Any port in a storm, these days.

... because you don't like one of the persons saying so.

Fascinating.

Something a lot of people on DU still don't understand.

Instead of dancing around it and obfuscating.

Even if a point being put forward by James O'Keefe is correct, it won't be taken seriously by most people.

Likewise with Atkinsson.

She's been exposed as a liar over and over.

You don't like the source, so you want to shoot the messenger rather than addressing the message.

Who gives a flying fuck what you choose to "take seriously?" I certainly don't. And you don't speak for "most people."

Otoh there are plenty of liberal and academic critiques of media manipulation which could be cited and promoted.

Sources matter, don't know why DU'ers would want to publicize and promote egregious wing-nuts when there are sane voices out there.

The enemy of my 'enemy' is not my friend. This "reporter" would be more than happy to smear Bernie.

Where the fuck did I "publicize and promote egregious wing-nuts?"

"Physician, heal thyself."

My comments were to address your "shoot the messenger" comment, as I really do believe sources matter. I think it is right to find right-wing sources questionable. That's not shooting the messenger. Some voices are credible, some aren't.

I was in no way trying to say that you promote those kinds of sources.

I'm not really that familiar with your posts, but from what I've seen you would never cite right-wing sources.

I am not the best writer so I am sorry if I screwed up.

... then disproving their claim should be simple and easy. When someone dismisses something without taking on the claim, but by only calling out the source, then that is indeed, shooting the messenger. By definition.

Personally, I don't see much point in fact-checking right-wing liars. Huge waste of time.

Take care of yourself.

Nobody is above reproach because some people aren't above reproach? That's a ridiculously convenient position to take. There's no argument against it, because there's no valid argument in the first place.

Like i said, it's lazy.

Intellectually industrious?

Give me a fucking break.

...instead of the wrong itself are usually the propagandists, as are the people who try to conflate enormous meanings to very obvious ones ('the media' being some guy with a pamphlet compared to what everyone knew she was actually talking about), and those who try to disparage people by calling them names like 'loon'. Holy hell, a trifecta! A hat trick!

...
...
...I'll just let that percolate a while.

I'd be interested in specific points she got wrong. I'm sorry MediaMatters feels threatened by people learning how media manipulation is done (or rather, one of the ten thousand ways its done), but that should send them out to demonstrate their honesty, not attack the messenger. I wonder why the strange reaction.

She's still gonna take the royalties, however. A girl's gotta eat...