kellinator | It's way too early in the fucking morning to need a drink.

Current Mood: irate

Entry tags:

politics,
wtf

It's way too early in the fucking morning to need a drink.

Thanks to

karnythia, I now know that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News repeatedly mislabeled Mark Foley a Democrat. Can't we file a class-action lawsuit to make them accurately label themselves Fox Propaganda?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

*points you to what real journalist

reannon says*

*ignores you, because you've used this game too many times before. Acting like an ass on the intarwub is so 2003. Why don't you take up knitting?*

*points you to my reply on the difference between real journalism and what O'Reilly does, and how 'in-the-can' productions differ from the news*

::sigh::

If you think I'm being an ass, that's your perogative. I just was taking a little issue with the ACTUAL journalists at FNN getting slammed because of the hack that also gets air time there. Sheesh.

This is your modus operandi, and I should know, because I've seen it play out on LJ dozens of times over the years: pick a silly pedantic argument so you can show off your l33t debating skillz. I guess it makes you feel superior or something, because I know you don't actually care about most of the issues you expound upon. When someone calls you on your bullshit, you play the victim and say you were trying to start a debate and OMG why I am picking on you when you were just trying to enlighten everyone?

I'm not amused, I'm not impressed, and I'm not going to be used as a launching pad for your soapbox anymore. Take it somewhere else.

It has nothing to do with impressing anyone. I would take this up with you if we were sitting one-on-one, with nobody there but us. It isn't about showing off any mad 1337 skillz, but about rational discovery of the truth. I *DO* care about that, passionately. The issue may not matter as much as the truth within it, I will freely admit.

In this case, I really don't care for Fox News at all, prefering the BBC. So... The slam on O'Reilly is fair. Slamming FNN for even broadcasting O'Reilly is equally fair. My argument is about the difference between Fox News (the legitimate journalists) and the hacks the network employs, and why it is wrong to tar both together.

Since the core of your post seemed to me to slam both together (was I in error? If so, I'll retract), it wasn't a pedantic point, but the basis of your position.

I don't want yes-men for my friends, but instead keep people near that will tell me when I'm wrong. Did I misunderstand the meaning of your post? I've seen several all at the same time, so I may have been biased towards an incorrect view by what others have written.

At this point it's got nothing to do with the damn post anymore. It's got everything to do with why I LiveJournal. I am not some great blogger. I am just a ranty, easily angered, easily distracted twentysomething who enjoys using LJ to keep up with friends and acquaintances on my work breaks. I do not use LJ as some great learn-all-about-the-universe thing. I do not have fucking time for that. I have expressed to you on numerous occasions that my LJ is not the proper place for showy debates, in large part because I do this for fun. I'm not under any illusions that I'm going to have any bright insights or that I'm going to have any influence on anyone whatsoever. You have ignored my request not to have pyrotechnical debates in my personal LJ numerous times. There are plenty of spots on the Internet which would welcome this type of discourse; why must you persist in staging it here?

The only "pyrotechnics", such as they were, was my initial "AIIGH". After that, I posted a simple issue with slamming all of Fox News because they hired a flake to appeal to other flakes, and thus drive up their ad revenue. I've been critical of O'Reilly quite a bit, and he's one of the reasons I don't watch FNN for the news (he's on far too much), so slamming him directly makes sense to me. Bringing FNN into it (beyond being fools enough to sign his contract) seems a bit much.

This is the first post of yours I've responded to in a while. I'm usually just enjoying your library stories, posts about how you're handling the whole process of marriage, etc. I have kept quiet for the most part, because of your request. I apologize for any stress you might have felt because of me, and have created my own post to handle any further discussion, if anyone wants to reply. I don't "persist in staging" debates here -- this was going to be something light, I thought. I spend much more time in debate over at

eyelid's journal, honestly, and I get to learn about Sukkot in the process, so it's all good.

Your position that this was somehow to be showy is baffling, but that's fine -- I've moved this off of your journal per your request. It's not meant to be showy anywhere else, but at least it won't trouble you, right?

Dwiv, when Kelly indicated that this was something that she did not want to debate over, why don't you let this go? It's her journal, and she has the right to say what she wants without you deriding it. If you don't like what she has to say, use the fucking scrollbar.

And yes, you are doing this to show off.

If I'm showing off, I'm doing a damn lousy job of it -- in my journal I've already learned that the error could have been made by FNN staff, and not O'Reilly's people, which I hadn't expected. It's making me revisit how I see the whole thing. Why would I call attention to that?

The rest of your statement -- I've replied several times, and erased it, since I can't see how it furthers good discussion. Raise this question in my journal, and I'll answer there.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only