I guess all the bad stuff Matt Taibbi said about Bush during the election was wrong also??

[KansasVoter]

Wow, and I thought when he wrote those anti-Bush articles during the election people here loved them.

Add him to the list:
Michael Moore
Kucinich
Olbermann
Big Ed
Jon Stewart

Not suggesting a double standard or anything. Just wondering.

[tabatha]

1. That is simplistic logic.

The reputation for being honest is what counts.

I value the opinions of Olbermann, Maddow (both have been wrong but not maliciously so), Stewart, etc.

[stevenleser]

6. +100000 n/t

:-)

[Cha]

8. That's all that's required of some on DU.

I just found this, Tabatha, while researching on taibbi's "hatchet job on General Clark".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x23136#23210

[Aramchek]

46. from a simplistic mind

[WCGreen]

2. I think Matt Taibbi is a snarky "journalist" lobing shit from the sidelines...

He does do really great investigation of data and supposed connection but he never seems to get people to talk to him, to give the people he is skewing, whether dem or rep, a chance to state their case...

I appreciate what he does but I find him a bit tedious and he seems more interested in developing a style vs being a good journalist.

[LooseWilly]

16. "but he never seems to get people to talk to him..." It has been suggested that is his strength.

Specifically, that Taibbi isn't concerned with "getting access":

(http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/12/matt-taibbi-obamas-big-sellout.html)

"Matt Taibbi is one of the few commentators in the mainstream media who is not worried about ‘access’ and has, therefore, been free to write much more critically about the economic crisis and reform efforts on Wall Street."

So, do you prefer the writings/analyses of "journalists" who worry about access, about "giv<ing> the people <they> are skewing, whether dem or rep, a chance to state their case...", like David Gregory for instance... who will let any talking point that a "target" (whether dem or rep) wants to get out float past unchallenged? Or are you willing to acknowledge that, by not worrying about "access", the likes of Taibbi free themselves up to be as critical as they'd like in analyzing/presenting the information that they are able to glean?

[WCGreen]

48. Your right....

He is a commentator, not a journalist.

[chimpymustgo]

40. Taibbi is a great journalist. Damn shame there aren't more. He speaks the truth, no

worshipping - of whatever the flavor-of-the month movement. He speaks out - even when it's unpopular with the sycophants.

[jefferson_dem]

3. What list?

Must all opinion leaders be either good or bad? Of course not. Evaluate their arguments and positions on their merits.

Taibbi may have offered sound arguments for why Booosh sucks. His recent arguments for why Obama sucks have proven to be flimsy at best, snarky and ignorant at worst.

Thanks for your concern though.

[KansasVoter]

4. But his complaints of Bush were 100% correct??

[jefferson_dem]

7. Most were, as I recall.

Are you his agent, editor, or what? Why do you care?

But you didn't address my original point. Taibbi may have been right then and wrong now. It's not that hard to understand...unless you don't want to.

[KansasVoter]

5. The list of people we used to like who now complain about Obama so we don't like them.

[Arkana]

22. Who is "we"?

Seems to me the only one painting with that broad brush here is you. I like all those people you mentioned--and I also happen to like the President and generally approve of the job he's doing.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

20. flimsy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x502160

[FrenchieCat]

9. Are you that simple minded? Why make blanket pronouncements

as to what everyone thinks?
Get a grip! Tell us what you think....but leave others out of it.

I haven't cared for Taibbi since he did that hit piece on Gen. Wes Clark
for the Nation's cover piece back in '03-04. You know....the one where they have
Clark's face painted up in kahki......

As for you keeping a list; that's kind of F'd up!

[mkultra]

10. no, that was right. Since all that douche does it right smear peaces

he had an easy time of it with Bush.

[treestar]

11. Bush and Obama aren't the same

Sure all left of the center were united against Bush. But it is harder to get them united against Obama.

[jgraz]

12. The problem is not that Taibbi is snarky or that he had a small error in his last article.

The problem is that what Taibbi writes about Obama is essentially true, and that can not be tolerated by a significant faction of DUers.

[apocalypsehow]

14. "A small error..." I counted fifteen of those bullet points detailing his multiple errors in that

Prospect piece.

You need to work on your arithmetic.

[LooseWilly]

18. And, reading Taibbi's response... you pretty much come up with one small error.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x502160

Rather telling response...

[apocalypsehow]

21. "But the rest of these issues are not issues of fact but differences of opinion." - He refuted nada.

He simply said he had a different "interpretation" of the factual material he got wrong - W-R-O-N-G - and then went on to accuse his opponent of being "a little douchey." Now that there's some intelligent analysis by Matt Taibbi!

Indeed, there is a "telling" line in this non-responsive "response" to the Prospect article: "So what this writer describes as a factual error is actually a question of me throwing in with one set of sources and him throwing in with another."

That translates to: He nailed me on the facts, so I'll just pretend it's all about which "source" one 'throws in' with....

No, reading Taibbi's response I still come up with: fourteen glaring errors. And one rather medium-sized one.

[jgraz]

24. Remind me to review the definition of a "fact" with you.

You seem a bit shaky on the concept.

[apocalypsehow]

33. Sorry if your hero got caught making reams of stuff up and distorting facts - and then got called on

it.

That's how it works in the adult world - were I you I'd get used to it.

[Moochy]

43. Hooray for the adult world

Is that like porn?

[LooseWilly]

26. He was accused of factual errors. There was only one factual error. - He refuted casi todos.

You do, I hope, understand the meaning of "these issues are not issues of fact"? You do realize the meaning of the subsequent juxtaposition, with "differences of opinion"?

He simply said he had a different "interpretation" of the factual material he got wrong - W-R-O-N-G ...

No. He specifically said he did not get any factual information wrong, except the question of Rubin's son being a diplomat in the Clinton Administration. Your insistence on misinterpreting what the article says, ironically, provides an amazingly clear illustration of the difference between "factual errors" and "differences of interpretation".

Allow me to demonstrate.

You assert, above, that he got factual material wrong, and that he refuted nada.

The article, from which we will draw "evidentiary support" we'll call "the facts". Your assertion we'll call "your interpretation of the facts" (because, that is what that set of words means...). I will now present "my interpretation of the facts".

I will first draw from the "facts" of this quote:

“Neither did Karen Kornbluh, who had served as Obama’s policy director and was instrumental in crafting the Democratic Party’s platform.” The reasons why Kornbluh didn’t get a job remain unclear, but she lost her influence earlier in the year while Obama campaign and she remained in Washington as his Senate Office policy director and later at the DNC, where she played an important role by crafting the 2008 Democratic platform. She has recently been nominated as U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Here, Taibbi was asserting that Karen Kornbluh "didn't make the cut", as in: didn't get included into the inner circle of the administration's economic team, despite her influence during the campaign. The counter analysis offered by Tim Fernholz suggests instead that "why Kornbluh didn't get a job remain unclear..." which, means that she didn't get included into the inner circle of the administration's economic team, despite her influence during the campaign.

The gist of the difference that Fernholz seems to be trying to assert, is the difference between the phrase "make the cut" and "the reasons... remain unclear". That is not a factual disagreement, but a difference of phrasing and spin.

To quote Taibbi's response:

So in other words while I reported that Kornbluh had been a key voice in the campaign only to lose influence and ultimately get shipped off to the OECD, the truth is that she was a key voice in the campaign who lost her influence and ultimately got shipped off to the OECD. Am I missing something?

And there you have it... Fernholz asserts that reasons for her not being included were unclear, and she instead was "nominated as U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development"- which is, the OECD that Taibbi was talking about.

Thus, "the facts" are in fact consistent. Kornbluh didn't get a job in the Administration, and instead she got nominated as US Ambassador to the OECD. There is no "factual error" here. There is only the question of the "interpretation" of the facts. Did she "not make the cut"? Or, is the reason "why Kornbluh didn't get a job ... unclear"? It's a difference of wording, phrasing, connotation, and/or spin. All of that is to be found under the "umbrella" of "interpretation".

It is a difference of interpretation. The "factual material" is not wrong.

I have now refuted your assertion that Taibbi "refuted nada". The post is already a little long. Please, however, let me know if you'd like me to explain more of the refutations to you... in case you truly don't understand the refutations, and are not merely being lazy, sloppy, or dishonest.

[apocalypsehow]

32. You've refuted nothing - just reparsed the same bilge Taibbi tried to peddle in his weak defense.

Which is pretty much what I expected - but by all means do try again.

[LooseWilly]

36. You really have no idea what a "factual error" is, do you?

Or are you just too lazy to actually read the source material we are referring to here?

There are, perhaps, some points to be disagreed upon. But, to assert that the point I "reparsed" refutes nothing is... to show an embarrassing lack of understanding of the whole concept of the difference between a "factual error" and a "difference of interpretation".

That is not something that I expected. I presumed a basic understanding of the concept on your part. I will not make that mistake regarding your capacities in the future. I will instead keep the sentences short, and the words as monosyllabic as possible.

To try again, when you can only respond to the previous, and rather plain, bordering on simplistic, refutation with denial completely lacking in any supporting arguments, would be a waste of keystrokes... like typing out a response to a piece of furniture.

I'd put you on ignore, but I'm hoping to glean some amusement from your denseness...

[apocalypsehow]

37. Another spongy string of *ad hominem* blarney and non-responsiveness that all amounts to

"I can't refute your facts so I'll spin some finely woven horseshit and call it a score."

Please try again.

[jgraz]

47. And we can add argumentum ad hominem to the growing list of things you don't understand

To review:

Ad Hominem: You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong.

NOT Ad Hominem: You're wrong, therefore you're an idiot.


I believe LooseWilly was employing the latter technique (quite effectively, I might add).

[LooseWilly]

49. No. There is a difference between "non-responsiveness" and coming to a conclusion.

You have no facts. Therefore there was nothing to refute. You didn't refute my facts before, either... you merely denied them in a manner best described thusly:


The fact that you consider that a refutation, is the reason that I concluded that you don't know what a "factual error" is, and certainly don't know what a "difference of interpretation" is. The fact that you responded to my attempt to explain the difference, again, thusly:

is reason enough for me to cease to try to explain anything to you, let alone take anything you say seriously.

That is not an ad hominem attack, as you still haven't presented any arguments to support Fernholz's criticism that doesn't amount to "Is so!"... so there's nothing to bother with ad hominem attacks in order to undermine, even were I inclined to use them.

Here, let me put my response to Fernholz's criticisms in terms that you will understand, employing a degree of effort that your apparent grasp of the arguments merits: "Is not!" ...

[apocalypsehow]

52. More silly parsing and non-responsiveness, along with a further dollop of moronic *ad hominem*

ranting.

The bottom line is that Taibbi made fifteen errors in his column that we know of (there are likely more), and neither he nor you has been able to refute that fact.

But ah, the parsing...the sweet parsing. Silly, really. Some day you'll take your place at the grow-ups table where we converse & debate like adults - just not today.

[LooseWilly]

54. "the grow-ups table"? Is that the table for those who have yet to grow up?

If so, it's certainly the right place for you.

Ohh, and as to your "point": "that Taibbi made fifteen errors in his column that we know of (there are likely more), and neither he nor you has been able to refute ..."- my response is: Yes, he has refuted 13 of them soundly, admitted to one of the errors, and explained how one was a difference in interpretations between different sources. In other words, you are wrong. What you are saying is not factual.

Or, to once again sum it up for you: "did not!"

Enjoy your place at the "grow-ups table"... :)

[mcablue]

42. So you agree that Taibbi's hater was refering to opinions and not "factual errors"? nt

[jgraz]

23. Next time try actually *reading* the bullet points

That's what we usually do with written language.

[apocalypsehow]

34. Next time try actually *understanding* what it is you're reading.

That's what we usually do with the words we see on the screen in front of us.

[jgraz]

51. You've yet to show any evidence of your ability to read *or* understand the key issues here.

To borrow LooseWilly's concise analysis of your replies:

[quiller4]

41. Taibbi is sloppy and too often misquotes sources. Too many of us were

willing to ignore that when he espressed opinions that we share. Now that he is taking the same approach to Obama, we're complaining. We should have been more critical 6 years ago but that doesn't mean we cannot find fault now.

[depakid]

13. The guy got sloppy

When you're writing a piece like that and want to maintain credibility- you extensively and redundantly fact check and dot your "i's" and cross your T's"

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Shhh. The apologists don't like logic!

[vaberella]

17. You're being intentionally obtuse with your post. n/t

[LooseWilly]

19. And yet your response does nothing to illuminate the "obtuseness".

Is it simply a matter of your not comprehending the implications of the obtuseness? Or are you being intentionally shallow in your analysis of the OP's obtuseness?

[stevenleser]

25. Do people here really need that? I dont think so. I think we are all aware this is poor logic

if anyone isn't please let me know.

[LooseWilly]

27. Hmm, you confuse me mildly sir. Are you referring to my "poor logic", or the OP's "poor logic"?

And in so doing, are you also summarily dismissing the implications of the question couched in "poor logic"?

Or, are you acknowledging the connoted innuendoes couched within my own "poor logic"? Or, perhaps, dismissing said insinuations of implications being couched within any of the aforementioned "poor logic"?

Bravo sir... your multifarious meanings are dizzying...

[stevenleser]

28. The OPs. However, your implied request that the other responder provide more information is

puzzling, to say the least. I'm sure the OP is aware that this is not good logic.

[LooseWilly]

29. Are you trying to imply that "not good logic" is a basis for refusing to respond?

Are you trying to imply that "not good logic" is a basis for discounting the underlying meaning couched within the "not good logic"al statement?

Are you not intrigued by puzzles?

Does the puzzle of my implied request for more information not intrigue &/or compel (if only just out of curiosity) an attempt to determine if there might not be a response/providing of information called for?

Surely, "good logic" is not a prerequisite for consideration of a point? Is it?

And, if not... is the consideration of whether or not a "thing" is "good logic" or not justification for dismissal of said "thing" in its entirety?

For instance: It could be argued that an escalation of 30k troops, in order to combat an estimated 100 foes, is not "good logic". Is that grounds for dismissal of the escalation in Afghanistan? Likewise, the news that a high ranking al Qa'eda target was killed a couple of days ago would, logically, given 30k troops for 100 targets, argue for the "reprieve" of 300 of those troops' deployment, as 29,700 troops should be able to handle the 99 remaining targets in Afghanistan. (30000/100 = 300 US troops/al Qa'eda fighter). Surely you are not going to argue for "good logic" in this case?...

[stevenleser]

53. It would depend...

I think in this case, more data is not required. In the Afghanistan example, there is a lot to consider.

[smalll]

30. But who bus-tossed first? Did pro-Obama, SENSIBLE Democrats bus-toss those gentlemen,

or perhaps those "gentlemen" bus-tossed our President, Barack Obama?

Hmmmm? :think:

[NYC Democrat]

31. Matt Taibbi is something of a mild left wing version of Glenn Beck REALLY paranoid

and he avoids the facts if they do not support his claim. Actually if you look seriously nearly every figure in the Political Media is like this be they liberal conservative or centrist.

[apocalypsehow]

35. He not only avoids facts, he outright makes them up to fit his thesis. This has been proven.

What amuses me is the weak attempts up-thread to explain away his multiple errors in fact - like Lady MacBeth's wife, the defenders of a proven liar keep squawking "out, spot! Out damned spot!"

It really is quite amusing.

[PBS Poll-435]

38. You're just asking important questions!

We get it.






"What happened to our Schooooooooooo"

[boppers]

39. Wait, is Tabbi Jesus, or the Devil?

Or maybe thinking some people are right, or wrong, all the time, is a sign of weak thinking?

[NJmaverick]

44. A display of false logic if ever I saw it- unrec

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

50. Unlike the other people in your list. Taibbi has been BUSTED for making shit up in his recent piece.

[ItNerd4life]

55. Your simple logic is too simple for some.

Could you make it simpler?

Signed,

Simpleton

[treestar]

56. We either have to disagree with this guy 100% of the time or agree

with him 100% of the time. That is your premise. It's wrong.