It seems appropriate that the person who wrote the following will now be writing for Newsweek (HT to NB's John Stephenson, who posted on this Tuesday evening):
Yes, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga ("Kos") apologized the next day; you can decide for yourself whether it suffices.
Assuming he's really sorry, it's odd that, unlike on the rest the site, there is no direct working link to the "screw them" comment (try the supposedly correct comment link, and you'll be taken to the front page; this link will get you to the top of that post's comments; scroll down about halfway to see the one pictured above).
But I'm not here to criticize Kos. He is what he is, and, other than link-diverting childishness just illustrated, Newsweek presumably knows what it's getting into -- though given the recent Cleveland Plain Dealer-Wide Open Blog brouhaha (HT Writes Like She Talks), one can't be too sure. After all, AARP was apparently unaware of the above quote in early 2005, when it briefly linked to Kos from a now-dormant blog dedicated to derailing Social Security reform, and quietly removed the link about a week after apparently receiving quite a few complaints.
I simply want to point out that Newsweek's hiring of an experienced and I-assume-still-working political operative who has made frequent monetary and priceless in-kind contributions to Democratic politicians is consistent with its past decades of negligent and reckless left-biased reporting:
- They'll deny it 'til the cows come home, but Newsweek was going to bury the Monica Lewinsky story in early 1998 until Matt Drudge forced it out into the open (6th paragraph) -- just as the magazine's affiliated company, the Washington Post, buried a story about Bill Clinton's sexual harassment of Paula Jones by the same reporter in 1994.
- Though it had a lot of Old Media company, the magazine failed to report on the credible rape charges leveled by Juannita Broadderick during the Clinton impeachment period.
- Then there's the Quran flushing story in 2005 that Newsweek had to retract -- but not before people died in rioting over the false story.
Newsweek's mission for oh-so-many years, as is the case with so many other Old Media publications, has been to slant its reporting and influence readers with with liberal bias in hopes of influencing election results. Evan Thomas once infamously said as much during the 2004 election campaign:
Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. . . . They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.
The Kos hiring is just the latest attempt to make sure the magazine holds up its share of Old Media's built-in 15-point spread in 2008; perhaps New Media will take that spread down a few points this time around.
Newsweek has been saying "screw them" to readers who want fair and balanced coverage for as long as I can remember. The news-consuming public has been saying "screw them" right back:
The audience news for Newsweek appears to be on a similar path. Again, the increase was very small, to 3.118 million in 2006 from 3.117 million the year before ..... that total, was the second lowest circulation number recorded for the magazine in the time for which we have data – 2005 was the lowest.
The magazine has lost just under 10% of its readership since its Lewinsky-induced 1998 peak of 3.437 million, while the country's population has increased by about 10%.
Although Newsweek, at least according to Kos, is hiring a conservative to counter him, there is virtually no chance that the person chosen will be as blindly partisan as he. Kos has said on several occasions that policy bores him, and that he only cares about winning. I guess we'll have to wait and see who the actual conservative choice is, but it seems to me that the only way to "balance" someone with Markos's mindset would to wake Machiavelli from the dead, and then hope he's sensible and a conservative (though I repeat myself).
Regardless, the Kos hiring more firmly plants the magazine on far-left and likely less financially fruitful ground.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh, yeah, he was really
November 14, 2007 - 17:37 ET by motherbeltOh, yeah, he was really upset about the deaths of the other soldiers. Well, maybe he was. Liberals always "support the troops" when they are dead or captured. Until then, they have no use for them.
Good luck to Newsweek. They can expect to increase their readership by a few on the far left, but will more than make up for that with the loss of more moderate readers. Hey, if they want to be a far left magazine, they should go for it.
PS: Wasn't Kos one of the raging lefties demanding that all the newspapers purge Ann Coulter because of something she said?
Jonathon Alter was on
November 14, 2007 - 17:51 ET by Chris NormanJonathon Alter, from Newsweek, was on MSNBC, which I was forced to watch when I went home for lunch with my lib brother. They were working on attacking News Corp over this story regarding an affair with Judith Reagan (sp?) and Bernard Kerik and NewsCorps supposed attempts to silence Reagan. Alter agreed that the accusation had serious repercussions for the Giuliani campaign - surprise, surprise. Gee, no reflection of MSNBC's obsession with FoxNews, is there?
Yes, their obsession is
November 14, 2007 - 17:59 ET by dscottYes, their obsession is just a clever diversion from the fact that they MSNBC are propagandists for the Dem Party and Hillary in particular. More PROJECTION from the hypocrits. Whenever the MSM tries to score one on the Repubs, you can bet they are doing it merely to divert attention away from the Dems. This is all about slight of hand trickery, don't watch the hand that's flourishing, watch the other hand because that's where the real action is.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
No reflection on Hitlery's
November 14, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Col SmokeNo reflection on Hitlery's buddy/buddy relationship with Murdoch either is there? Why no serious repercussions against the Hildebeast? Hasn't NewsCorp been a big supporter of the witch over the years?
Talking about people dying
November 14, 2007 - 17:51 ET by dscottTalking about people dying because of foolish decisions, will Markos be writing about the 3,000 people who died on 911 as a result of the Clinton"s" decision not to kill OBL when they had a chance to do so at least 10 times or play legally blind when given the heads up regarding 911 from ABLE DANGER or blind siding the new administration at the time by not telling him (W) of their findings???? Would we ever have gone into Iraq if 911 didn't happen? NO!
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Well, this guy...
November 14, 2007 - 17:57 ET by sarcasmoContradicts you, and I believe him.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
It's called sour grapes
November 14, 2007 - 18:12 ET by dscottIt's called sour grapes from a person who got fired, real credible guy there Sarc.
Thanks for making my point, according to this guy W needed a pretext, he got it on 911 now didn't he????. - "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
Hillary and others agreed with him given the information in their possession. So here we are with a chicken and egg story, was W spoiling for a fight with Saddam at some point? The answer is yes. What was the point at which W was spoiling for a fight with Saddam? Before or after 911? You'll need hard evidence my friend, more than just the word of a disgruntled former employee.
btw, there was never enough oil in Iraq to economically justify taking over the country if that was to be our intent. W of all people being an oil man would know better on that score. Sounds more like wishful thinking than a viable conspiracy theory.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
He's more credible than you in this case.
November 14, 2007 - 18:19 ET by sarcasmoHe was there. Like it or not, and getting fired didn't change the fact that W was spoiling for a fight, and an incredibly expensive one, with Iraq BEFORE 9/11, just as this guy said. Hell, on some levels I don't blame him. You try to kill my Dad? I'll be after your ass, too. But at least be honest about it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yeah but what's all this
November 14, 2007 - 18:25 ET by MightyMouthYeah but what's all this have to do with Clinton and Osama?
Clinton blew it, in addition to cutting the military and turning the "Intelligence" system into a group of bickering ineffective disconnected agencies.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Nothing.
November 14, 2007 - 18:26 ET by sarcasmoIt has to do with dscott's allegation: "Would we ever have gone into Iraq if 911 didn't happen? NO!"
Once-again, I don't believe him for the reasons stated.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I doesn't matter what kind
November 14, 2007 - 18:31 ET by MightyMouthI doesn't matter what kind of hardon GWB had for Saddam, without 9/11 the country and congress wouldn't have had the mindset or will to invade. For God's sake he's only one man!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Bush had many reasons for
November 14, 2007 - 22:19 ET by stratmanBush had many reasons for going to war with Saddam before 9/11 but did not.
Saddam's radar and anti-aircraft facilities would paint our aircraft patrolling in the no-fly zone, even occasionally sending up a rare working fighter to antagonize/threaten ours within the no-fly zone. Saddam sent off surface to air missiles at our boys (and the Brits). For more see here.
Any and all of these actions by Saddam's military constitute acts of war, the result being the USA retaliating with our full military might. Yet Bush maintained his powder... until after 9/11.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
You're following the meme
November 15, 2007 - 11:20 ET by dscottYou're following the meme of Ron Paul that our policies got us 911. You like the anti-war left have it backwards as usual, it was the Clintons (both) incompetence in showing weakness and ineffectiveness in world affairs that got us 911, a brazen Saddam Hussein and Iran's intransigence.
Without 911 as the backdrop of world wide terrorism bringing it home to every American that we were vulnerable to this insanity, W didn't have pretext to do anything more than what we are doing now to Iran. We are subjecting Iran to a death of a thousand economic cuts, just as we did to Saddam Hussein, it's a very slow deliberate esculating process of strangulation. Why? Because at this point we don't have enough pretext to militarily wipe out Iran. One miscalculation on Ajad's part is all that is needed. Why else do you think Iran kidnapped British soldiers? He knew, the Brits would not respond militarily. Had that commander of the nearby ship been American, the Iranians would have been dodging bullets all the way back to shore empty handed. On the other hand had he taken US troops, he knows he be picking a j-dam out of his $%^#$%.
No my friend Sarc, when you deal with evil people you never show weakness and you always follow up their probing with a firm painful reminder of why they shouldn't mess with you. You like Ron Paul greatly underestimate the intent of the end game being played by Islamic Extremists like OBL, Saddam, Ajad and the Mullahs. The end game for them is world domination, they said it themselves, take them at their word because their actions so far are consistent with their words. Figuratively rolling up in a ball as a means of defense as Ron Paul seems to advocate does not save you from the things to come, what it does is to make you the perfect target to be kicked as an example to others to make them acquiese to their demands.
So Sarc are you going to convert to Islam as they demand to achieve peace in our time? If you do, which version of Islam will you choose, Shiite or Sunni? Pick your poison since if you pick Shiite, you are considered a heritic by OBL, Wahabis and the Sunnis. If you pick Sunni, you are a heritic to Ajad, the Mullahs and Hezbollah. Pay attention to what is happening in Palestine with Hamas (supported by Iran) and Fahtah (supported by Saudi). Peace at any price never brings peace.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
You're distorting things.
November 15, 2007 - 11:30 ET by sarcasmoI never (and Ron Paul never) said what you say above about this, he was instead the one proposing ideas that -- if listened-to -- would have actually worked. And they're ideas, like declared wars, that would have forced Democrats to support a war they supported, mistake or not, which might have even affected the outcome.
I'll shoot anyone who tries to convert me to anything, which is one of the reasons I greatly fear the ANTIGUN RINOS this party's trying to run. I want to retain that ability, should it be needed. Let's just face it, I believe the guy who got fired and was there, and you don't believe him.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga
November 14, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Lame CherryIt would behoove Newsbusters to get the Charlie Rose interview of Zuniga as three things come out.
1. Zuniga is stupid. Charlie Rose set him up to explain an issue 3 times and it finally dawned on Zuniga that Rose was doing it.......what did not dawn on Zuniga was Rose was bitch slapping him down.
2. Zuniga is like most modern males in he is pussy whipped by his wife into being the urbanized castrated capon the left loves and wives get tired of, divorce and go have sex on his money with other guys.
3. Perhaps the most important, Zuniga for all his liberal jackass rants likes guns, likes the western lifestyle of Montana (he would move there if his wife would let him) and he is not a liberal........what Zuniga is, is simply an emotional, Ron Paul, Jeff Rense, anarchist..........ZUNIGA IS NOT A SOCIALIST like the ilkish communists who inhabit the flush the Koran Newsweek rosters.
It is past time that people do not understand Zuniga in a complete profile of who he really is. He is not what people think and he is no what he even thinks he is. He is a modern weak male who would do a world of good to his soul in going on a horse packing trip for a few weeks in the great open beyond, shoot some guns, kill some game..........and as my compadre Billy Dixon explained life's complete fulfillment...........Markos Moulitsas Zuniga needs to:
Eat buffalo or wild game steak broiled over a hardwood fire, eat sourdough biscuit and drink coffee from a quart tin cup.
Zuniga does that for 2 weeks, bring a Bible with someone like me to explain what the Book says, enlivens his manhood and sleeps under a leanto........he will be a less foul mouthed person, his wife will adore the new man he will have become and he will stop being a person putting on the bulge to get attention he craves by being part of the Molotov Mob in saying rude things.
Mark, come play with me and the world will change for you.
My regards to California Joe.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I've been trying for years
November 14, 2007 - 18:00 ET by DaBirdI've been trying for years to get my Dad to cancel his Newsweek subscription. But being loyal and a creature of habit he just wouldn't do it. I continuely showed him the biased and sloppy one-sided reporting they have been doing, but to no avail. Well, I now showed him who they have brought on board and printed some of Kos' writings for him to read. My Dad is disgusted. He has now agreed it is time to cancel. Thank you Newsweek!
Boo-yah!
November 14, 2007 - 18:28 ET by Tom BlumerGlad to have been of some assistance.
Tom, But can you get this
November 14, 2007 - 18:31 ET by Chris NormanTom,
But can you get this out to the dentist and doctor offices across America? It's in their waiting rooms the real damage is being done.
Great idea
November 14, 2007 - 18:40 ET by Tom BlumerThe docs should cancel the three weeklies, and just have the past few days' USA Today and WSJ. Plus Sports Illustrated and People Mag.
I guarantee you they will get zero complaints about not having Time, Newsweak, and US Snooze around.
That's a less than perfect solution, but keeps the damage to a minimum.
If it's good enough for Jiffy Lube, which typically has USAT, the local rag, SI, and People, it's good enough for the docs' offices.
Hopefully some docs and dentists check in here from time to time.
I suspect they're back
November 14, 2007 - 19:08 ET by Chris NormanI suspect they're back issues from the receptionist's house. There, the Newsweeks and Times sit, looking benign, in the rack or on the empty chair, next to an old Readers Digest or Sunset, just waiting to indoctrinate some hapless patient being forced to wait an hour. I like to stuff them in the back of the rack, for the good of the republic.
I never knew Markos thought
November 14, 2007 - 20:30 ET by wiwfI never knew Markos thought WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Bosnia were all video games!
Get a grip on reality, you fool!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
I've been thinking this for
November 14, 2007 - 22:15 ET by stratmanI've been thinking this for a long time and agree completely.
Part of the problem is that medical offices get the magazines for free. The publisher's love to give away their magazines because they know hundreds of patients will leaf through the mag while waiting, possibly encouraging new subscriptions.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
"Although Newsweek, at
November 14, 2007 - 20:57 ET by TE"Although Newsweek, at least according to Kos, is hiring a conservative to counter him, ...."
I can't wait to see Newsweek announce the "conservative" that it apparently intends to hire. I suspect that the alleged "conservative" will be a Newsweek "conservative" like fundamentalist homosexualist Andrew Sullivan or maybe David Gergen or Ann Stone or maybe self-described "moderate" Joe Klein of Time or country and western Marxist Kevin Phillips or Chuck Hagel (RINO, France).
Chuck Hagel
November 14, 2007 - 21:03 ET by BlondeRINO, France.
That was excellent.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
KOS folly
November 14, 2007 - 23:27 ET by LionKingFirst he calls the war in Iraq Bush's folly,and then, he criticizes mercenaries because they are not there to make Iraq a better place. My assumption is that is that Bush's folly IS there to make Iraq a better place.
KOS shows his true non-humanitarian side...typical of liberals.
My issue with Kos is what
November 14, 2007 - 23:51 ET by Right2thePointMy issue with Kos is what really is the quality of his credentials for being and election commentator.
His record going into the 06 election was something like 0-18 for candidates he supported.
Lamont was such a heavy setback against Liberman why does Kos still have credibility on election issues at all?
In the 06 cycle he finally by virtue of riding other peoples coattails managed to have a few of his people come through, but he picked them late in the race where it would have taken a bit to turn them around to a loss.
In short his history gives little reason to give him credibility.
I am looking at his list of those he is touting for this cycle and it reads like a list of who????
Only one he supports or maybe two have any kind of name recognition.
I disagree with an earlier poster in one respect, Kos may not profess socialism up front but look at each and every candidate he touts and you will see it.
He goes to great lengths to hide his socialist mantra because he knows if he was up front with it he would never have gotten beyond the niche status of those blogs that scream it out.
Right now his common theme is not just more democrats but BETTER democrats.
He is pitching running full left socialists against what he calls Bush Dog Dems as well as pushing others toward open seats or what he considers Reps in seats that should be Dem on voting patterns..thus replacing Rino's with a REAL dem.
He is now in a group of 8 or 9 far left blogs that have put together their efforts to support consensus candidates for their issues and are using Blue Majority, ActBlue and BlogPac to be the mechinism of their method.
He is a lot of things and many of them just snake oil showmanship, but never ever make the mistake thinking he is not a socialist, just look at those he is supporting.