Kurtz's Law
By John Amato Wednesday Oct 17, 2007 3:15pmCheck out Howard Kurtz and his panel from Sunday's Reliable Sources (Time Magazine's Mark Halperin, WaPo's Jonathan Capehart, and Townhall's Amanda Carpenter). Why would you have a person from the right wing "Townhall" to explore the attacks on the Frost family from the right wingers? No balance there---read the transcript and notice how he never criticizes Malkin or the right even though Howard says he's against attacking a sick, 12 year old boy. And he always asks questions as they are framed by the right wing blogosphere.
KURTZ: But is it partisan, Mark, for criticism to be made and for the media to cover questions about the eligibility of the family or their financial circumstances when, after all, the Democrats did try to make Graeme Frost the poster boy for why we need an expansion of the program?
KURTZ: The consensus seems to be that the questions were fair, but certainly the tone can be mean-spirited in a lot of these controversies and it is really striking when a 12-year-old boy is involved.
Whose consensus, Mr. Kurtz? A bunch of right wing apologists for the Bush administration? Those were false charges leveled at the Frost family and not simply questions about their eligibility. And what about their personal information being released? If he was appalled, it never seemed to raise his ire.
Then there's this from the WaPo:
Howard Kurtz: But every guest was offered the opportunity to weigh in. Was it fair to question a family's qualifications for the S-CHIP insurance program after Democrats had made the 12-year-old boy a symbol by having him deliver its weekly radio address? My feeling is yes; you can't say one party can trot out such a symbol and no one can criticize. I also recited instances in which I felt the criticism was misleading: yes, the kid attends a private school, but on scholarship. Yes, the dad owns a home but bought it for $55,000 in a rundown neighborhood in 1990. In short, I tried to put the debate into perspective.
There's a big difference between misleading criticism and vitriolic attacks which Kurtz is certainly trying his best to tone down. The Frost family qualified for SCHIP under the existing parameters, so why should their eligibility be up for discussion? He's just enabling the right wing's tactic of ad hominem attacks. Yet, he was so utterly flabbergasted about some Cheney comments left on the Huffington Post, which he used Michelle Malkin as his source, the extremist right winger who was the driving force in the Frost story, but Howie refused to criticize.
This is really sick.
I know we're living in a polarized time. I know there are people who absolutely detest George Bush and Dick Cheney. I know they like to vent their spleen online, sometimes in vulgar terms, and hey, that's life in a democracy.
But some of the comments posted after a suicide bomber blew himself up at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Force Base, while Cheney was there--killing as many as 23 people--are nothing short of vile.
The comments appeared on the Huffington Post, which, to its credit, took them down. But some were preserved by Michelle Malkin, and I reproduce them here..
It goes on and on from there....And Howard, Michelle isn't really into you...
Kevin Drum was looking for some help in naming the practice of cherry-picking comments: COMMENT TRAWLING
A reader notes that the practice of trawling through open comment threads to find wackjobs who can be held up as evidence of "crazy liberals" is on the rise. Needless to say, this practice is almost self-discrediting: if the best evidence of wackjobism you can find is a few anonymous nutballs commenting on a blog, then the particular brand of wackjobism you're complaining about must not be very widespread after all. So how can we mock this practice effectively enough to make people ashamed to indulge in it?
So the question is: can someone invent a catchy phrase to basically mean, cherry-picking crazy comments or emails? Or, if one of your readers could find the right way to turn it into a "law," then maybe it could become "X's Law" — a fitting prize for the winner.
I say we give the label to Howard. He certainly is outraged more by those nasty comments about Cheney that do no actual harm than the despicable attacks on and threats to Graeme Frost and his family. Let's possibly call it a Kurtz, The Kurtz Law, Kurtz's Law or Kurtzing. You can come up with a label of your own....Email Howard and ask him why he was so outraged by some anonymous comments left on the Huffington Post, but is playing it sooo cool over the smearing of Graeme Frost. Maybe someone can start a new Wikipedia page for him....
Login or Register to post comments.
How would you know if the whackjob on an open thread was a plant or not? The trolls ARE the nutjobs.
Howard Kurtz: ...you can’t say one party can trot out such a symbol and no one can criticize.
You can if you're a Republican. Anybody remember a certain General that we're not supposed to criticize even tho he was used by the GOP in a similar fashion? IOKIYAR.
How about calling the effect "BlogSifting"? Anything but "Jimmi's Law".
looney trawling
turd-dogging
Kurtz has some good moments, such as taking on the Obama madrassa BS, but he's pretty disappointing overall. As you say, he almost always frames things from a right-wing perspective. He also refused in his chat yesterday to condemn Malkin, and equated the Baltimore Sun showing a photo of the Frost's house with Malkin publishing their address and phone number.
The problem with citing comments from any blog is how can one differentiate between an actual vitriolic comment or a planted vitriolic comment.
What I mean is if it's a liberal-leaning blog, then one assumes that a liberal posted any comment on that blog, but what if a culture of corruptioin conservative posted the vitriolic comment on the liberal blog, a comment that viciously attacks conservatives, giving conservative nutjobs like Michele Malkin "representative samples" to then post on her blog.
What this reminds me of is when the Bush White House, for instance, leaked information to selected right-wing journalists back during 2002-2003 before Bush started the Iraq War, information supposedly "proving" Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and had links to al Qaeda, after which White House officials would appear on television talk shows and cite these articles as evidence, even though they were the ones originally behind the false intel.
Are we seeing a similar right-wing media circle jerk occurring in which right-wingers post on left-leaning blogs, right-winger commenters who attack right-wingers while passing themselves off as left-wingers, after which some other right-wingers cite these blog comments as proof that liberals are vicious and mean or whatever?
In other words, are some of the comments being posted on liberal-leaning blogs actually planted there by right-wingers posing as left-wingers, that is, beyond the normal right-wing comments and their irrational attempts to defend the irrational policies of the worst administration in American history?
I don't think a right-winger could ever effectively portray a progressive. They simply don't have the brainpower to do so convincingly.
Leonard @ 6: Sure, but add to that how so many in the chattering class caricature and despise progressives. Progressives can normally tell the difference, but the purpose of such trolling is normally to snow the casual observer, such as the MSM. who are often eager to write that narrative about the Dirty Friggin' Hippies. So, you make a good point, but I fear it's often moot. Certainly Kurtz' little rant about the Cheney comments demonstrated stunning ignorance (of the widespread violent rhetoric of the right) or was willful hackdom — but Kurtz is considered a serious journalist.
This wasn't supposed to post. I'm still working on it...Computers...I'll repost tomorrow.
"Cruisin' for 'Comment Clabber'?"
kurtz is a schitt.
I said it before.
I'll say it again!!!
I thought "nutpicking" was the established protocol.
There was one instance where Malkin couldn't even find a nut, so she had to take the *commenter's* remarks and strip the context to mold reality to her message. Nut-picking followed by cherry-picking!
How about "Kommentz"?
I submit the term "COMMTROLLING" as the new term dejour for the act of searching anonymous posts for those containing the most vulgarity and vitrol to cite as damaging examples. The word is a contraction of the words "comment trolling".
Thank you, no need to send money. The knowledge of a good deed done is reward enough.
Jimmi the Grey @ 2:
Exactly, jimmi
Howie: "Was it fair to question a family’s qualifications for the S-CHIP insurance program after Democrats had made the 12-year-old boy a symbol by having him deliver its weekly radio address? My feeling is yes; you can’t say one party can trot out such a symbol and no one can criticize."
Was it fair to question MoveOn.org's patriotism after BushCo made the 4 star general a politician by having him deliver their "progress" report on the surge? Here Howie and his ilk would say no; republican symbols are sacred and no one can criticize.
Frankly, I'm really tired of news shows that have someone from the left and someone from the right and then let them yell at each other. As if I can't figure out what position each is going to take before they open their mouths. That's NOT news. Somewhere out there, there have to be people who are experts on the topic that aren't political if they want to educate us. Tap into NGOs or Colleges and Universities. Find an author on the topic. Then ask intelligent questions. Is that too much to ask?
MN USA @ 15:
That's the way things should work, so yes, you are asking too much.
I WILL DEFINITELY BE CALLING IT KURTZ'S LAW
I get the sense he thinks he is really even-handed
in fact, he always falls for the right wing's framing of the issues
how about something nice and simple and call in doing a "kurtzie"
how about something nice and simple and call it doing a "kurtzie"
Post Grape Nuts
How about each site is judged by the posts, not the comments. That would bring this whole thing do a logical ending. I have never had to remove a comment from my site. My feeling is the comment is made by the commenter, not by me. Just because someone else commented on my site, that doesn't make it my thoughts and doesn't mean that I agree with it or disagree with it.
Is there any reason why people say "right wing" and "conservative", when what they seem to mean is "Republican"?
I don't get it.
What's there to be so shy about.
Why not call a spade a spade.
When people say "right wing" and "conservative", they identify no one and nothing in national politics that I know of...
Isn't it (R) or (D) in national politics in America?
NEVER FOR GET WHO KURTZ IS MARRIED TO -- A HIGHLY PLACED REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE NAME SHERRI ANIS. HE IS AN INVALUABLE COG IN HER PROPAGANDA MACHINE.
Am I the only one who finds the way that this issue is playing out, troubling?
It seems to me that in mounting a vicious smear against these children (and invoking a vigorous defense), that the right has largely succeeded in framing the issue in the terms that they prefer: namely, is so and so poor enough to deserve health care.
Surely the issue should be focused on access to quality health care a human right, and not something that should be meted out based if you can establish your 'deserving poor' bona fides.
So, how come no one can criticize the military? Are they above criticism? If so, why?
My friend, the Grammar Cop, says "right wing" is a compound adjective and should be spelled with a hyphen: "right-wing."
The Grammar Copy also prefers this spelling: "rite-wing."
Is it fair? Maybe...someone gives you an example of their argument, and you can question the example.
But not the point. Even forgetting the ugliness...I mean let's say he was a bad example. That doesn't invalidate the argument. Really, if he was a bad example..."Okay, we chose poorly with this Frost kid...so instead, let take a look at these 9,999,999 kids over here."
They smeared that family. Now they're running.
But, other than vicious cowards, what do we expect from the right? Hello?
.
My contributions:
"Haystacking" (as in -needles in a- and the raw material for making -straw man- arguments)
"Marshmallowing" (from Lucky Charms, just pulling out the sweet bits)
Nutreaping, Simultizing (planting and reaping in the same blog) Malkinmagnesia (works on acid for baser purposes)
Kurtzing=How to go fuck yourself with both hands while clapping.
You realize that in discussing the Kurtz Phenomenon®©™ that what you are really doing is describing the moral anatomy of both the psychopath and the sociopath? Their sense of moral outrage is strictly limited to what happens to their own person or those whom they consider their own property. Yet, they are completely blind and oblivious to any inconsistency when they turn around and visit the same wrong they were bewailing just moments before upon some happless other. It doesn't register anywhere within their awareness that there is any incongruity. And that is because, as far as each one of them is concerned, their person comprises the sole objective reality in the universe. No one else has objective reality and thus, consequence. Others do not matter. At all.
Kurtz's action tells us volumes about what he is as a person. He probably hasn't any idea how loudly his words and deeds are shouting stories to the public about the exact nature of his inner character.
I don't know Capehart, but in Kurtz, Halperin and a townhall.com blogger, you've got a solid 3 out of 4 right-wingnut panel.
yeah, that's who I'd assemble to intelligently discuss the shrillextremes of the right-wing media machine.
Forgive me for going ot, but I'm never awake when the open threads are here. I just heard on CNN that Iraq has given contracts to Iran and China to build electric power stations in Iraq. I bet there will be some pissing and moaning in DC over this.
I don't know if they will be nuclear power or not. But I do remember a good while back that the prez of Iraq said that was what they wanted nuke power for was to help Iraq get its power back on by joining with Iraq and building power stations. The Iraqis will love whomever gets their power back on in a reliable fashion. Is this the real reason bush is all huffy about Iran having nuclear power? He doesn't want the Iraqis and Iranians becoming working partners and perhaps asking us to leave?
TadAllagash @ 17:
howie knows exactly what he is doing! check out his wife's connections and it reveals him to be a televised concern troll. his show should flash a disclaimer whenever he talks.
Shivas @ 20:
You forgot the "Flakes"?
pissed off patricia @ 33:
Blackwater will fire on contractors who don't work for amurKKKan corporations. bullets will be the expression of disapproval.
pissed off patricia @ 21:
you and I both know that howie's moral compass is skewed to the right. his ignorant attributions of comments to the site and not the commenter is his stock-in-trade.
I hate Kurtz. He's always trying to humanize the wingnuts and "prove he's not a liberal"
KURTZING!
I will henceforth refer to it as Kurtzing.
Incidentally, the legal term for what Kurtz, et. al., is doing is called "sample-shopping". It is a criminally actionable form of fraud and false official statement whereof specific data sets are selected to misrepresent system performance in legally regulated processes. This usually deals with environmental reporting of state or federally permitted discharges for pollutant reduction-treated waste waters or airstreams. As determined by certified analytical results, the permit holder is required to report any violations of permit conditions. In sample shopping the permittee, selects perhaps the only data sets that are in compliance out of many such sets or cobbles together data from many data sets to assemble one that shows compliance. this is done to evade accounability for non-compliance. It is prosecuted as criminal felony fraud, wherein the victim is the public and the public's trust.
This is what Kurtz and others are doing. Sample-shopping. Fraud.
The right wingers were in full-attack mode before they even got the whole story and all of the facts. That's the problem, and they were burned once the facts of the story came to light. Now they are in damage control.
I vent on these threads - sometimes I get so angry at the hijacking of my country and the damage that has been done in the past 7 years that I let rip. I do not, however, recommend that children who have the misfortune to be born to someone earning less that $200K be left adrift if they are ill or if their parents have made financial decisions that don't pass muster with people who have brokers and accountants to take care of those details.
I have been known to say that Republicans have sold their souls for power, a few bucks, and a sense of righteousness: but I have done nothing to force them to sell their souls, or supported legislation that makes soul selling mandatory. In fact, I have repeatedly urged them to turn away from their evil ways.
Oh, and I'm sick of living in a Homeland - I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK1
While I love the term "nutpicking," my vote is to hang a "law" around Kurtz's neck with the hope that it will help snap him out of his incompetent and lazy stupor.
Kurtz may be a boob and a stooge (booge?), but he's both influential and very public, and any shame that can attached to him for doing poorly a job he seems to relish is likely to actually make him more even-handed, if only by degrees.
With that in mind, I propose that Kurtz's Law should read:
As the mainstream position in an argument grows more unassailable, the probability that media figures will mine blog comments for quotes from fringe elements in order to diminish that position approaches one.
If you are going after a sick kid and his family, you better get your shit totally together before you make the first move or utter the first word. Only an idiot would do something like that based on appearances rather than fact. Bottom line those who jumped on this story without knowing what the hell they were talking about look like fools now. Now and always.
Rick G. @ 24:
Bingo!
"As the mainstream position in an argument grows more unassailable, the probability that media figures will mine blog comments for quotes from fringe elements in order to diminish that position approaches one. " - PBI @43
Sounds good to me. Actually sounds like a law or an axiom, too.
Blottom Feeding: Feeding off of crap that may be accumulate at the bottom of blog posts in the form of comments.
Terry Schiavo.
I have two suggestions:
Kurtz-picking, them ore acceptable of the two, and
Kurtz-sniffing, which, frankly, makes me queasy.
But I want to note a pattern in all these 'issues' that is *really* making me apprehensive. It's a shift to authoritarianism that I'm seeing more and more and more.
Remember the kid who was tased in a library for not having his ID card? It didn't really get much attention though Olberman mentioned it. Most people disapproved of it but a sizable proportion did. Then there was the guy at the John Kerry lecture who monopolized the microphone and was tased. NPR's "Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me" started out the show with a joke by the host about an obnoxious person being tased from the mike.
There is a 'debate' about attacking a 12-year old kid telling his story? Or a two-year old?
There's a debate on this?
There's more and more of this going on - acceptance of out-of-proportion retaliation. In the former cases it was low-level campus cops. In the latter it is authoritarians defending their right to go after anyone.
Where is our General Welch?
Milo
Paul @ 46:
Thanks, Paul - I used Godwin's Law as a template. : )
How bout we simplify to "Kurtzy", as in take a bow while wearing a dress for an anonymous disguise.
kevin @ 18:
Kevin beat me to it.
Kurtzie.
I was thinking "cherry crazed" but it seems too cute and Kurtzie has grown on me by presenting the mental image of Howard in a little pink tutu dancing as fast as he can. Poor slob. Kurtzie is perfect!
sounds like "schitzofishing" to m.
OK sorry to do this, but I love this from Paul above (sorry I don't know how to do this all funky fresh like y'all so I just copy and paste):
Incidentally, the legal term for what Kurtz, et. al., is doing is called “sample-shopping“. It is a criminally actionable form of fraud and false official statement whereof specific data sets are selected to misrepresent system performance in legally regulated processes. This usually deals with environmental reporting of state or federally permitted discharges for pollutant reduction-treated waste waters or airstreams. As determined by certified analytical results, the permit holder is required to report any violations of permit conditions. In sample shopping the permittee, selects perhaps the only data sets that are in compliance out of many such sets or cobbles together data from many data sets to assemble one that shows compliance. this is done to evade accounability for non-compliance. It is prosecuted as criminal felony fraud, wherein the victim is the public and the public’s trust.
This is what Kurtz and others are doing. Sample-shopping. Fraud.
Keith Olbermann employs this tactic more frequently than Kurtz does. Kurtz mentions it to try to appear balanced. Olby does it hype his arguments.
Two nights ago in his opening to the parents of Graeme Frost interview he mentioned this quote from a RedState commenter: “Hang ‘em, Publically. Let ‘em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens."
Nice, Keith. Great investigative journalism. Just read the blogs during the day and repeat that night.
The MediaCorps commentariat is a sheltered workshop for the offspring of the well connected. I don't know who the hell Kurtz is related to, but nobody as dim as he could have gotten that far without someone with a lot of clout pulling strings.
Same can be said of David Brooks -- who is almost as astute, but much less witty than Kurtz.
Ditto:
William Kristol.
Jonah Goldberg.
Kurtz is such a fucking wanker!
Before every episode of "Reliable Sources" he should have to point out that he is married to Republican consultant and commentator Sheri Annis.
No need to wonder why he's biased!
It's because Kurtz is a closeted rightwinger. Just watch one of his shows, you'll see his true colors(Fox-like) during the broadcast.
In case no one else has already mentioned this, awhile back Kurtz had a mash letter to Malkin disguised as an article in the WaPo. It was pretty damned gross.
Actually, rather than cherry-picking comments, I think "Kurtz' Law" better describes ridiculous, one-sided apologist statements by a mainstream media figure.
Howard Kurtz bends over and takes one for the team AGAIN. "Can't offend the right, can't offend the right, can't offend the right....."
cc @ 3:
How about "stool hunting" or maybe just "STOOLING" (searching for excrement) :the process of locating derogatory, defaming comments from internet blogs and using them to discredit the article, author or subject of the said article.
benno @ 64:
"STOOLER" : One who engages in "stooling"
mz @ 39:
or the Kurtzey? I like 'the Kurtzey'. It's just short of a genuflection to the right.
Noun or participle? same root word. same scumbucket kowtowing to the reichwing.
I say you call it Malkinizing after the troll that practices it.
pissed off patricia @ 44:
Yes they look like fools...but the problem is they got that first (sound)bite of the apple. It doesn't matter how many facts you throw at them, their followers will continue to believe that this family had the resources and chose not to use them, because their only source of news is fox and 700 club.
Patty @ 68:
These followers KNOW that what's being said on Faux and The 700 (more like 666) Club is completely factless and riddled with smears. They just like having someone else reinforce their own hatred and beliefs in national television, and WILL COMPLETELY IGNORE ALL RATIONALE thrown at them.
66: Kurtzey: ha ha ha ha perfect
Except, just make it a plain old genuflection to the right. Or... a phony plie to the left followed by genuflection to the right
Yes, he should. And he should go out of his way to strive for genuine balance instead of constantly deriding anyone to the left of Obama as beyond fringe.
But the fact that he doesn't invalidates the entire premise of his phony "media criticism". And yet, he's another one of those thin-skinned whiners who constantly talks about how you have to have a thick skin in his business.
Login or Register to post comments.