Do you support a ban on linking to Politico?

[Stinky The Clown]

Much has been written about Politico here on DU an elsewhere. The essential facts are as follows:

They did not exist a few short years ago.

They present a very low key, mainstream appearance. They even appear to be the textbook definition of "fair and balanced". The do stories favorable to Democrats seemingly as easily and frequently as they do about Republicans.

When analyzed by experts, however, their bias is very obvious. When the need is there, they are all about propping up Republicans.

That's the obvious stuff. There is more:

They were founded and funded with money from the Albritton family (Riggs Bank), who are long time, known right wing ideologues. They are of the same ilk as Richard Mellon Sciafe, and all the other rich right wingers ..... or worse.

The president of Politico was formerly associated with the Reagan Library, and was, and remains a member of the Albritton board.

Among former recipients of Albritton money was Augusto Pinochet.

Politico burst on the scene - famously with an endorsement by Bush during a WH presser - when neither Fox, nor Talon News, nor Drudge were terribly effective anymore. Politico was founded to fill the void and catapult the propaganda.

Lest you think they're laying low, the recent utterances from the pie hole of the former veep, The Dick, was in the form of a long, recorded interview with Politico. This from the guy who only otherwise has appeared on Limbaugh or Fox.

There is much more out there if you simply Google for it.



So ...... this poll is to get a sense of the sense of DU ........

Would you endorse the notion that Politico become a non-source for news citations on DU?





On edit ..... if you vote "yes" please also give this kick to keep it at the top of the page.

[ret5hd]

1. Ban? I dunno...maybe. Ridicule? Yeah, sure.

[bbinacan]

2. Ban?

Freedom of speech.

[zerox]

3. Bans on any source of information, regardless of how "biased" it may be, are never good.

nm

[joeybee12]

5. Agreed...besides, most of us are cynical enough to see through

some of the crap...

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Riggs Bank is a Bush Crime Family operation

Poppy's brother Jonathan Bush used to be in charge of it. Don't know if that's still the case. It's tied to BCCI as well.

So if they have anything to do with Politico, that pretty much explains the motivations of that branch of media whoredom.

Oh, and Darth Cheney's new "office" (office of WHAT, exactly?) is in the same building as Politic-Ho. Coincidence?

[baldguy]

6. Why not link to World Net Daily? Little Green Footballs? Christian News Service?

It's still propaganda bought & paid for by Republicans hell bent on destroying America.

[Doremus]

7. I voted for a ban but at the very least we need to inform DUers that Politico has a mission

and it ISN'T the truth.

We need to be just as skeptical of it as we are of any other RW rag.

That is often not the case here.

[Idealism]

8. I am against bans on news organizations period

StormFront, etc. is not a news source, and thus is rightly banned for being complete bullshit propaganda.

Fox news is not banned, even though their bias is clear and obvious. Politico may be biased, but each article and the argument advanced by the writing should be independently judged by its content only. Anyone who accepts one news source as the gospel truth is doing themselves a dis-service, whether it be MSNBC or FOX. It is our responsibility to question everything we are told and to investigate the claims made until we believe it to be truth.

I cannot support a ban on a news organization just because it is unfavorable to my world view. I will read what it has to say, but take into consideration their slant and move from there. Some things cannot be slanted (responses to interview questions, direct quotes to the press).

[Fleshdancer]

13. I agree

I was about to write everything you just mentioned. I would also like to add that pointing out obvious bias from an article on Politico allows all DUers the opportunity to write to the journalist.

[emilyg]

Agree.

[BirminghamExaminer]

19. I agree with this. I write for a website that has writers

from both sides of the aisle. I'll admit that some days I want to scream in frustration because the writers who get the most page views are either gun rights advocates (argh) or those who write about Exopolitics. I had to look up the word Exopolitics. These are people who believe in aliens and the X-files and that sort of thing. Why the site I write for has them lumped with real political writers I can only surmise is due to the name they have given their ehrm, field of study.

I write for the Examiner and I write a progressive column. I would hate for the Examiner to be banned from posting links here because there are some writers who write a lot of right wing idiocy. So, I would have to say NO to banning links from Politico. I post my articles on the editorials page and it has helped drive traffic to my column. And I've come to think of DU as a home of sorts....for both posting my articles and for spouting and venting steam here in General discussion.

Beyond that, I have a particular fondness for the first amendment and despite the fact that I hate what some political writers say, I have to stand up for their right to say it.

On the other hand, it is a good thing for people to know that Politico (or anyone else) is owned by factions that are slanted to the right and I appreciate the information that came out of this poll.

Maybe instead, you could make a list of news and blogs organizations and rate them on their bias. And this should be a fluid list because things change rapidly.

[slay]

31. Same here

even if it is a disgusting one like foxnews. better to call them out on their bullshit than ban them.

[panader0]

9. I had a post removed once because I linked realtruth I think it was

The mod said that I couldn't post with that link. If I had a question, I should write back. I did and asked what web sites were prohibited, since freeperville is linked here often. I never got a reply. All I know is that some sites are banned, some aren't and some maybe should be.

[Political Heretic]

48. Not in general discussion. Only in LBN

[KharmaTrain]

10. Keep Your Loved Ones Close...Your Enemies Closer...

One great thing about DU is how any piece of trash that shows up in the corporate media is posted and then quickly debunked. This is our pushback...our talk radio...our way to expose and refute. If you can't see it, it doesn't mean it goes away.

[BirminghamExaminer]

21. That's another good point...how can we fight the rabble if we can't see it?

A disclaimer is better

[scarletwoman]

11. I voted "yes" even though I don't really agree with a full-out ban. I'd prefer a permanent warning

pinned to the top of the page that says something like:

"Warning! Politico is a right-wing funded stealth site. All opinion originating from Politico should be considered suspect, and all news items should be verified by consulting other sources. You are strongly urged to refrain from driving up traffic to their site; please do not post links to Politico."

How's that?

sw

[Mist]

20. Yes, good idea--there should always be a disclaimer if Politico is cited. nt

[EFerrari]

I'd rather read them to see what they're up to. n/t

[Baikonour]

12. Then we'd have to ban freeperland..

And what fun would that be?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. I don't think you really know what Politico is unless you've seen the print version

It's a gossip rag for people who work in DC. Kind of like a college newspaper but for hill staffers and lobbyists. It is only treated as a serious source of news by people who don't know any better because they've never seen the print version that is distributed inside the beltway.

[madfloridian]

15. Then you have to ban Reuters as well..

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/newspapers/politico_reuters_team_up_103368.asp

They joined together.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Is there a ban on Fox News?

No. And Faux is obviously much more overt than Politico.

Just be aware of the potential for bias and verify.

[tigereye]

17. they do have some good mainstream writers from what I have seen...

they certainly aren't as bad as some other outlets... :shrug:



I'm not a big fan of censorship...

[Luminous Animal]

18. And who would those writers be?

And no, I do not support a ban.

[tigereye]

42. one of the guys from Washington Week - I forget his name at the moment

Irish guy. I forget what other outlet he used to work for...

[No.23]

22. All bannings are...

acts of cowardice and weakness.

Not to mention, of course, that they generally stem from a core of some version of fear.

Ban nothing.

Instead, chose to place your attention elsewhere, if that is your pleasure.

Unless, of course, you are impotent to do so.

Then I can see why you would want to ban anyone or anything instead.

[TahitiNut]

23. Mushrooms?

Or would that be too much like cannibalism?

:eyes:

[No.23]

25. When I don't like what I'm watching on the boob tube....

I turn my attention to a more desirable channel by way of a clicker.

Now if only we were more willing to exercise our freedom to choose in other venues as well.

Don't like what someone is saying?

You have the power to put your attention elsewhere.

Click! Click!

It's really not all that hard.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Hello cricket .......

....... walk with me ........

[No.23]

27. Sure. I'll be happy to.

Just as long as you don't require that I walk on the same path as yours.

Mind if mine is just adjacent to yours?

But not necessarily the same path?

I'm game if you don't.

[blondeatlast]

51. Please assure me that you read the DU Rules when you signed on; this is a PRIVATE

website.

Thanks.

[LanternWaste]

61. On second thought, self delete.... why bother.

On second thought, self delete.... why bother.

[JohnnyRingo]

24. I'm not much for banning things

Good taste and judgement usually prevails.

[Thickasabrick]

28. Bans are bad......mmmmkay?

[slay]

30. I agree - no banning - even though Politico does seem pretty shady

I see links here from foxnews.com from time to time and while nobody likes to resort to foxnews, sometimes it happens. What I think would be better for DU would be a good journal article explaining why Politico may not be a good source. Or something.

[Thickasabrick]

32. I think as long as there are people out there to ridicule obvious

shit they post/write - they will eventually try to improve or go the way of "pajamas media".

[emulatorloo]

29. Agree that they can be real bad news. Don't support a ban though.

It is much like many sources out there -- Associated Press comes to ming -- as long as you read critically you can see the bias. Some stories have good information, they did a lot on Palin's wardrobe problems for example.

[BlooInBloo]

33. You'll certainly never get DUers to stop linking to them otherwise.

[JeffR]

34. No, as attractive as the idea sounds.

Politico sux bigtime. On the other hand, so do the New York Times and the Washington Post.

I believe we can cast a cold eye on suspicious cites here, at least most DUers seem to be able to. And these days, suspicious cites come from sources as diverse as AP and Counterpunch. One of the great things about DU is that people seldom let such things go by unremarked. Even if, by chance, some honest reporting may surface from any of the sources, overall they all still suck.

I think it's probably best in the long run that sources like Politico keep being used, and their mostly complete lack of credibility keep getting exposed here.

[Enrique]

35. they broke the "McCain doesn't know how many houses he has" story

Mike Allen could easily have sat on that quote. McCain probably assumed Allen would not report that part. It was at a crucial time in the campaign and it fit right into Obama's message about McCain being out of touch on the economy. It became the kind of thing that usually works against democrats.

That said, Mike Allen is biased toward republicans. I've heard him on RW radio, a lot. They love him. He's on their side.

But, "when the need was there," as you put it, Politco reported McCain's houses quote.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Yes, and then they promptly reported this:

The presumptive Republican nominee, though, may have some wiggle room in explaining why he couldn't immediately provide an answer when asked by Politico how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own. Sen. McCain himself does not own any of the properties. They're all owned by Cindy McCain, her dependent children and the trusts and companies they control.

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, did not question Politico's analysis, but said his boss's bungling of the how-many-homes question is a nonissue.

"Voters care a lot more about candidates' personal ethics than about how many houses or residences or doghouses that John and Cindy McCain own," he said. He questioned efforts by McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, to exploit the issue, given that Obama benefited from a 2005 land deal with the wife of convicted Chicago businessman — and former Obama fundraiser — Tony Rezko that expanded the Obama family's newly purchased $1.65 million homestead.

"The reality is that Barack Obama purchased his million-dollar mansion in a shady deal involving a convicted felon, and it raises questions about his ethics and judgment," said Rogers.

Giving the lying sack of shit Rogers carte blanche to catapult his propaganda.

Oops. Forgot the link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12700.html

[Enrique]

38. reporting McCain's response is normal and necessary

I'd like to see a story from any source that doesn't ask for and print a candidate's response to that kind of thing.

[Luminous Animal]

40. They didn't do reporting...

they acted as stenographers. Reporters would have reported that Mr. Rogers accusations were false. A fact widely known by that time. Or, according to your standards, they should have sent an inquiry to the Obama campaign to ask for and print the candidate's response to that sort of thing.

[Stephanie]

37. I find Ben Smith's blog very valuable

[Luminous Animal]

43. I do, too. For opposition research...

Of course, Media Matters does a lot of that as well.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/ben_smith

[IDemo]

39. Should we also ban commentary from Rachel segments quoting Politico?

She uses them as a source very frequently.

[mopinko]

41. just a little bit of mod input here.

since i am a new mod, i can't cite the rules backwards and forwards, but i will give you my understanding of what gets a site on the bad sites list.
mostly it has to do with 2 things- one, a site that is just completely unreliable, like rense, or masden, that are just completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
the other thing is bigotry, sites that have editorial content that is openly bigoted.
you may see a post here from time to time that links to lgf, or freak republic, but they are usually deleted as quickly as they are brought to the mods attention.

so, there are banned sites. but believe me, you are not missing anything. and a reminder, du is for democrats, and people supportive of democrats. people pushing other agendas can do that with their own bandwidth. this is not a free for all. this is a moderated forum with rules, and the rules are enforced.

if you want to get politico banned, i suggest that you build a case. maybe start a thread in the research forum, and see what you can do.

[Jim Lane]

44. You cite the Cheney interview, but that's a good example of why NOT to ban

If Cheney gives an exclusive interview to Politico, he might say something that DU wants to discuss. Was it his Politico interview where he admitted authorizing waterboarding? Even if it wasn't, his next Politico interview may contain some statement in which he's playing to the base, but he goes so far that it will alienate everyone else.

Alternatively, instead of finally admitting something we already knew to be true, he might tell a lie, one so blatant that we can usefully call him on it.

A ban would deprive DU of all such material.

[n2doc]

45. We let people link to Free Republic

no one gets hot and bothered about that!

Free Speech, people. It's a good thing.

[AmyCamus]

46. There's no ban on linking to FOX

Politico is a just one flea. FOX is a sewer of rats.

[glowing]

47. yes, I think Mods should delete all Politico and Drudge. Politico is a hack.

Sometimes they sound better.. but they are there to confuse and muddle and provide stupid gossip. Why support things that do us harm.

[hiphopnation]

49. i'm with you on calling out the BS that's continually touted as "news" at Politico

but I'm generally against all kinds of censorship. education about the source of what you read is a far superior method at stomping out the type of idiocy that is paraded at Politico.

[blondeatlast]

50. Full disclosure in the SL that Politicult is the source, absolutely.

An outright ban? Not QUITE yet--but I can make a case for it.

[malaise]

52. No but DUers should continue to expose them on every thread

with a link.

[Spazito]

53. I voted yes but any ban for Politico should only be for LBN, imo...

and not for the other forums. I look at Politico the same way I did Talon News except Politico has a somewhat polished veneer to make it more "acceptable".

[Stinky The Clown]

69. I think that's a very reasonable posture

[demokatgurrl]

54. I consider Politico to be a gossip site anyway. nt

[janx]

64. That it is. n/t

[Shanti Mama]

55. Shall we just ban everything we/you/I don't like or agree with?

NO BANS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[radfringe]

56. NO

I also don't support the ban on mentioning certain websites, forums or even past DUers...

IMO - it's censorship.

If we don't know what is going on at these sites we will be less able to rebut the bushit

[JitterbugPerfume]

57. it is n't someplace I would go for information

but a ban is to much

[bigtree]

58. they've got the resources to get breaking and exclusive reports and statements

They were good during the campaign for that.

Their editorial bent makes them much like citing the WSJ or my state's rag, the WashTimes. It's good to know where they're coming from, but they're providing real news (at times) alongside their typical political meddling nonsense, especially reports from the opposition's mouth. That may well be their best use right now. It's not uncommon to find these rags with the only full account of an opposition figure's blathering. We use that blather sometimes to our advantage. Politico has a large enough budget and access to make them relevant once in a while. Just consider the source. That's not so hard.

Plenty of folks here to point it out and let the poster defend the info..

[xchrom]

59. honest debate or simply passing on information RELYS

on that resource being clean and uncompromised.
other wise -- what's the point?

[fuggbush21]

60. I don't support it.

Because if your going to be fair, then you need to ban stories from Huffington Post and Daily Kos. Their just as biased and have had plenty of "stories" debunked. Blue balled monkey anyone?

[Individualist]

62. I'm opposed to bans.

[Zodiak]

63. We are allowed to cite Faux News

So I do not see why the same standard does not apply since the description you gave describes Faux News to a T.

[JackRiddler]

66. Exactly. Enough rules, enough bans.

[janx]

65. It's another gossip rag, and though I don't support banning it,

I don't appreciate links to it that aren't apparent. I like to know where I'm going before I get there. ;-)

[MattBaggins]

67. I support a ban on

senseless suggestions for more bans

[BuyingThyme]

68. I don't support a ban on posting links to anything except that page with the chicken with no head.