Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(3428)
-
▼
April
(257)
- Denial Failure
- Compared to his adoring groupies, it's quite possi...
- The stupid! It burns!
- Crooked Cons Crying
- R. I. P. Albert Hofmann
- Breaking News...
- Ooopsie.
- L’État C’est Moi - Part II.
- Whatever will Patsy Pantload say about this?
- Dear Matthew:
- New Gland Speed Record
- When Conservative Christian Preachers Attack
- That poor, poor waiter.
- Dig It!
- Questions you should be smart enough not to ask.
- If you’re looking for sympathy – part eleventy-mil...
- A little Amy to start the day.
- The more you know, the more entertaining it gets.
- The lies that are Denyse O'Leary's life.
- Sunday Funnies.
- SUZANNE's Favourite Show!
- As God is my witness …
- heffalumpses
- Shorter “Hunter”:
- I wonder what SUZANNE thinks about this …
- When dishonest bloggers blog dishonestly.
- Segregation is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
- With the Blogging Tories, actual awareness is opti...
- Because obsessing over EVERYONE'S civil liberties ...
- And the crazy just keeps on coming.
- Why, yes, I WAS right again, why do you ask?
- Saturday Morning Cartoons.
- Sometimes, the irony lasts for months.
- Feminism, Delisle-style.
- Time to play.
- The Twatrick just never ends, does it?
- It's Friday.
- Welcome to Big Daddy’s Canada.
- I feel a retardedness in the force ... oh, hi, Peter.
- Come on, SUZANNE, it's an easy question.
- Brane Hurts...
- Because I care, that's why.
- Steve Janke and dead, sodomized hookers? Hey, I'm...
- Kate McMillan: Hacktacular!
- There’s ignorant and misogynistic …
- Right-wing humour, as it were.
- Feel free to connect the dots.
- The stupid must be contagious.
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
- Bill C-537, and the Suzie All-Caps challenge.
- Today’s Sign of the Apocalypse.
- Unfounded, perky optimism, SDA-style.
- Just when you thought they couldn't get any dumber...
- Fanfare for the common wank.
- And while we're on the topic, Chuck ...
- This is delicious.
- Half a year later, and still stupid as hell.
- Because even dishonest hacks have a right to blog.
- Really, really, really retarded people who should ...
- Fly on the wall: Brenda Martin edition.
- Cons Constant Campaign, An Abused Privilege
- Is he or isn't he? Only Stephen Taylor knows for ...
- Compassion for me but NEVER for thee.
- Why not just ASK them?
- So ... what WOULD be breaking the law then?
- If the irony were any thicker ...
- Happy Earth Day, darlings.
- Bill C-10: The ugly fallout.
- Let me see here
- Sweet dancing Jesus ...
- Conscam: Don't be bringing that "free speech" arg...
- HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
- Frank who?
- Would you like some nails to go with that piece of...
- May The Farce Be With You!
- Josée Verner Minister of Censorship
- And where did you get that information, Stephen?
- Generalizing: It's not just for breakfast anymore.
- Aha!
- HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
- Oh, for fuck sakes, Sandy!
- Blogging Tory Kool-Aid consumption open thread.
- No reason ... just cuz ...
- The stupid always rises to the top, doesn't it?
- Ouch. Smackdown.
- Because Kate's a retard, that's why.
- Just because ….
- Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
- And the parade of the retarded continues.
- If you’re looking for sympathy – Part III.
- ... and did you know the word "gullible" isn't eve...
- Brilliant.
- Sunday Funnies.
- Dear SUZANNE: Stop being so fucking dishonest.
- Darn it ... almost a good idea.
- Today’s sign of the apocalypse.
- Take That Feminazis!
- The Culture War
- Science!
- It's all in the interpretation.
-
▼
April
(257)
35 comments:
What a bunch of whiners.
She's using the excuse to that she's a just a blogger to imply the defamation of journalistic malpractice right, left and centre?
At some point, I hope the journalists hit back. I want them to be held responsible for journalist malpractice, but these paranoid accusations of "bias" have got to stop; coming from an "educator" like Sandy (who consulted for the Harrisites), it's disturbing and misleading.
so....
i read the op/ed piece, and the incriminating passage was nowhere to be seen. then i googled the passage, and got three results for it (all leslie's piece - different outlets), yet the passage was not within the piece. would appear leslie or his editor's elected to remove it.
was it irresponsible for leslie to make the claim? without supporting it, sure. one could argue that the retraction satisfies responsibility, although a disclaimer of an update would have been prudent. still....
bias in an opinion piece?! oh my god!!1! i'm certain no conservative contributor could ever be accused of the same. espicially if you don't bother to look for it.
was the passage retracted for the sake of journalistic integrity, or to hide a flagrant bias? i bet sandy will suppose the answe for us....
KEvron
uh-oh!
[....]
“Opposition Leader Bob Runciman also said McGuinty should call off Pupatello’s trip, but appeared more concerned with job losses in Ontario than Tibet and the human rights issue.
“‘We’re losing jobs hand over fist in this province - 25,000 manufacturing jobs just last month - and she’s traipsing off to China for who knows what purpose other than get the hell out of here and not be able to put up with the heat in the kitchen,’ said Runciman.”
i tried to let her down easy....
KEvron
LOL. Yeah, I can really feel his concern for the human rights of Tibetans dripping from that statement.
I'm sure we'll be seeing a correction to her post anytime now...
Even funnier was her response to Crabby when he took her to task over some assumptions she was freely making herself:
I have answered all I am going to say on your topic. My post speaks for itself. Send an e-mail to the journalist.
Translation: Fuck off and die.
runciman's blatantly biased supposition on the point of pupatello's trip was deliciously ironic!
KEvron
AAAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
KEvron
Busted.
Well, at least she didn't seem too irate about it.
"at least she didn't seem too irate about it."
i'm working on it....
KEvron
I'm not irate guys. At least your paying attention.
We really wish we didn't have to, Ms. Crux. These baseless accusations of bias have gone beyond the sensible and into the paranoid and defamatory.
And it's spelled "you're."
¨
Woot.
Crabby! Six things, if you please. I think I've been quite patient with you ...
Sandy gets unjustifiably sanctimonious:
"I'm not irate guys. At least your paying attention."
If that was supposed to be funny, Sandy, let me assure you that it fell hideously wide of the mark. The only reason we here on the Left pay such attention to you wanks is that you are so constantly, perpetually, relentlessly wrong. About damned near everything.
More than one of your BT colleagues has made fun of this site, suggesting that if it weren't for the Blogging Tories, we might not have anything to blog about. And you know what? In a weird way, they're right, but only because pointing out your errors and distortions and misrepresentations is a full-time job.
And you, Sandy, are a perfect example of that, with your constant bitching and moaning about that bad ol' liberal media bias, while simultaneously publishing worthless, right-wing rubbish. Like, for instance, the very piece that's been disemboweled here.
So please, Sandy, don't try to come off as smug and playful here -- I don't fucking need it. Instead, here's a thought -- why don't you publish stuff that isn't shit? Then we wouldn't have to beat up on it. And everyone would be happy.
How about it, Sandy? Don't publish shit? Does that work for you?
"At least your paying attention."
damn! i hate it when they catch me paying attention! i have been passively aggressively pw3nd....
could you explain this for me, snady:
"It was all about a journalists opinion piece who left that information and quote out."
your post was not about leslie's omission; it was about a passage that somehow proved a left-wing bias in the msm. it took my subsequent efforts for you to realize that runciman's comments support the offending passage. however, if leslie or his editors had intentionally failed to cite runciman's damning comments, that would speak more toward a right-wing bias, wouldn't you say?
KEvron
KEvron
"the very piece that's been disemboweled here."
i win the thread, right? say it! say it, cc!
KEvron
By the way, Sandy, given that KEvron blew a KEvron-sized hole in your snivelly whining, a top-level blog post correction by you would seem to be in order.
It's what we responsible bloggers do, ya know.
to quote ¢rÄߊ, "woot!"
KEvron
¨
"snady"?! d'oh! of course, i meant "sandy".
btw; nickname or embarrassing hygienical secret? attentive minds want to know. i kid....
KEvron
¨
"a top-level blog post correction by you would seem to be in order."
sandy's been known for deleting her own posts, no? i'm pretty sure you've posted on that before, cc.
KEvron
i'm tenacious.
the second source i had cited had no by-line. this one, however, does: keith leslie.
KEvron
Yes, LuLu, you've been more than patient. I'm sorry - I haven't forgotten. I'm a lazy bastard. Tonight, though, I have to work on grade 9 mathematics (everything you've ever wanted to know, but not badly enough to actually ask, about equations that look like or can be rearranged to look like y = mx + b) with my older daughter, who has a test tomorrow.
That could go a little late.
Can I have until Sunday?
It always ends this way, which is why I don't bother challenging it. "Bias" can only be established after a lengthy and careful examination of someone's work and only has meaning if the bias is related to arguing in bad faith. You can't do that on the strength of a sentence here and a paragraph there.
Anyway, it's not only Sandy's sin of passive-aggression (which really gets up my nose); it's also how willing she is to accept the mindless agreement of her rightwing fans...pseudonymous personae we all recognise as "conservatives" in dire need of mentoring and education in critical thinking.
She doesn't dispel ignorance; she enables it. She creates it.
Grade 9 math? Blurgh ... I hate math. Sunday's fine.
the plot thins....
KEvron
KEv, that's exactly the sort of tenacity that Sandy should have exhibited before she submitted that post. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, assuming that she didn't actually know.
Is it just me? If you're going to post on something like that, and attribute it to the same old villain (Teh Left-Liberal-Biased MSM), how the fuck can you not check into it first? It's actually baffling to me.
Maybe a little toooo baffling (narrows eyes)... Oh, wait. That doesn't work here. Never mind.
"the plot thins..."
Makes you wonder how Sandy managed to read about this thing without discovering what Runciman had said.
But I won't assume (I'm actually serious here) that she posted it in bad faith. I'll gladly entertain the idea though.
But I won't assume (I'm actually serious here) that she posted it in bad faith.
I've spent too much time looking at this issue to not assume that of anyone who ever got close to Mike Harris's Ontario government.
in light of the two versions of the story (not an op/ed, as previously stated) published on two different days, i'll give her the benefit of the doubt, in that she may have confused the two pieces. but she doesn't get a pass on her weak attempt to prove that hackneyed red herring about liberal bias. she squints and filters, and runs for cover when confronted with the facts; there's your unforgivable bias.
KEvron
Hahahahaha. You guys are too much. I am a senior citizen guys, a retired person. I will be a great-grandmother in September. You know, the kind of person most people don't pay any attention to. So I get a kick out of this whole process.
I think Red Tory is also retired if I'm not mistaken.
But, I have to tell you that I have every intention of continuing my regulr rants against anti-conservative bias. Mind you, I could write about anti-Liberal bias too -- given what is being written about poor Mr. Dion.
Actually, I am a red tory as well.
Sorry.Have to have my afternoon nap now!
smells like munchausen's nappy in here, with a hint of papd....
KEvron
Semi-retired, yes. But not quite dead just yet.
Hahahahaha. You guys are too much.
What are you? 12?
Sandy, if you're a red Tory, how do you stand Harper? Isn't Dion a better fit?
Post a Comment