Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I posted something about the Steele dossier. Not about the media in general, or any particular media. You used that as a springboard to start riffing on how the media covered the story and on what Taibbi says about how the media behave. I wasn't interested in that, so I responded with a single sentence. I don't see any particular point in engaging with you about what Taibbi says, for the reasons I've said. It's not that he's all wrong, it's that he's not a very sharp critic, at least in what you say he says.
If you'd like to know what I think, just ask. It's not hard.
|
Dude, you posted four paragraphs about me preening.
I pivoted to the Taibbi reference because the article you offered on the Steele Dossier was a “no shit, really?” piece. Who ever believed the whole thing, or even most of it, was BS? The only people who’d believe that are credulous sorts who’d take the reporting on the dossier seriously in either direction. Unless you’d shit for brains, it was obviously a mixed bag both sides would spin. From the left, it’d be defended; from the right, it’d be shredded. The reality was obvious from the start: Some of it is accurate and some isn’t. Did anyone need 1000 words on that?
It’s a hell of a lot more enlightening to consider how it was spun. That same type of spinning is going on with the impeachment right now. And while I know you know everything, so this will be no surprise, perhaps the media’s culpability and laziness being the biggest problem we have in modern politics is an area worth exploring. It’s certainly more enlightening than that article you posted.
