On Credibility And Partisan Hacks

Before I even start, I want to thank you all for reading the blog. With out readers it will be a journal, and I don't know how interested I am in journaling at this time. I want to especially thank one reader for leaving a comment on yesterdays post. Today’s post is a response and analysis of the comment that was left on yesterdays post. It helped me take a look at myself, so I thank him or her for that. I do not intend or desire for all posts to be this long, but from time to time, it will happen. This ended up being much, much longer than I expected.

The fact that you view Drudge as a place to "…get nice photos and quotes that let me know what I needed to know…” tells me all I need  to know.

You are judged by the company you keep, Chris, and Drudge is not good company. If you want to be a partisan hack, that is your choice, but you certainly will have no credibility.

I thank this reader for being concerned about the quality and validity of my information sources so much so that he or she would leave a comment. I am unsure if the commenter approved or disapproved of the other media outlets I sighted as news and information sources. Or if the commenter was so disappointed in my sighting of The Drudge Report that he or she disregarded my other sources. I am however slightly disappointed that he or she did not give me any advice on how to save my ill informed soul. They just left me out on my own to find these pure sources to gain and or enhance my credibility. I will make an attempt to show that The Drudge Report is a good and credible source of information, and maybe point out some other sources that are not so good and why. This will be both difficult and easy.

The following are a sampling of information sources that I assume many Americans go to to get their news, and what they get when they go there. 

Huffington Post. In my post yesterday I alluded to not seeing Huff as a valid or palatable news source. That was my intent. Let’s look at what the Huff thinks is “news.” They are very rarely critical of Obama, his administration or Democrats. Today, they had a story about the UN looking into the US use of drones. Not really critical, more skeptical. SECSTATE was 12 stories down at 0800 Hawaii time, and gone by 1000 Hawaii time. Guess that’s not a big story. When a democrat does wrong, they will report it, way down the bottom, they will also throw in a comparison to something just as bad a GOPer has done. They are very critical of any GOP elected official. They constantly post stories on how this GOP person got “owned” or “schooled” or “burned” buy this news anchor (normally from a liberal network). They often post how John Stewart “burns” GOP person or group because of (fill in the blank). They positively report on any group or cause that is Liberal or the position of Obama, or the Democrats (pro-abortion, pro-government, anti-gun, pro-LGBTxyz, pro-union, pro-tax the rich). They negatively report on any group or person in opposition to any group or cause that is lumped in to Conservatism or the GOP (pro-life, less government, pro-second amendment rights, pro-traditional anything, pro-right to work, anti-tax). So, to sum it up, Huff Post, positive reporting of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals. Seldom critical of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals. Negative reporting of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Party. Constantly critical of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Party. Verdict: Leans Left, supports Left. (Note: I am not saying any of those views stereotypically labeled Liberal or Conservative are right or wrong, I am just saying how this and others report on and group those views.)

MSM (Main Stream Media). What is the MSM? ABC, CBS, NBC and somewhat CNN. If senior citizens watch it, it’s the MSM. It used to be the only place to get news. Now it is where you turn if you want a very vanilla view of anything. They were slightly critical of the Bush administration, more so towards the later years They are not at all critical of the Obama administration. They, as a group, report pretty much the same stuff. Day in and day out during the Bush years, they had body counts from wars, both innocent, enemy and US and questioned every move he made and word he said. Plus Bush gave more press conferences hence chances to be questioned. They had Democrats and Liberals being critical of how Bush did business. They don’t seem too interested in reporting how many bad guys or innocents Obama is killing. They don’t seem too interested in reporting on legitimate concerns and criticisms of Obama business practices especially from conservatives. Bush secret meetings, bad. Obama secret meetings, appropriate, a privilege of the office. They sometimes describe critics of Obama as fringe, obscure and irrelevant. If Obama wants to do something, it is a positive thing a positive goal. If Obama is against something, they present the evils of the thing and how Obama will solve it. Verdict: Supports left, but does it so gradually and gently it appears as though they are almost unbiased.

MSNBC. I don’t even know where to start. On the left right spectrum, the MSM is slightly left, well, MSNBC is left of them. They have anchors for specific demographics and special interest groups. Which makes for good fun. Ed, the union guy. What’s his face with the blond parted hair to the side, he’s the government can fix it guy. Martian, the foreigner pointing out the ridiculousness of the American right guy. Chris, the has been around for a while and can’t believe what the GOP is doing everyday and hearts Obama and Democrats guy. Keith, well he is not with them anymore, but he was the attack Bush and the GOP guy. Al, the give me credibility because I have a Rev in front of my name but all I really do is read what others write guy. And lastly, Rachael, oh Rachael. She went from a second string anchor and former radio show host on a failed liberal network to the matriarch of the Liberal Flagship news station because of attrition and elections. Good for her. To give her credit she is one of the most rational anchors on the network. But, she does promote and protect the Left, period. To give her more credit, she does criticize the president and his administration, but she does it in a constructive way. She pushes him and encourages him to be more left then he is acting. Something she does not do for the GOP or conservatives. If FoxNews (we are not even going to talk about them, one, because I did not list them as a news source, and two, they are slightly to the right, admittedly, end of story) is the network of the right or GOP (they are actually middle to slightly right) then MSNBC is the network to the left, of the left, for the left and by the left. Their viewers/followers are few, compared to FoxNews or The Drudge Report, and until old people die and stop watching the MSM, they will stay small.

(Note on MSNBC: I watched Chris Matthews yesterday and today on the SECSTATE hearings yesterday. He used terms to describe Republican Congressman asking questions as simpletons and pissants. Who’s side is he rooting for? Remember, this guy gets a chill up his leg anytime a Democrat wins an election)

The Drudge Report. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. What Drudge Report thinks is “news.” Well, since Drudge doesn’t actually make or produce any news, how does one describe what it is. They link stories from all over the news spectrum. Like I said yesterday. My union story. I saw the link on Drudge, it went to a story on Politico. Marketplace also reported on it. And today, as I watch MSNBC, they also reported on it. So is that pro or against right or left. What “company” does reporting that story keep? The left would say, since it is about how unions are doing poorly, then it is anti union, since it is promoting that story line. I see it as reporting the news. MSNBC told the story a different way. They did say union numbers were down, but it is the GOP’s attack on the middle class that is why unions are shrinking. So Drudge, just pointed me to the facts on Politico, MSNBC biased it up for me. There are some that have done analysis on Drudge and say it highlights stories that paint a negative picture of the President or Democrats. But it is still only linking to stories. Those stories are all out there. They would still be out there if Drudge didn’t exist. There was reporting last fall that Drudge ran more negative Romney stories than negative Obama stories. That would make sense. More of the MSM and Liberal media ran negative Romney stories, and Drudge just linked to them. Back to Drudge yesterday. They were all over the SECSTATE testimony to Congress yesterday, why, because it is big freaking news. So big, that let me start a new paragraph on the subject.

Ok. Lets lay down the “facts” on Benghazi. As I know them.

1. On September 11 (a day known for terrorism and protest) a US Consulate, in a county that was just liberated from a dictator with the help of the US, was attacked, and the Ambassador to that county was killed along with three other Americans.

1a. Ambassador Stevens had sent a message to the State Department weeks before about vulnerabilities and indicators of an potential attack, especially on the anniversary of September 11.

2. President Obama sent the US Secretary to the UN on to the Sunday “news” shows and over and over and over again she stated it was the anger over a youtube video that incited spontaneous riots (only a coincidence it was on the anniversary of Sep 11) that got out of hand and turned violent and that is how and why the Ambassador and the three other Americans were killed.

3. A series of bizarre events, sickness and a concussion of the SECSTATE and a sex scandal in the CIA and senior military ranks, divert much of the attention off of what happened in Benghazi. We then learn that the head of the CIA and the SECSTATE will most likely not testify on the events in Benghazi. (was it a cover up or an intentional distraction, probably not, did it look like a cover up or an intentional distraction, yeah, a little)

4. Weeks later, the Obama administration semi admits they were wrong, well not them, it was the intelligence community that was wrong, about blaming the youtube video. That “someone” edited the talking points that Suzan Rice had to “go off of” and hey, they got it wrong. Kind of like a “our bad” but no big deal. (SECSTATE said in her testimony that she had nothing to do with the talking points Susan Rice had, I would have thought she would have had a chop or a say in those.)

That brings us to today, the SECSTATE (heir apparent to the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, former candidate for president, former Senator, former First Lady) is testifying in on the attack of a US Consulate and the killing of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. I say all that to say this. IT WAS A BIG FREAKING DEAL! Then for her to say “does it really matter” when referring to why the event happened. That is unacceptable. For her to say she did not see the Ambassadors message and no one in her office had seen the message, is also unacceptable. If it was a message from the Ambassador to Canada asking for more table cloths or napkins, I could understand it not being seen or addressed. But a message from Libya, on security, on the anniversary of September 11, I would hope they would notice that. I would hope they have a 24 hour watch on that email/message account. I am with the SECSTATE, this is tragic, errors were made, how we can prevent this again. But saying she takes responsibility, and being upset that anyone has any questions, now let me get on with my 2016 campaign, unacceptable.

Back to Drudge. He reported (made internet links) to what she said, from numerous and varying outlets. Why then would this commenter question the credibility of Drudge as a news source? Why would he or she suggest that if I get my information from Drudge, I am “not good company” and I have “no credibility” because of the source of my information? Why is Drudge “not good company?” Why am I a “partisan hack?”

On to “partisan hack.” What is a partisan hack? 

I found this definition, I think this is what the commenter was aiming at. “Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true.” 

I think knowing what is “factually true” pertaining to the events leading up to and after the attack and killing in Benghazi is nonpartisan if not bipartisan but for sure not partisan. Don’t you?

Here is a definition of partisan. I will admit, some of those words could be used to describe some of my traits, but as a definition, as a label, I would have to disagree. The word “party” keeps on coming up. And opposing one party (the Democrats) does not make one a member of the other party (the Republicans). But more on that later.

I come up with this definition (hack) unskilled or uninformed and (partisan) in politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. Well, I am not committed member of any political party, at least not the GOP, which I think you might have been referring to. Maybe the Libertarian Party, but more on that later. I don’t claim skill, well I have some skill, measuring it is another subject. If I get my info from a multitude of sources, and assuming all sources have a certain level of accuracy/credibility (some) and a certain level of bias/partisan leanings (some to a lot), how then could I be un or ill informed and have no credibility? I am just as credible as the numerous sites I collected my information from. What gives one (a person or news source) credibility? What gives one (person or news source) credibility enough to deem another (person or news source) to have no credibly?

The Drudge report is a great source of news/information from all different sources of news. Each of those sources have their own problems, or bias. But if you average them all, know their bias, and try, and I mean really try, to filter it out. I think you will be informed and have credibility.

I think I have made my case, a case, as well as I can, that Drudge can inform a person. Now let me make my case on why I am not a partisan, at least not in the traditional sense. I am not a Republican, period. I truly identify with the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideas. I have voted for and supported Republicans in the past, but only because of the semi misguided notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A means to an end, and that end is not letting a Democrat win whatever it is he or she is running for. Our current broken political system of two parties is what it is. I do not like it. I want it to vanish. It won’t, not any time soon. I become more and more frustrated each election and have all but abandoned defensive voting. I supported Gary Johnson and Ron Paul but also Mitt Romney. I know that sadly those first two men did not stand a chance to win the Presidency, but Romney did. If Romney won, then Obama would have not. I have to support them, to help change the system, but once they are out, I have to do damage control. If I see the Obama presidency more of a threat to how I believe my country should be run. Then it only makes sense that I would support Romney. I do not like and do not support many GOP stances on issues. That being said, I am even more against many Democratic stances on issues. It is only natural then, in a two choice system I would side with the group I see as less threatening to what is important to me. I do not support their ideology because I see what the GOP is doing, to be factually true and morally right. I support the GOP, some of the time, because I see what the Democrats are doing as less factually true and morally wrong. That statement sounds horrible by it self, but let’s insert a subject. Guns. The Libertarian view, my view, is fairly simple and absolute. Personal rights and personal responsibility. The second amendment is simple and clear. The ability for a human to defend themselves as they see fit is simple and clear and absolute. There it is, The Democrats do not agree with any of that. The Republicans believe in some of that. I have to side with the GOP. If the GOP slithers closer to what the Democrats think, then I will oppose them both. I often support the GOP because they oppose the Democrats actions and aspirations that I believe to be factual wrong and many times morally wrong. I think the GOP also has many actions and aspirations that are also factually and morally wrong. I do not support them when they lose their minds.

Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, The Libertarian Party and Reason.com say things constantly that I can fully get behind. I cannot say that for the Republican or Democratic parties. The number one thing that I am for, that fits my ideologically, that could be seen as partisan, is Liberty, Freedom and CHANGE. Real change. Not Obama change. Change as in a reverse in spending. Change as in less or a reverse in borrowing. Change as in less or a reverse debt. Change as in less or a reverse in subsidies. Change as in less or a reverse in taxes and regulations. Change as in the government knowing its limited job and actually doing that job. Change as in people take care of other people, not the government. Change as in I am responsible for myself and my own actions. That is the change I am looking for and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will give me that change. The Democrats are in power now and not doing what I want or heading in a direction I don’t want to head. The GOP is trying to stand in their way. I will support them in that role. If and when the GOP is in power again, and they want to do things I don’t want or I think is wrong, I will, at least I hope I will, stand with the Democrats (oh my god how hard that will be and I can’t believe I am putting it in writing) in opposition.

So there it is.

My question to the commenter. How would one have to act or think to not be labeled a partisan hack, and where would one have to go to keep company with good company and have credibility?