In the MSM and other, Lamont = HACKER before any evidence

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

if this charge was true or untrue, founded or unfounded, and these folks made all these allegations WHILE THE POLLS WERE OPEN. RADIO, TV, Websites.

WHILE THE POLLS WERE OPEN

Let's just see what they have to say tomorrow.

[MrCoffee]

1. you spin me right round baby

right round like a record

[LincolnMcGrath]

2. This was Rovian Lie by the LIEberman camp.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Smells like Karl, tastes like Joe.

:puke:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. grating taste, filling less? nt

[Atman]

41. Glad I no step in it!

;)

[Ian David]

3. Yeah, but the Diebold machines... that's just crazy conspiracy talk!

:sarcasm:

[niyad]

5. I have been out of touch all day. what in the HELL is going on in CT??

[MrCoffee]

6. Nothing...nothing at all

pay no attention to the man behind the green curtain.

[sgxnk]

7. evidence please?

please show me where the MSM claimed Lamont was the hacker

plenty reported that OTHERS claimed that he was the hacker

that's called reporting an allegation and using proper referencing, that's what journalists do

but you are claiming that the MSM said he was the hacker.

where?

[MrCoffee]

9. They didn't say that Lamont *himself* was the hacker

They DID say that the Lieberman camp alleged that the Lamont people were behind it. Over and over and over and over and over again.

[sgxnk]

11. that';s what journalists DO

and what they are supposed to do

when a party makes an allegation... they REPORT it.

WITH proper referencing

they do this on every topic, all the time

the op inferred that MSM said that lamont was the hacker

far from it

either the OP completely misunderstands how journalists do their job, or he was extremely sloppy in his post

[MrCoffee]

13. My beef with the "reporting" behind this is

that in virtually every story I read, the inference was that if the Liebervolk said the Lamont supporters were behind it, then it must be Holy Scripture. You cannot be so naive as to think that this was pure objective journalism. This was the beginning of a new theme for November 2006: liberal blogger = hacker.

[sgxnk]

16. sorry

but that's your inference, that's not a legitimate beef imo

the media did EXACTLY what they are supposed to do, and what they do with tons of other issues

when one sides makes an allegation, they report the allegation

and a good journalist would follow up with "why do you think this is the case..?"

etc.

[MrCoffee]

18. I really don't know where to begin...

I think we're starting from miles apart on this one. You don't seem to think that the MSM has an agenda. I do. You don't seem to think that the MSM spins "stories" or artificially inflates a non-starter to press an agenda. I do. You do seem to think that the MSM is interested in journalism. I do not.

So I'm sort of at a loss.

[sgxnk]

22. it doesn't matter

whether or not they have an agenda

it matters what they did iN THIS INSTANCE

which was... their job

reporting that one side made an allegation is their JOB

regardless of whether their agenda was that lieberman, lamont, or bugs bunny was to win the election

again, the op was wrong, and clearly the Op either does not understand journalists practices or was simply sloppy

[Richard Steele]

15. No, that's what SPOKESPEOPLE do.

JOURNALISTS actually INVESTIGATE allegations to find out
the facts. They don't simply repeat the accusations for hours
on end as though the accusation was a story unto itself.

It's a SUBTLE difference. Apparent TOO subtle for some folks to grasp.

[sgxnk]

20. wrong

they do repeat the accusation for hours on end, because the news runs on a 1/2 hour cycle

thats how they treat most news stories

and the allegation IS a story unto itself

yes, a good investigative journalist would dig deeper AFTER the allegation is made. assuming the have access to investigatory means that make that possible

but the op was wrong

the MSM did not report that lamont was a hacker, and the journalists did their job by reporting allegations

allegations are OFTEN false, either intentionally so (the complainant lies) or unintentionally so (the complainant was misled, or was simply wrong despite evidence that supported their assertion)

that's a reality in all sorts of allgations

and tangential to the fact that the OP was wrong, and the journalists were doing their job

contrarily, if they did NOT report the allegations they would have been shirking their jobs

[MrCoffee]

21. In what way was that allegation a news story?

How do you figure?

[sgxnk]

23. r u kidding?

a side of a political campaign accuses the other side of hacking their website?

and you ask how that is a STORY?

it has public interest

it has political relevance

it is newsworthy in every way one could imagine

get real

[sgxnk]

24. note also

nobody has yet provided evidence to support the OP's claim that i requested back at the beginning

how telling

(rolls eyes)

[Richard Steele]

28. Will Rogers never met you, did he?

[sgxnk]

31. we had pina coladas

we had pina coladas at trader vicks

his hair was PERFECT

[bettyellen]

29. so the not investigating the allegation is shirking that flies with you...

but the shirking of not reporting what is merely pure speculation at this point- THAT's responsible journalism?
wow. pretty low standards you got there.
:shrug:

[sgxnk]

32. no, that's not fine with me

but nice strawman

but reporting the allegations IS fine with me. as allegations

if they had the investigative means to investigate the actual web shenanigans or not, then they should have done so,too

hth

[bettyellen]

35. "if they have investigatibve means"

talk about strawman.
is what happens in their news operation left so much to chance?
this seems to be your very charitable estimation that somehow this is a fluke, that they'd report fully or accurately if only "they could". LOL. the truth, and the point you refuse to acknowledge, is that they don;t give a flying fuck about investigating. the truth doesn't pay the way their gossip flinging does. and that's all this is gossip.

why are you defending people who make no effort to investigate these things? what's your dog in this race?

[sgxnk]

36. nice strawmen and tangent

read back to the original post

then my request for evidence

which has yet to be supplied

and note the bunny trail you are hopping down

when a political party accuses another of sabotaging their website, that is not "gossiP"

it's just amazing the cognitive dissonance is so thick when an ideologue jumps on board, i need a foghorn and a ladle

the allegation was refuted within HOURS of the claim. there was no TIME to ferret out the web chicanery or lack thereof

case facts matter. get the facts before forming opinion

hth

[bettyellen]

37. i note the excuses you make for the news organizations stand.

indeed, they pile up.
all i needed to know. as well as too many silly silly metaphors. LOL.
aspiring writer, obviously. :boring:

[sgxnk]

38. i note your failure to employ,logic

the news orgs reported that the lieberman camp was making allegations

which is their job

i note your failure to understand basic journalism AND your inability to provide even 1 cite of evidence to support OP's claim

[bettyellen]

42. 1/2 their job..... if they ever report their allegations were bullshit.

then they'd be doing their full job. big difference.
good luck with your studies.

[sgxnk]

43. they can't

report the allegations are bull until they find out they are bull

and since they didn't know that at the time. they did their job

as for your studies, i suggest analytical reasoning 1

then , you can move on to 101

hth

[bettyellen]

45. hold your breath waiting darling.....

and keep making excuses for CN not having investigative capability. LOL.
good one.

[sgxnk]

48. im not making excuses

for anything

i am point out your failure to use logic, or stick to the point

or answer the original question and actually cite any evidence to support the OP's point

the lieberman camp made an allegation

the media reported the allegation

that's how journalism works in the real world

your fantasy world must be neat

[bettyellen]

50. "journalism" doesn't work just one way in the real world......

although it would be so "neat" to imagine it does. the present day state of journalism would be (and is, to some still) completely unacceptable by the standards of just 20- 25 years ago. it must be nice to think this is how it ever was though, but that my dear is the real fantasy. print journalism is in the toilet. and it put itself there. and, oh yeah, have fun on career day! :hi:

[niyad]

27. believe it or not, everybody on this board KNOWS how journalism and the

news are SUPPOSED to work. we also know how the whores of the corporate media DO what they do, functioning primarily as highly-paid spinmeisters for their overlords and masters.

A statement asserting something WITHOUT PROOF: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations.
Law. An assertion made by a party that must be PROVED or SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE (THAT is what journalists and actual news people do, they find the evidence.)

[sgxnk]

33. wow

you know what EVERYONE on the board knows

you are so omniscient

and the newspaper did NOT make charges of official wrongdoing

or if they did, NOBODY has provided evidence. which i asked for

the newspaper reported that somebody ELSE was making those allegations

and that was my point

your reading comprehension is pretty poor for an omniscient being

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. We can read the transcripts tomorrow. They should be interesting. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. Maybe you want to re read this story

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/nyregion/08cnd-campaign.html?hp&ex=1155096000&en=6e7fe1fab055b2ed&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Lieberman Camp Blames Foes for Web Site Crash

I get your point - but the MSM was REPEATING the unsubstantiated claims of one political campaign against another WHILE THE VOTING WAS GOING ON.

By repeating the story they are repeating the meme - Lamont = Hacker. (And of course his campaign was fomented by the evil "netroots" from the getgo.)

I'm sorry if you can't make the connection.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. Note: the title of this story has changed to

Lieberman and Lamont Camps Bicker Over Web Site Crash

When I posted it it had the title in my thread

Liberman Camp Blames Foes For Web Site Crash

Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Only now, the polls are only 7 minutes away from closing.
That, my friends is media bias in a nutshell. Make your own judgement.

[MrCoffee]

19. The MSNBC story I was looking for changed too

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. Now why on earth would they be re-writing the headlines?

I am so confused and bewildered. Could someone possibly explain this to me?

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. Front page of the NYT's

NYT - Lieberman Camp Blames Foes for Web Site Crash (this is the original headline. They've changed it since this afternoon)

Aug 8, 2006

The campaign of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman accused its opponents of suppressing Connecticut voter turnout today in the unfolding Democratic primary race for the United States Senate between Mr. Lieberman and Ned Lamont, a Greenwich multimillionaire whose antiwar candidacy has proved unexpectedly strong.

The Lieberman camp, which had been encouraged by a poll on Monday showing Mr. Lamont’s lead narrowing, saw its newfound optimism dimming somewhat this afternoon. Aides fulminated over the collapse of their campaign Web site, which they blamed on unnamed “political opponents.”

Mr. Lieberman’s campaign manager, Sean Smith, said the online blackout was tantamount to voter suppression, because the Web site was a tool to communicate with some Democrats. He said the campaign would file a formal complaint asking state and federal legal authorities to investigate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/nyregion/08cnd-campaign.html?hp&ex=1155096000&en=6e7fe1fab055b2ed&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[niyad]

26. my ALLEGATION, bases merely on my instincts, with no evidence

whatsoever, is that the LIEberman camp actually did this themselves. Now, do you think my ALLEGATION, based on no evidence whatever, is going to be on the 1/2 hour news cycle all day, or all night tonight? no, didn't think so.

[Clark2008]

12. They're not the MSM. They're the CORPORATE media.

You know... corporate sort of rhymes with WHORE-porate.

:hi:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. kick! This should be a big story tomorrow! nt.

[walldude]

39. C&L has an interesting post on this...

"Two posts down it’s clear that Lieberman’s website isn’t suffering from a Denial of Service attack. But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman’s site went down. They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients. Here’s the deal — you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn’t need that much bandwidth, but if you’re paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin’ cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don’t go blaming your opponent when your shitty service goes out. read on"
www.crooksandliars.com

You get what you pay for folks...

[Iniquitous Bunny]

40. I think Joe's attorney's reminded him the definition of "libel".

That's the only reason he pulled his false accusations off the site.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. "libel" might be a real word with real consequences before this is through

Seriously, we throw this stuff around, but serious charges were made and the Lieberman camp said that Lamont should rein in whoever was doiung it, as though they had some control!

[Iniquitous Bunny]

52. You don't accuse people without evidence.

Not only slimey, it's illegal.

[sgxnk]

44. note the fallaciousness of your post

the MSM did not report that lamont (or his campaign ) were hackers

they reported that ALLEGATIONS were being made to that effect

a not so subtle difference

[bettyellen]

47. well, i noted the fellatiousness of yours.

les moonvees, is that you?

[sgxnk]

49. wow

now you resort to sexual inuendoes

and only diminish your own worth by your sad tactics

sad...

[bettyellen]

51. it's a metaphor....

and a funnier and more apt one than any you've pulled out of your hat on this thread.
and fyi, kid....if you are going to be an industry apologist, any industry... you need to get some thick skin.

[sgxnk]

53. wow

now you resort to sexual inuendoes

and only diminish your own worth by your sad tactics

sad...

[Zynx]

54. They went all out to try to boost Lieberman.

Have you noticed that there are no blow out elections anymore? The media work overtime to make sure results are nice and close.