Oh come on, if Dana Milbank wants to fuss at anyone about journalistic ethics and colluding with the administration and lacking integrity and fancy-ass shit, let him train his sights on his boss Fred Hiatt, first.
This is about old media resentment, pure and simple. And it's pretty much the same thing that happened between poor Will Leitch and that old Buzz Bissinger fellow. This is about older newspaper men feeling irrelevant and insecure around their younger, way more relevant counterparts.
You can't fight the future, Dana. Be honest about your motivations for your sanctimony. And remember, you may win this battle. But as far as the war goes, you've already been pwned.
@lobstr: Correction: Dana was originally a man's name as was Lindsey (Lindsay), Courtney, Shirley. They were all man's names. What started in the South was they would name daughters with family names to keep the name alive. I saw a lot of this in Virginia, women named David, etc.
" Arianna Huffington then weighed in, saying that Pitney's got his facts "all wrong."
No, Arianna said that Milbank "got his facts all wrong". Why would Arianna write an article attacking her own employee?
Any case, Milbank's a petty Beltway prissy shithead, jealous of his status and perks. Boo-hoo, Obama called on Huffpost- so what? Milbank ought to go commit some actual journalism rather than attack a young upstart for bringing something substantial to the table. No wonder he feels threatened.
Sorry, but I'm more on Dana's side. His column wasn't so much as snide as a sarcastic take on how event in Washington usually work: slowly, staged, boring, and manipulated.
At about :32, the row behind Chuck Todd, gotta love the guy on the left giving his neighbor a subtle annoyed smirk, but then his neighbor to his right unleashes a full-fledged eyeroll complete with the head-throwback move and body twist. Golden.
I heartily approve. The blithering Beltway bobbleheads on the tele-vision machine have thoroughly squandered their credibility when excessive, toadying, fearful obeisance to right-wing Republicans, corporate interests, and the same tired cast of conservative pundits dominate each and every conversation, clipped and dumbed down. Where progressive voices on important issues are absolutely absent.
Messy and imperfect as it is, the real conversation is taking place today on the Internet, and we all know this. Whatever one thinks of Zsa Zsa Huffington, I'll take her outfit's imprimatur over Cokie's or George Will's or David Brooks's. They are monstrously overpaid dinosaurs, smug in their corporate cynosures, contributing nothing but rabid defense of the status quo, fiercely guarding their petty privileges as insiders. To the detriment of what needs to be done, today- not kicking the can on say, health care, a few years down the road, as Brooks did today so casually in his op-Ed. Tell that to the people who are sick and dying now because their HMO's won't cover the care they need- and that's the insured.
Obama's calling on HuffPo's reporter is subtle but powerful symbolism to the old guard. Watch them moan and complain even more. But at least it's a signal that at some level he gets it, where his allies are. They're pointedly not on the network Sunday morning circle-jerks. When these people should be in church, hmmph! Hypocrites.
but he was awesome on healthcare saying private plans can't get away with this bullshit no preexisting conditions crap anymore if they want to play with a new gov partnership; way overdue
06/28/09
This is about old media resentment, pure and simple. And it's pretty much the same thing that happened between poor Will Leitch and that old Buzz Bissinger fellow. This is about older newspaper men feeling irrelevant and insecure around their younger, way more relevant counterparts.
You can't fight the future, Dana. Be honest about your motivations for your sanctimony. And remember, you may win this battle. But as far as the war goes, you've already been pwned.
06/28/09
06/28/09
06/28/09
06/28/09
Hey Huffpo! is that an Obama in your pocket or are you glad to see me???
06/28/09
Yes that is true.
But the better line would have been: You can eat my shorts traditional newspaper man. Neener Neener Neener.
06/28/09
No, Arianna said that Milbank "got his facts all wrong". Why would Arianna write an article attacking her own employee?
Any case, Milbank's a petty Beltway prissy shithead, jealous of his status and perks. Boo-hoo, Obama called on Huffpost- so what? Milbank ought to go commit some actual journalism rather than attack a young upstart for bringing something substantial to the table. No wonder he feels threatened.
06/28/09
they are digging themselves digger into neio-con asshattery with every passing day
06/28/09
06/28/09
06/28/09
He didn't care for the second video, either.
/ba DA dum
06/28/09
06/28/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
Messy and imperfect as it is, the real conversation is taking place today on the Internet, and we all know this. Whatever one thinks of Zsa Zsa Huffington, I'll take her outfit's imprimatur over Cokie's or George Will's or David Brooks's. They are monstrously overpaid dinosaurs, smug in their corporate cynosures, contributing nothing but rabid defense of the status quo, fiercely guarding their petty privileges as insiders. To the detriment of what needs to be done, today- not kicking the can on say, health care, a few years down the road, as Brooks did today so casually in his op-Ed. Tell that to the people who are sick and dying now because their HMO's won't cover the care they need- and that's the insured.
Obama's calling on HuffPo's reporter is subtle but powerful symbolism to the old guard. Watch them moan and complain even more. But at least it's a signal that at some level he gets it, where his allies are. They're pointedly not on the network Sunday morning circle-jerks. When these people should be in church, hmmph! Hypocrites.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09