of public opinion will have to suffice - and I think, DU aside, Miller has been hurt by this far more than Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

14. I asked because when I talked about "loose lips"

I got someone's journalism experience thrown in my face, and that person said that there's no such thing as loose lips in journalism.

Ahem, I may not have much, but I did study journalism in college and spend a couple of years being a student reporter. So I think I can stand up to Mr. "Decade of Journalistic Experience" and not look TOO foolish.

But the fact that he's not an journalist, for me anyway, throws that other person's logic out the window. Miller is indeed just some loose-lipped author trying to push an agenda re: fraud and maybe sell a book or two in the process.

He dissed Kerry. But I bet he'll never see that, or apologize. And neither will those who didn't have much respect for Kerry in the first place. I'm coming to realize that those making the most noise now are just those people anyway. I don't think we lost anyone who wasn't already in Kerry's camp.

Oh well, whatever. I know where I stand. The only thing that got me a bit was someone suggesting we ALL forget Kerry.

Thank you, no.

[paulk]

15. no journalist worth the name is going to get involved

in a "he said, she said" situation like this one.

whoever you were talking to is full of it. Quote, conversation, interview - it doesn't matter. It either has to be agreed to be "on the record", have a witness, or have been recorded in some verifiable manner. That's journalism 101...

this whole thing is another blogosphere tempest in a teapot. It gives the Kerry Hate Krew another good excuse to spew. It might even help Miller sell a few more books. And who knows? It may even be worth reading.




you were a journalism major? I was editor of my HS newspaper in my senior year - I was enrolled as a journalism major for college - I decided that it wasn't what I wanted to do during that summer before school started. I did learn a few things about it, though - enough to realize I didn't want to pursue that career.

[karynnj]

16. As a former editor , would you even have printed the story?

Your reporter tells you - he says "you were robbed" and the official looked frustrated and said "that's right". But handed the scoop, he asked no follow up questions or asked a question to get confimation as to whether you're interpretation was correct. After all it's a bombshell and a major change - and he based it on two words.

very professional - not

[paulk]

17. I think, as an editor, the credibility of your paper is at stake

when you decide what stories to go with or not.

It's unfortunate that we've seen organizations like the NYT lower the bar so much these past few years, what with judith Miller and ... that other guy who got caught lying whose name escapes me right now. Then you've got the Washington Times and Fox leading the charge in the degredation of newsroom credibility. Even C-Span got into the act by interviewing Matt Drudge a few weeks ago - as if he's some kind of legitimate journalist.

Raw Story ran with this. That kind of puts them at the same level as Drudge or Newsmax, AFAIC. Others feel differently. I think, with the low state of journalistic integrity these days, it's really up to the reader to decide what is worth considering and what not. And that's especially true when it comes to the internet.

-----------

I wouldn't have run this story, but my integrity and credibility are important to me - which is one of the reasons I decided not to go into journalism. On the other hand, integrity is not a quality these days that gets you very far in the business (or political) world.

--------------

[karynnj]

18. Thanks for your beautiful thought out answer

[ray of light]

13. I agree. I just posted a subject along those lines in the gd.

[wisteria]

5. When did Hannity mention this?

This whole situation is just so stupid. Maybe a forceful statement mentioning that he doesn't have time to go back, he is moving forward and is working on getting more Democrats elected in 2005 and 2006.
Hannity is an idiot, it would be best if he just let this one alone. With Bush's ratings, some people may actually start to question the election results.

[jillan]

7. Bush's ratings are a clear indication that the winner is not in the WH

[LittleClarkie]

10. Friday, on my way to trivia, they play Hannity in the early evening

here.

Somewhere between 5 and 8. I don't know if he was live though.

But he was dripping with mock sympathy for these poor Dems like Kerry and Gore who just can't handle it when they lose. Gore got fat and grew a beard, and now Kerry's crying about fraud. Or so Hannity says.

That is just exactly what's going to happen. Kerry gets out in front and gets creamed. Yeah, that'll help.

[BlueIris]

8. It's good you have such supportive Dem friends.

Bizarrely, the only activists I could stay friends with post-election were like, one or two people (from among the hundereds I had known in 2004) who understood the nature of the fraud that had occurred, and the fact that NO, it Kerry couldn't have prevented it or helped expose it.

[BlueIris]

9. Also, the thing you mention about Miller opening up a wound...

I'm really questioning the timing of his little announcement. It has me wondering not only about him and his motives, but those of writers whom I have trusted implicitly up until now (especially the blogger I love who now claims Kerry has "no chance" of being renominated).

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.