fek:

soupsoup:

A great interview with Jack Shafer on Reliable Sources about media criticism and having strong journalistic standards.

Only reblogging because I feel like Jack is—like anybody—baiting me by simply going on Reliable Sources to begin with. Howard Kurtz again proves to be about as insightful a media critic as I am a string theorist: I’m paraphrasing, but he asks if the proliferation of the internet puts additional “pressure” on media critics and whether or not their authority is minimized because of this, the foundation of that question of course being: Aren’t you worried about these hacks from the internet making us irrelevant? 

Too-easy answer aside, fact is, places like the Washington Post’s hostility at, skepticism towards, and slow adaptation of technology from 1997 onward is what has helped erode at what could be the resources to maintain the work of a media critic, superfluous or not, which is why it’s especially hysterical that Howard Kurtz left the Post for The Daily Beast before they could lay him off (not that they ever would, because he’s on CNN, which apparently means something to someone’s inherent market value. I’m still not sure I believe this, but Tina’s paying big bucks for him. Then again, Talk, amirite?).

Thankfully, Shafer comes up with the correct answer, because even though he’s on Reliable Sources, he’s still Jack Shafer:

“That’s always been a judgement call of editors, and sometimes editors make the wrong call. My editors, for example (until I was laid off) thought that I was the best, and paid me commensurate with that assessment.”

UPDATE: I just got to the part where Shafer looks at Kurtz, and calls him “a slow-moving target who bleeds profusely when hit. Who could resist?” 

shaferrr |m|

timetruthhumor:

what’s wrong with ron paul?

• He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
• He believes abortion should be illegal.
• He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
• He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
• He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
• He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.
• While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
• His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
• He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.
• He believes in free market capitalism.
• He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.
• He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist nutter. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.
• Any of these items should keep a sane liberal from voting for Ron Paul.

His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.

Source: steviemcfly 

Ron Fucking Paul. And not in the good Amanda Palmer way.