So let's recap, shall we, where, back here, we ran hacktacular war-blogger Michael Yon's credibility through a woodchipper regarding the utterly unsubstantiated story of al Qaeda operatives baking children and feeding them to their families. What's that, you ask? How exactly did we annihilate Yon's journalistic credibility? I'm so glad you asked.
Understand something -- it doesn't matter whether that story eventually pans out, or whether it's proven false. All that matters is that Yon reported that claim totally uncritically, without a shred of confirmation or corroboration, and he openly admitted that:
As I write these words just a few miles from the graves I saw, the resulting controversy about whether what the man said was true, or whether his words should have been written if the writer couldn’t verify them, seems precious. There is no imaginary line of credulity that al Qaeda might cross should it go from beheading children to baking them.
In short, Yon has no idea if the story is true, but he doesn't seem particularly interested in proof because it just happens to jibe with his worldview and, by gosh, that's good enough for him.
So are we good here? Do we all understand how wretchedly worthless and irresponsible a journalist is Michael Yon? Because if you don't, you're way too stupid to be reading this blog and you should go hang out at the Blogging Tories 'cuz you're just going to get confused here. Seriously. If you can't understand the point I just made, go away. You're just going to embarrass yourself. But here's the best part.
Given how the Canadian wingnut-o-sphere is constantly yammering on about "liberal media bias" and irresponsible, left-wing journalism and bullshit like that, one can fairly ask, how many of them are unabashed readers and groupies of the now-discredited Michael Yon? Tell me you're not surprised:
Michael Yon, Oct. 24
Simply put, he's doing the best reporting to come out of Iraq...
Read it all here Posted by Kate at October 24, 2005 2:02 PM
Yes, that would be Canadian screech harpy and right-wing Lowest Common Denominatrix™ Kate McMillan, who has a real lovefest going on with Yon, doesn't she? Which is fascinating since this would be the same Kate McMillan who, while prostrating herself at the shrine of the worthless and hacktacular Michael Yon, was going absolutely batshit fucking crazy with rage over photoshopped pics of Beirut in flames and immediately condemned the entire Reuters new agency because of it, but clearly has no problem with people like Michael Yon publishing total swill as news. Because, quite simply, that's just the kind of hypocritical hack Kate is.
Yes, it's all a delightful double standard, isn't it? Are we done here? Yeah, I think we're done here.
61 comments:
Fuckin-A man!
Don't forget the egg on their face from the Jamail Hussein affair either!
Well said.
CC, back off! The left-leaning MSM doesn't fact check until someone like Michael Moore does another movie. If the left-leaning MSM had this fixation on fact-checking that you demand, we never would have gotten into Iraq in the first place. Why do you demand higher standards of Yon that then left-leaning MSM?
Remember the T-shirts that said "Homework Rots Your Brains"? I suspect they have grown up to live the philosophy that "Facts Rot Your Brain".
I am curious about this sudden hatred of Yon. Let's forget whether his reporting should include his "opinion" as to whether he believes the baking children story; let's forget that you may be confusing "opinion" and "reporting"; let's forget than Yon acknowledges that there is no support to the story; let's say for the sake of argument that Yon shouldn't have reported the unsubstantiated story; let's ignore the fact that all of the media do this all the time and you don't object to it. I just want to know this: What do you think of Yon's 100% substantiated story that AQ massacred villagers -- including children who were decapitated? Furthermore, what do you think of the virtual silence from the rest of the mainstream media of this 100% substantiated story? Finally, do you think this 100% substantiated story is an example of good reporting and do you admire Yon for it?
What is Yon's world view? You mention it but what it is? Please explain it to me. As far as I can tell from reading his work, he has never writtn anything political. Maybe you can point me to some of his writing that leads you to think you understand what his worldview may be.
I guess it would be like this--
Let's forget that the driver was drunk
Let's forget that he drove through someones front living room
Let's forget that he killed the parents living there
Let's forget that the kids were injured when the ceiling collapsed
At least the drunk driver used his turn signal in a legal manner before he drove off the road and hit the house.
If the drunk driver starts yipping about how a 'concientious and law abiding driver he was before the DUI', what's it matter?
People were in such a rush to pull down Dan Rather after 1 erronous report on GWB's military record.
Dan Rather! For decades, one of the voices of trusted news, pulled down due to 1 report.
And people expect that "Hey, so Yon went all 'Stephen King' on some of his reportings--we shouldn't hold that against him" cause he was right about a few things?
How's that work? I trust people because they're right--or try to be right. If some guy wants to try his hands at 'creative writing 101', then he can pay his money and take a course where he's only bothering his prof with his ramblings.
Did'ja follow that right-wingers? Or are you that obtuse that even after it's spelled-out for you twice, you still don't catch it?
Yon has reported hearsay, an unsourced translator's version of what someone else said, and gave it all the dignity of a proven fact, because it coincides with his world view.
It coincides with my worldview that Stephen Harper is a liar and a thief. Perhaps I should find people who will tell me that (I won't even bother with a translator! How's that for credibility?) and I'll blog about it as if it's true.
Won't that make me some kinda "journalist" or what??
And then, someone as equally stupid and hypocritical as KKKate who shares my politics (an unlikely combination I admit) can write about how REAL I am, as opposed to the BIASED corporate media.
Do you fucking get it now? Or are you really, really slow?
[Or are you just being a "contrarian" to be an asshole?]
Sparky,
Although my questions weren't directed to you, thanks for not answering them anyway.
I'm not expecting any better from anyone else here either.
Good work, fellas, good work. But try ... try very hard to answer the questions because I have seen no discussions here about the al Qaeda atrocities recently uncovered by Michael Yon.
BTW, Sparky, Dan Rather didn't just make an "erroneous report," he peddled fraudulent documents.
And example number two of not answering the questions is the ever idiotic, foulmouthed commie loser ttwap.
Shut yer twap, thwap. I'm not talking to you.
So, you're both stupid a-a-a-n-n-n-d an asshole?
"I'm not talking to you."
I'll be holding you to that promise, my seductive, but stupid, turtledove!
Forget answering my questions, children. really. Do not bother. I don't think you are able.
As I've said before, you are constructively on the side of the enemy (oh, my! That word!). Good work on coming to al Qeada's defense. We all know they are innocent until proven guilty. They probably didn't slaughter those kids either. The US Army likely did it to gain support for America's Illegal and Immoral War. Isn't the timing just too coincidental?
"Forget answering my questions, children"
... way ahead of you sport!
btw: You missed the point again. 'cause yer stoopid.
btw: shitcock!
No one is spending time saying how horrible the decapitation of children was because : IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS. No one here is on the side of children being slaughtered. The MSM, for the most part, isn't left-leaning, right-leaning or any of that, they're "what people like to watch" leaning. Demographic seekers, ratings grabbers, those are the news stories that get pushed (yay celebrities!) And it turns out, no matter how true or how horrible it is, people don't want to hear about stories like that, after all these years of stories of mass slaughter. That's why the story (like the large scale atrocities in Darfur) isn't in the news more.
However, baking children and feeding them to their families is a whole different level of horribleness (yes, it's worse than "only" killing the children), usually reserved for fiction, as it is most likely the case here. And in the end, you have someone who has a reported story that can be collaborated, full of horror and death. They took that story and somehow make it even worse by adding on something that most likely not true.
At least Yon has truthiness on his side.
So Yon once reported a story that was 100% true. Good for him.
So why is yon now peddling an unsubstantiated story as if it were true? He has not even met his own previous standards of journalistic integrity, if what you say is true.
No he peddles what coincides with his world view and engages in conformation bias. His bias and world view is that the US is right and completely and utterly good and correct and that Al Queda is completely and utterly evil. It doesn't matter if the stories are true or not.
Where is Yon's reports of US atrocities? Has he reported about incidents like this piece of shit brags about? No, he doesn't because that doesn't match his "US good, Al Queda bad" world view.
So, stop trying to move the goal posts nonny. The issue at hand is whether someone, anyone, who purports to be a journalist can report an unsubstantiated story as if it were fact, without checking on it. In most newspapers doing that creates lawsuits and firings. Not so for Yon.
Don't mistake your sick desire for this story to be true for it actually being true, absent of evidence.
Noone has yet told me about Yon worldview....it seems that is an important underpinning of these recent posts about him.
I really want to see where he has written something partisan or political because if he has that will change my view of him. You guys all seem privy to some information I dont have so please fill me in.
Thanks, Mike, you tried to answer my question:
"So why is yon now peddling an unsubstantiated story as if it were true? He has not even met his own previous standards of journalistic integrity, if what you say is true.
No he peddles what coincides with his world view and engages in conformation bias. His bias and world view is that the US is right and completely and utterly good and correct and that Al Queda is completely and utterly evil. It doesn't matter if the stories are true or not."
I have some problems with what you wrote. Why do you say Yon presented the story as if t was true when he wrote he only repeated the words of the Iraqi official and that he had no idea if it were true?
What is your support for what you say is Yon's worldview and bias in what he has written? Can you point me to it? Specifically, where has he said "the US is right," for example? Right about what?
I have always understood him to be an embedded journalist trying to tell the stories of the soldiers who doesnt comment on politics or partisan issues about policy. But if I am wrong, I want to know.
"No one is spending time saying how horrible the decapitation of children was because : IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS." by Aweb
The only thing that is "fucking obvious" from reading leftists like the owner of this blog is that Yon is a jerk for reporting a unverified story that shows al Qaeda to be monsters ... the context being that the same reporter JUST broke what should be a headline-making story about the slaughter of innocent kids by beheading them. Did the terrorists do it in front of their parents or did the terrorist first slaughter the parents in front of the children? Who knows? And who knows which is worse? They are both so mind-numbingly barbaric that one weeps for the families. "One" weeps ... but not the Left. They ignore Yon's totally substantiated reporting ... until he follows up a week or two later with a less substantiated story about the same terrorists cooking children and serving them to the parents. Really, what exactly makes this more barbaric than the decapitation of children? What makes it SO damn unbelievable, given the context of the prior week?
Nah, dismiss Yon and ignore the context of the story. You ignore his report from last weeks that is 100% substantiated. Attack him instead as being a hack reporter. Don't condemn the barbarity of the terrorists (until I embarrass you into shedding some pro forma BS crocodile tears).
And wait for the next Abu Gharaib so you can see real barbarity: US soldiers making terrorists (shudder) strip naked in front of a girl and a mean dog!
"His bias and world view is that the US is right and completely and utterly good and correct and that Al Queda is completely and utterly evil. " -- mike
And there you have it. The Left really doesn't believe that al Qaeda is completely and utterly evil.
Lefties, al Qaeda is utterly, completely, 100%, undeniably, most certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, positively, proven, authentically, dictionary-definition EVIL.
Good for the US for killing al Qaeda. Good for Yon for spending his own money reporting on their evil acts. Bad for you and the media for ignoring it.
Jeeziz stupid.
Yon is reporting hearsay. It's akin to saying;
"I'm not sure this is true, but it's possible that nonny fucks his dead family members. I'm not saying I know this for sure. But reading his crapola, I can see that he's capable of such degeneracy."
What do you think KKKate's response would be/is when the media reports on Iraqi claims of US atrocities? When Seymour Hersh says that he's seen worse stuff out of Abu Ghraib and "lefties" believe him?
You failed the brains test on the Dan Rather example, you moron.
Rather based a story on a fraudulent document, but it apparently reinforced what everybody already believed, which was that bush II pulled strings to avoid Vietnam.
The only difference between Rather and Yon is that Rather didn't do a fact-check on a document and Yon didn't get confirmation on a translation.
Oh yeah, ... and televison news anchors don't sit there and go "I have no idea if this is true or not, but whatever ..."
Now, be a good little right-winger and go sign-up for one of the wars that you love so much, and quit wasting everybody's time.
Thwap, I understand that you have a problem with Yon reporting hearsay, but I am failing to understand why you have a problem with it. He presented it as hearsay from an Iraqi official told to a US journalist and US military, who I believe he identified. And he said he doesnt know if it is true, but that he believes it could be true based on what he has seen over there.
If an Iraqi official goes on the record with such an outlandish and horrible story, isnt that itself news? Regardless of the veracity of the story itself? Who knows whether the Iraqi official has any proof, or what his motives were, isnt the fact that he is peddling that story to US military and US media part of the story?
I am a little troubled by what I see as you guys attributing the worldview of many of Yon's readers and supporters to him when I have never seen any evidence of it.
Could you please point out to me where Yon writes in a manner that shows the bias and worldview you claim he has? If you are correct, I am happy to be corrected.
It is the job of "journalists" to not only go out to where new information ("news") is being generated, and to tell people (TRUTHFULLY) about this news.
It is also their job to apply intelligence and experience and investigation, to discern fact from rumour.
We don't turn on the news, or read the news, or whatever, to find people saying: "Look, this might be completely bogus, but I heard ..."
What do you say if someone tells you that they heard that no Jews went to work at the WTC on 9-11?
What does KKKate and KKKompany say about rumours of US atrocities in Iraq, or Vietnam, or Central America?
Yon may or may not be a credible writer, and that "baked boys" story might be true or false, but he lapsed in reporting such a incendiary claim and saying he didn't care if it was true.
Iraq is a highly contentious topic, and for him to be so irresponsible, so willfully irresponsible is a major error.
And for my money, the critique of the mouthbreathers and liars who praise him was bang-on and irrefutable.
Thwap, I disagree with you and still think you are mischaracterizing what he said. I dont think he said he didnt care whether it was true, I think he said he didnt know whether it was true.
I have no problem with him reporting it as he did and dont find it journalistically irresponsible in any manner. He was forthright about the source and didnt present it as fact. Iraq being a contentious topic is irrelevant. I do think it is sad so many people run around willy nilly after hearing reading about it. One would hope they would actually read what he wrote.
He didnt report it as fact and I have no idea what you mean when you say he "gave it all the dignity of fact." I also dont see that you have anywhere in this discussion given me support for what you claim are Yon's worldviews and bias. It seems to me your whole argument about him stands or falls on his supposed worldview and bias and I really want you to help me understand where you are coming from on that.
Thanks for keeping it respectful with me, I see no need to hyperventilate.
By the way, Thwap, when someone reports that someone else claims that no Jews were in the World Trade Centers, that is news that someone believes that. And it is not irresponsible to report that they believe it. And when I hear it, I think they are an idiot and I wonder what their motiviations are for so easily believing such a hideous unsupported rumor.
It seems you are arguing that a journalist shouldnt report that someone believes that, and that seems silly to me.
Wait a minute, Nonny--you want it both ways here--we're to accept Yon's "substantiated verified reports", even though his reporting leaves much to be desired (and some of it was made up) and yet you casually dismiss Dan Rather's fall from grace as 'peddling'.
The report that Dan 'peddled' was proven a forgery, (and Dan took the fall for that gracefully, I might add--he could of pulled a 'Republican' and stated that it was 'someone else's fault 'cause, well, it was) but what was also brought to light thru that ordeal was that everything on that report was true and *verified* by many sources, including the person who typed the original.
It would be akin to me taking your grade 12 report card and reproducing it--letter for letter--on my typewriter. Sure you could rant and rave that the copy I have is a forgery, but it wouldn't make what's written on it any less true.
Or did you miss that bit during that whole fiasco.
On the other hand, along comes Yon--making up stuff out of thin air--based on heresay and unsubstantiated rumour--and you want us to validate his
other' reporting on the beheadings??
And if we don't validate Yon and his fantasizing, you jump on it and say that we're supporting the terr'sts??
Where have I heard that before?
Wanna try again?
Anonymous,
You're logic, impeccable as it is, will be found unacceptable.
The problem the Left has with Yon is his reporting in toto.
What did Yon "make up"? Back up your claim that he is a liar or be called one yourself, Sparky.
And my continued thanks for not answering my earlier questions.
"And if we don't validate Yon and his fantasizing, you jump on it and say that we're supporting the terr'sts." - Sparky
I don't ask anyone to believe the baked kids story. I do ask you to refrain from jumping all over a reporter, ignoring the clear context of his disinterested and factual report, after ignoring his fully-substantiated and shocking earlier report, after a history of ignoring the abhorrent and depraved actions of the terrorists, after a history of attacking those who seek to defeat such terrorists, after a history of accusing the fighters against terrorism of all sorts of crimes and misdeeds, etc. After doing all that, yes, I accuse you of being constructive allies of the terrorists. The Left vis-a-vis the War on Terrorism is despicable.
Anonymous,
Don't take "nonny's" praise to heart. As usual, it means you're on the wrong track.
Yon did not write:
"Lt. Wallach has obviously found himself a live one. This was akin to the 'Germans raping Flemish nuns' or the 'Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators' or the 'Jews staying home on 9-11' level of demonization."
Yon wrote (essentially):
"Lt. Wallach told me that the Iraqi told him that Al Qaeda had killed and cooked his child and then tried to serve the corpse to the family. It might not be true, but I know that Al Qaeda is capable of doing this."
If it might not be true, then you'd better damned well find out if it is before sending such INCENDIARY RUMOURS out there.
The more I think about this Yon fellow, the more I think he's a complete fucking idiot.
I've seen the pictures the Americans took and uploaded to "nowthatsfuckedup.com" and we've heard about the slaughter at Haditha, and the raping of that Iraqi girl and the burning of her and her family.
We hear there are Shiite death-squads committing atrocities all the time.
Yet Yon gets to show up unknown in Iraq and embed himself with the US army and gets picked up by serial liar and war-monger Michael Ledeen, and starts spewing uninvestigated shit about "Al Qaeda" [maybe] roasting children who they're trying to recruit?
This is reporting:
"Lt. Wallach told me that the Iraqi told him that Al Qaeda had killed and cooked his child and then tried to serve the corpse to the family."
This is editorializing:
"It might not be true, but I know that Al Qaeda is capable of doing this."
Does anyone here know the difference?
And this is editorializing ... by none other than Yon himself. See yesterday’s interview with Michael Yon:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=ad2ccbe4-c31a-422f-b099-65ba45ec5887
“HH: Now Michael Yon, you posted about the atrocities al Qaeda has been committing, including baking children. Can you…this is brutal, but I think the American people need to know who we’re up against, the people who don’t read www.michaelyon-online.com. Can you tell them what that story was, and what it tells you?
MY: Right, the story of the baking the children and serving it for lunch to the parents was, it was a story that an Iraqi official told me recently, but I was actually asking him, and I don’t have any verification on that, but I’ve subsequently asked others, and others have…there’s no proof, and I haven’t been trying to get proof of that. That’s just Iraqis talking. However, there was a mass grave, or is a mass grave about three and a half miles from where I’m standing now, and I went out there on June 30th, and the locals…actually, the locals from the village were gone. But the Iraqi army, 5th Iraqi army division, and our Army who cleared it, and some others who lived further out, said that that was al Qaeda, they had taken that village, and either murdered the people there, or ran the other ones out. And so we came into the graves, the kids had been decapitated, and the adults were killed somehow. And you know, just savages. I mean, they’d even shot their animals, I mean, which I photographed, and you know, those were the worst photographs I’ve ever published, but I told one of the Iraqi captains, his name was Captain Baker, I said you know, the American people need to see this, and I thought about it long and hard, and finally, I published those photos. And they’re pretty gruesome, but they just needed to be published.”
Thwap,
With all due respect, and in line with what you have written here, you clearly havent read Yon's work and have no idea what you are talking about beyond this tiny part of it where you claim he is wrong to report a statement by an Iraqi official because it is a yucky story and because Michael Ledeen later wrote about it. Yon cannot control who reads or comments on him (like Ledeen).
I think you are projecting your beliefs about others onto Yon. Dont fall into the same trap you accuse others of being snared in, namely, buying into someone's work merely because of who opposes (or supports) it.
As far as I can tell based upon what you have written here, you, and the original author of the post we are commenting on, should respectfully admit you have no idea what Yon's supposed bias and worldview are or show me what you are basing your conclusions on.
You keep refusing to answer my direct queries about that.
"This is reporting:
"Lt. Wallach told me that the Iraqi told him that Al Qaeda had killed and cooked his child and then tried to serve the corpse to the family."
This is editorializing:
"It might not be true, but I know that Al Qaeda is capable of doing this."
Does anyone here know the difference?"
Given that Yon did both, what's yer point, stoops?
I'll let some else take care of you, you unmatched dope.
Ha-ha! Gotcha!
(Yes, I'm being juvenile. It's all you deserve.)
Your point is that you fail to grasp the significance of someone peppering his "reporting" with completely unverified atrocity rumours.
Rationalizing about it after the fact doesn't get him off the hook.
No more than any other "I don't know if this is true or not" stuff justifies the spreading of any other kind of innuendo.
I don't know why I'm bothering to type this since you long ago showed that you're too dense to grasp it.
Who are you talking to Thwap? Why dont you identify who your comments are aimed at?
And what is your support for the proposition that Yon "peppers" his reporting with atrocity rumours? As far as I know, this is the only one he has ever reported like this.
You really are making a lot of this up as you go along, arent you? Making blanket statements about Yon's supposed motivations and worldview and bias, claiming he does things in his work he does not....
Can we please just let this go already? At this point, I think it's safe to say that we've established two things beyond any reasonable doubt:
1) If a "left-wing" reporter makes the smallest error in a piece, there will be ghastly neo-con shrieking from the heavens, howling how that is just more proof of that nefarious "liberal media."
2) If a "right-wing" reporter publishes absolute crap, there will be an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters creating rationalizations for that.
Now, can we move on?
"Your point is that you fail to grasp the significance of someone peppering his "reporting" with completely unverified atrocity rumours."
Thwap, you really must read the whole report. It is so glaringly clear you haven't read the whole thing. It is also glaringly clear you have got no idea what reporting is.
Just read the goddamn report and stop posting about it till you do. You are embarrassing yourself with every utterance you make.
Read before you write. Understand before you emote. Learn what reporting is. Learn what editorializing is. Understand what a lie is. Then, tell us all what you learned. Show us Yon's lies. Then comment on what you know.
I'm expecting CC to jump in here with 'stop feeding the trolls' any time now...
nonny--cc's blog refuted the points you made--everyone here who has replied to you have refuted your points, and yet you continue to be obtuse.
I believe that this is the exact condition that 'My Blahg' has quoted--
The GOP has mastered an error condition in the political process, an infinite loop of abstraction that drains all meaning from political speech. They don't have to focus on meaning, really, at all, they just turn up the burbling nonsense until we all descend past the noise machine event horizon into infinitely unproductive debate, never to re-emerge. This is how we progressives (rationalists?) keep ending up on the sucker side of the media war with the right: we're still using the old paradigm of meaning and they're busily deploying the equivalent of malware and DOS attacks.--The Poor Man Institute
The definition of insanity also comes to mind--pointing out the fallacies over and over again to the uncomprehending...
Name *one* other issue in the history of Dan Rathers decades of journalism that can be used against him to the point where he should be disregarded. Yet you have that one point and he left the field for it.
And in one article from Yon, what do we have?? Heresay, rumours, unsubstantiated stories--"I heard it from this guy... I dunno if it's true... but there were beheadings..."
You want to go down this road? You want to open the door on *verified* atrocities in this war??
"cause if you open that door, prepare to deal with *all* atrocities form both sides. And if you whine about people pointing out American atrocities (oh, I can't think of any *cough*abu*cough*) saying that it's irrelevant or that it doesn't support the troops, or that stating american atrocities support the terrorists 'cause we both know that saying that is bunk.
Furthermore, it isn't a matter of degrees--"Well, they've committed badder atrocities than us!!"
As well--saying that is bunk--is like saying "I just stabbed the victim a few times--that other guy stabbed the victim hundreds of times"--victim's still dead, no mattwe who stabbed 'em.
So wanna actually debate--deal with the facts--or are you still going to be obtuse and addleminded?
oops--posted too late :)
Sorry, CC!
I guess that was CC's answer to my question, "What do you think of Yon's original report on the massacre of the villagers and decapitation of the children."
"I don't care. Right wingers are hypocrites, that's all."
Sparky, no one has refuted a damn thing I've said. Contradiction is not refutation. Name-calling is not refutation. Failing to answer easy questions is not refutation. Quoting Robert McClelland is LESS than refutation; it's a joke.
Good enough, CC. I agree. Let's move on.
After you dumped that diaper-load, you want to move on?
Makes sense. It stinks.
CC, why do you characterize Yon as "right wing" and claim that his reporting of this fit into his worldview and bias?
I have challenged you to support your claims about Yon because I honestly would like to know why you feel that way about him and his work. I know a lot of followers fit the mold but I am curious why you are actually trying to force it onto Yon himself, and what leads you to make the attempt. What is your support for your statements about him?
"anonymous" asks:
"CC, why do you characterize Yon as "right wing" ..."
OK, A, here's a homework assignment. Google on "Michael Yon". Start working your way through the one million-plus hits, and start making a list of the online sites that promote him and praise his work.
After you've done that for a sufficient period of time, go back and look at that list, and see if you can figure out what all those sites have in common.
If that doesn't make the light bulb go on, you are beyond help.
So because a certain type of people read and/or support a writer, the writer believes the same things they do?
Is that really your argument? What should I believe about you because thwap reads and supports you?
You have got to be kidding. I understand your motivation in attempting to discredit Yon because you have a polarized black and white worldview--which is fine, I dont care and find some of what you write very amusing and interesting and correct. But not everybody has that type of worldview, and trying to claim someone does requires a little heavier lifting than "google the websites that reference him."
CC, Brian Williams from NBC said Yon was his favorite Iraq War blogger and links to him frequently in his NBC News blog. What does that mean to you about Yon's bias/motivation/worldview using your magic google and reader beliefs formula of analysis?
CC's response: Conservatives read Yon, therefore Yon is right wing...
That's kind of like saying: Conservatives wear pants, therefore pants are right wing...
That's an amazing twist of logic CC. What are you going to do for your next trick?
By the way, that is a different anonymous than me. Tell him to get his own name.
Well, that about wraps it up for me, anyways. nonny--your reading comprehension is 0--I didn't quote Robert, I lifted the quote from his page. The quote--as I quoted it even--has the proper attribution.
To make it worse, you disregarded the point 'cause you thought it came from Robert--what have you been yammering about here this entire time?? You're angry at folks for disregarding Yon's storytelling, and yet looky here--you just made CC's point (again).
Time to move on.
You're right, Sparky I missed it that you were only pulling a quote from Robert's blog, and not from Robert himself, but don't say I missed your point because it came from Robert. I disregarded your point in posting that quote because I consider it not worth my while to get into that fantasy.
But now that you're bringing up my reading sills, how about you answering my challenge to point out Yon's "making things up."
Specifically, you said, "On the other hand, along comes Yon--making up stuff out of thin air--based on heresay and unsubstantiated rumour--and you want us to validate his
other' reporting on the beheadings??"
As I said, back up your claim that Yon is lying or risk being called a liar yourself.
Speaking of liars, whoever said "And wait for the next Abu Gharaib so you can see real barbarity: US soldiers making terrorists (shudder) strip naked in front of a girl and a mean dog!" is either a liar, or hopelessly uninformed.
By the way, that is a different anonymous than me. Tell him to get his own name.
shhhhhhhhh!
Maybe, CC, if you would eliminate the "Anonymous" option, this blog might return to normal.
Anonymous said...
What is Yon's world view?
- - -
Uh, I thought it was obvious:
There is no imaginary line of credulity that al Qaeda might cross should it go from beheading children to baking them.
And before you go off on a tangent quibbling about semantics - 'world view' in this context is a figure of speech, particular to this situation, as in 'personal context', or 'Jon's beliefs as they apply to alleged terrorists' ... I mean are you that stupid? You are bitching about translators earlier?!?
Here is a translation of Jon's justification: I can report this as fact because I believe that it could be fact*.
Or:
If (Jon thinks) it could be true, it probably is.
*(owing to my prejudices that al Queda is the equivalent to a Hollywood version of a Satanic cult)
mikmik, that is interesting but completely offpoint, because that is not how CC used worldview. He used it and later reinforced his use by claiming that Yon has the same beliefs as his readership. I dont know if he does or doesnt, because you cant tell from his writing, which is one reason I like his work. Yon doesnt inject politics into it and tries to tell the stories of the soldiers.
It is amusing that you guys have a problem with someone who tells those stories without partisan politics infecting the telling. I guess you all are so caught up in your rabid little "worldview" that you must paint everyone with a broad brush, whether accurate or not.
Who's "Jon," Mikmik, dear?
A-N-D "Scene"
If they're baking and eating children, why the graves?
Something reeks highly...
Who's "Jon," Mikmik, dear?
By Nonny,
Yon, spelled with a 'J', as in i was thinking phonetically and not really paying attention.
Hope that clears it all up for you.
Like I say, you and anon want to nit pick and obfuscate until, for instance,
- - -
It is amusing that you guys have a problem with someone who tells those stories without partisan politics infecting the telling.
No, in fact, we have the EXACT OPPOSITE PROBLEM,
- - -
I guess you all are so caught up in your rabid little "worldview"
Another red herring, of the straw man variety, and you want to argue about our worldview, and get us to start defending and defining it blah, blah, blah. Like I've said, you provide no example of, or explanation for, what you mean by 'caught up in our rabid world view'
- - -
mikmik, that is interesting but completely offpoint, because that is not how CC used worldview. He used it and later reinforced his use by claiming that Yon has the same beliefs as his readership
And I didn't? Don't you think that is the point as well, that his readers have the same worldview and will uncritically accept anything he writes because of that? What the fuck is your problem , I seem to have a well reasoned and coherent understanding of what CC wrote, and I have readily accessable reasons to provide.
You, on the other hand, use they tired old childish tactic of trying to keep the focus on our reasons and nitpicking or ad hominum adjectivating (haha, I just made that word up - what you think) our remarks and character, insinuating hidden agendas and ulterior reasons, but never providing and example or providing reasons for WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
- - -
CC's response: Conservatives read Yon, therefore Yon is right wing...
That's kind of like saying: Conservatives wear pants, therefore pants are right wing..
By Anonymous, at 3:31 PM
He never said anything of the fucking sort!
Again, you fabricate an illogical inductive argument then draw an improper analogy to it!!
He said that , and I fucking emphasize, 'Right wing' is a worldview, and right wing sites have readers. These right wing sites also promote(feature, whatever) Michael Yon's writings, THUS: Yon and his audience have the same worldview, therefore his audience thinks Yon is right, and this is the important part, WITHOUT QUESTION OR INVESTIGATION.
Yeah, I have had enough fun practicing typing for now, but bear in mind I know debating with you is inherently futile (that is my worldview and furthermore rests on the implied assumption that the point of the debating is to try to extract some reasonable explanations and exchange of rationally cohesive ideas from you) and I do it as sort of an exercise (like homework, say) learning to use this sort of stuff:
Logic & Fallacies
Constructing a Logical Argument
thwap said...
A-N-D "Scene"
Sorry, thwap, LOL
Post a Comment