Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
Nov 22

Dear Dispatch reader,

Jonah and I strongly prefer covering and analyzing current events to
being the news. But some developments over the past few weeks mean that
we’ll be the focus of some reporting and attention and we wanted you to
hear it from us first.

As you may know, we’ve been Fox News contributors for a long time. For
most of that time, we enjoyed ourselves and believed we were
contributing to a good cause. Whether you call it liberal media bias or
simply a form of groupthink around certain narratives, having a news
network that brought different assumptions and asked different
questions—while still providing real reporting and insightful
conservative analysis and opinion—was good for the country and journalism.

But over the past few years, that’s changed. And the tension has grown
between what we are building at The Dispatch—a fact-driven, center-right
media company—and what’s come to dominate the network, particularly in
primetime.

In late October, Tucker Carlson aired a promotion for a series he
produced for Fox Nation, Fox’s subscription streaming service, called
Patriot Purge. It’s a revisionist history of January 6, one in which
those who entered the Capitol are largely portrayed as misunderstood
patriots and many of those responsible for the violence are government
officials or agents provocateurs acting on their behalf. Among the main
protagonists of the series are the organizer of the “Stop the Steal”
rallies and a racist fired from the Trump White House for his
associations with white nationalists. The message of the series? The
U.S. government is coming after patriots as part of a “War on Terror
2.0,” using the same tools and tactics used to fight al-Qaeda.

This isn’t true, and it’s dangerous to pretend it is. And for us, it was
way too far. We resigned after watching the series in its entirety and
asked Fox to release us from the rest of our contracts. Shortly after
making this request, we began to get inquiries from journalists about
our decision. We’re not looking to occupy the permanent anti-Fox seats
at CNN or MSNBC, but we thought it worth discussing our decision—and the
factors that led to it—with a couple of journalists who cover the media.
The first of those stories appears tonight in the New York Times. You
can find it, here—and our Dispatch post about the decision, here.

We’re disappointed it came to this. We’ve enjoyed great relationships
with many of the news professionals at Fox and we know there is still a
sizable audience that tunes into Fox for reported news. But after
watching the series, what had long been a difficult decision quickly
became an obvious one.

Thanks again for being a Dispatch reader.

Have a great Thanksgiving,

Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

>Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
>Nov 22
>
>Dear Dispatch reader,
>
>Jonah and I strongly prefer covering and analyzing current events to
>being the news. But some developments over the past few weeks mean that
>we’ll be the focus of some reporting and attention and we wanted you to
>hear it from us first.
>
>As you may know, we’ve been Fox News contributors for a long time. For
>most of that time, we enjoyed ourselves and believed we were
>contributing to a good cause. Whether you call it liberal media bias or
>simply a form of groupthink around certain narratives, having a news
>network that brought different assumptions and asked different
>questions—while still providing real reporting and insightful
>conservative analysis and opinion—was good for the country and journalism.
>
>But over the past few years, that’s changed. And the tension has grown
>between what we are building at The Dispatch—a fact-driven, center-right
>media company—and what’s come to dominate the network, particularly in
>primetime.
>
>In late October, Tucker Carlson aired a promotion for a series he
>produced for Fox Nation, Fox’s subscription streaming service, called
>Patriot Purge. It’s a revisionist history of January 6, one in which
>those who entered the Capitol are largely portrayed as misunderstood
>patriots and many of those responsible for the violence are government
>officials or agents provocateurs acting on their behalf. Among the main
>protagonists of the series are the organizer of the “Stop the Steal”
>rallies and a racist fired from the Trump White House for his
>associations with white nationalists. The message of the series? The
>U.S. government is coming after patriots as part of a “War on Terror
>2.0,” using the same tools and tactics used to fight al-Qaeda.
>
>This isn’t true, and it’s dangerous to pretend it is. And for us, it was
>way too far. We resigned after watching the series in its entirety and
>asked Fox to release us from the rest of our contracts. Shortly after
>making this request, we began to get inquiries from journalists about
>our decision. We’re not looking to occupy the permanent anti-Fox seats
>at CNN or MSNBC, but we thought it worth discussing our decision—and the
>factors that led to it—with a couple of journalists who cover the media.
>The first of those stories appears tonight in the New York Times. You
>can find it, here—and our Dispatch post about the decision, here.
>
>We’re disappointed it came to this. We’ve enjoyed great relationships
>with many of the news professionals at Fox and we know there is still a
>sizable audience that tunes into Fox for reported news. But after
>watching the series, what had long been a difficult decision quickly
>became an obvious one.
>
>Thanks again for being a Dispatch reader.
>
>Have a great Thanksgiving,
>
>Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg

The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
the news.

On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
biased report based on their own opinions.

Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
report the facts.

On 11/22/2021 10:13 AM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
> Nov 22
>
> Dear Dispatch reader,
>
> Jonah and I strongly prefer covering and analyzing current events to
> being the news. But some developments over the past few weeks mean that
> we’ll be the focus of some reporting and attention and we wanted you to
> hear it from us first.
>
> As you may know, we’ve been Fox News contributors for a long time. For
> most of that time, we enjoyed ourselves and believed we were
> contributing to a good cause. Whether you call it liberal media bias or
> simply a form of groupthink around certain narratives, having a news
> network that brought different assumptions and asked different
> questions—while still providing real reporting and insightful
> conservative analysis and opinion—was good for the country and journalism.
>
> But over the past few years, that’s changed. And the tension has grown
> between what we are building at The Dispatch—a fact-driven, center-right
> media company—and what’s come to dominate the network, particularly in
> primetime.
>
> In late October, Tucker Carlson aired a promotion for a series he
> produced for Fox Nation, Fox’s subscription streaming service, called
> Patriot Purge. It’s a revisionist history of January 6, one in which
> those who entered the Capitol are largely portrayed as misunderstood
> patriots and many of those responsible for the violence are government
> officials or agents provocateurs acting on their behalf. Among the main
> protagonists of the series are the organizer of the “Stop the Steal”
> rallies and a racist fired from the Trump White House for his
> associations with white nationalists. The message of the series? The
> U.S. government is coming after patriots as part of a “War on Terror
> 2.0,” using the same tools and tactics used to fight al-Qaeda.
>
> This isn’t true, and it’s dangerous to pretend it is. And for us, it was
> way too far. We resigned after watching the series in its entirety and
> asked Fox to release us from the rest of our contracts. Shortly after
> making this request, we began to get inquiries from journalists about
> our decision. We’re not looking to occupy the permanent anti-Fox seats
> at CNN or MSNBC, but we thought it worth discussing our decision—and the
> factors that led to it—with a couple of journalists who cover the media.
> The first of those stories appears tonight in the New York Times. You
> can find it, here—and our Dispatch post about the decision, here.
>
> We’re disappointed it came to this. We’ve enjoyed great relationships
> with many of the news professionals at Fox and we know there is still a
> sizable audience that tunes into Fox for reported news. But after
> watching the series, what had long been a difficult decision quickly
> became an obvious one.
>
> Thanks again for being a Dispatch reader.
>
> Have a great Thanksgiving,
>
> Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg

Maybe a Canadian will enjoy this Reddit thread as much as I did:

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/qzjvn8/in_first_us_added_to_annual_list_of_backsliding/

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

>The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>the news.

I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.

>On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>biased report based on their own opinions.

That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
story that isn't commentary. I agree.

That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.

>Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>report the facts.

I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 10:13:52 UTC-5, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
> Nov 22
>
> Dear Dispatch reader,
>
> Jonah and I strongly prefer covering and analyzing current events to
> being the news. But some developments over the past few weeks mean that
> we’ll be the focus of some reporting and attention and we wanted you to
> hear it from us first.
Click, whirrrr. "We-must-be-come-C-N-B-C view-ers-on-ly." Click, whirrr.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>
>>The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>the news.
>
>I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>
>>On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>biased report based on their own opinions.
>
>That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>
>That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.

The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.

>>Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>report the facts.
>
>I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.

Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
analysis masquerading as fact.

This is a direct quote from their resignation.
"Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
and Carlson is the case in point.

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>> opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>> You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>> it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>> on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>> the news.
>>
>> I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>> commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>>
>>> On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>> if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>> biased report based on their own opinions.
>>
>> That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>> story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>>
>> That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
>
> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
>
>>> Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>> report the facts.
>>
>> I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>> seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
>
> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
> analysis masquerading as fact.
>
> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
> and Carlson is the case in point.
>

Note that they actually gave us a lecture on last weeks DA FLASH that
journalists aren’t supposed to report the facts are supposed to report
opinion especially the opinion of the uninformed. Don’t report what the
mayor announced, ask his cleaning lady what she thinks about it instead.
Actual example.

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On 11/22/2021 11:04 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 10:13:52 UTC-5, Bill Idgerant wrote:
>> Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
>> Nov 22
>>
>> Dear Dispatch reader,
>>
>> Jonah and I strongly prefer covering and analyzing current events to
>> being the news. But some developments over the past few weeks mean that
>> we’ll be the focus of some reporting and attention and we wanted you to
>> hear it from us first.
>
> Click, whirrrr. "We-must-be-come-C-N-B-C view-ers-on-ly." Click, whirrr.

As CNBC is a business channel, perhaps you mean MSNBC. Meanwhile,
surely "click whirrr" refers to robots who do as they're programmed...

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

>>>The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>>opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>>You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>>it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>>on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>>the news.

>>I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.

>>>On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>>if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>>biased report based on their own opinions.

>>That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>story that isn't commentary. I agree.

>>That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.

>The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.

You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.

>>>Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>>report the facts.

>>I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.

>Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>analysis masquerading as fact.

I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
at that point, fine.

>This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>"Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>and Carlson is the case in point.

I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
decision.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:54:30 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>Maybe a Canadian will enjoy this Reddit thread as much as I did:
>
>https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/qzjvn8/in_first_us_added_to_annual_list_of_backsliding/

Why is this a reason for pleasure? Concern or weeping might be more
like it.

Britain passed the torch of freedom to America decades ago and that
matters because America does stand for something however often that's
ignored by Americans.

I'd be curious to see a poll on what percentage of Americans know what
comes after "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and I'd
settle for the next 5 words and not require anything like the full
paragraph. Or who authored them.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:57:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>
>>>>The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>>>opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>>>You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>>>it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>>>on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>>>the news.
>
>>>I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>>commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>
>>>>On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>>>if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>>>biased report based on their own opinions.
>
>>>That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>>story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>
>>>That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
>
>>The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>>opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>>think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
>
>You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
>are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.
>
>>>>Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>>>report the facts.
>
>>>I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>>seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
>
>>Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>>analysis masquerading as fact.
>
>I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
>their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
>at that point, fine.

I wasn't commenting on them at all. I was only saying that The Dispatch is
not a news site. It's a collection of opinions or commentaries. When the
article's headline is "why people are leaving Fox News" it makes it sound
like their "news" is more factual.

As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
lol

>>This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>>"Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>>conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>>the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>>and Carlson is the case in point.
>
>I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
>wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
>decision.

I like to read facts and decide things for myself. Sadly, those are
becoming more and more difficult to find or figure out what is real and
what's not as you wade through the left/right commentary. Rittenhouse's
trial should be a wake-up call for people but it won't be. A lot get their
"news" from reading celebrities on twitter. It bugs the shit out of me
that you can't hardly read a news story nowadays without the article quoting
someone's twitter. That's just lazy.

On 11/22/2021 12:44 PM, EGK wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:57:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>> Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>>>> opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>>>> You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>>>> it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>>>> on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>>>> the news.
>>
>>>> I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>>> commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>>>> if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>>>> biased report based on their own opinions.
>>
>>>> That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>>> story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>>
>>>> That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
>>
>>> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>>> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>>> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
>>
>> You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
>> are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.
>>
>>>>> Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>>>> report the facts.
>>
>>>> I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>>> seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
>>
>>> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>>> analysis masquerading as fact.
>>
>> I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
>> their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
>> at that point, fine.
>
> I wasn't commenting on them at all. I was only saying that The Dispatch is
> not a news site. It's a collection of opinions or commentaries. When the
> article's headline is "why people are leaving Fox News" it makes it sound
> like their "news" is more factual.
>
> As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
> then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
> would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
> lol
>
>>> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>>> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>>> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>>> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>>> and Carlson is the case in point.
>>
>> I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
>> wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
>> decision.
>
> I like to read facts and decide things for myself. Sadly, those are
> becoming more and more difficult to find or figure out what is real and
> what's not as you wade through the left/right commentary. Rittenhouse's
> trial should be a wake-up call for people but it won't be. A lot get their
> "news" from reading celebrities on twitter. It bugs the shit out of me
> that you can't hardly read a news story nowadays without the article quoting
> someone's twitter. That's just lazy.

Another view: there *are* no "facts". Everything you read should be
interpreted as someone else's subjective presentation (which it is).

On 11/22/2021 12:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:54:30 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe a Canadian will enjoy this Reddit thread as much as I did:
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/qzjvn8/in_first_us_added_to_annual_list_of_backsliding/
>
> Why is this a reason for pleasure? Concern or weeping might be more
> like it.

Well, you're right. I could've better said 'appreciate'...

> Britain passed the torch of freedom to America decades ago and that
> matters because America does stand for something however often that's
> ignored by Americans.

Those who forget the oppression become the oppressors...

> I'd be curious to see a poll on what percentage of Americans know what
> comes after "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and I'd
> settle for the next 5 words and not require anything like the full
> paragraph. Or who authored them.

I think I could pass ...and I don't even agree they're "self-evident".

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 1:00:36 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/22/2021 12:44 PM, EGK wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:57:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> EGK <memy...@null.net> wrote:
> >>> Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:
> >>>> EGK <memy...@null.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Non...@fake.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
> >>>>> opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
> >>>>> You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
> >>>>> it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
> >>>>> on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
> >>>>> the news.
> >>
> >>>> I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
> >>>> commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
> >>
> >>>>> On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
> >>>>> if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
> >>>>> biased report based on their own opinions.
> >>
> >>>> That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
> >>>> story that isn't commentary. I agree.
> >>
> >>>> That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
> >>
> >>> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
> >>> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
> >>> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
> >>
> >> You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
> >> are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.
> >>
> >>>>> Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
> >>>>> report the facts.
> >>
> >>>> I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
> >>>> seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
> >>
> >>> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
> >>> analysis masquerading as fact.
> >>
> >> I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
> >> their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
> >> at that point, fine.
> >
> > I wasn't commenting on them at all. I was only saying that The Dispatch is
> > not a news site. It's a collection of opinions or commentaries. When the
> > article's headline is "why people are leaving Fox News" it makes it sound
> > like their "news" is more factual.
> >
> > As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
> > then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
> > would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
> > lol
> >
> >>> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
> >>> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
> >>> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
> >>> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
> >>> and Carlson is the case in point.
> >>
> >> I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
> >> wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
> >> decision.
> >
> > I like to read facts and decide things for myself. Sadly, those are
> > becoming more and more difficult to find or figure out what is real and
> > what's not as you wade through the left/right commentary. Rittenhouse's
> > trial should be a wake-up call for people but it won't be. A lot get their
> > "news" from reading celebrities on twitter. It bugs the shit out of me
> > that you can't hardly read a news story nowadays without the article quoting
> > someone's twitter. That's just lazy.

> Another view: there *are* no "facts". Everything you read should be
> interpreted as someone else's subjective presentation (which it is).

.... and that's a fact

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2021 12:44 PM, EGK wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:57:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>> Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>>>>> opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>>>>> You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>>>>> it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>>>>> on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>>>>> the news.
>>>
>>>>> I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>>>> commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>>>>> if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>>>>> biased report based on their own opinions.
>>>
>>>>> That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>>>> story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>>>
>>>>> That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
>>>
>>>> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>>>> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>>>> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
>>>
>>> You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
>>> are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.
>>>
>>>>>> Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>>>>> report the facts.
>>>
>>>>> I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>>>> seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
>>>
>>>> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>>>> analysis masquerading as fact.
>>>
>>> I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
>>> their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
>>> at that point, fine.
>>
>> I wasn't commenting on them at all. I was only saying that The Dispatch is
>> not a news site. It's a collection of opinions or commentaries. When the
>> article's headline is "why people are leaving Fox News" it makes it sound
>> like their "news" is more factual.
>>
>> As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
>> then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
>> would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
>> lol
>>
>>>> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>>>> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>>>> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>>>> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>>>> and Carlson is the case in point.
>>>
>>> I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
>>> wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
>>> decision.
>>
>> I like to read facts and decide things for myself. Sadly, those are
>> becoming more and more difficult to find or figure out what is real and
>> what's not as you wade through the left/right commentary. Rittenhouse's
>> trial should be a wake-up call for people but it won't be. A lot get their
>> "news" from reading celebrities on twitter. It bugs the shit out of me
>> that you can't hardly read a news story nowadays without the article quoting
>> someone's twitter. That's just lazy.
>
> Another view: there *are* no "facts". Everything you read should be
> interpreted as someone else's subjective presentation (which it is).
>
>

Oh come on

“Groucho Marx is still dead”

“the STS orbiters are mothballed”

“AOC is a moronic lying sack of shit”

We hold these truths to be self evident.

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:57:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

>>>>>The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading
>>>>>one set of opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts
>>>>>commentary. You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's
>>>>>commentators. Granted it's getting harder and harder to do that.
>>>>>That's because most news sites on the web all default to a page that
>>>>>mixes in all the opinion articles with the news.

>>>>I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>>>commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.

>>>>>On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't
>>>>>tell if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or
>>>>>outright biased report based on their own opinions.

>>>>That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>>>story that isn't commentary. I agree.

>>>>That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.

>>>The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>>>opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>>>think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.

>>You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
>>are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.

>>>>>Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news
>>>>>not just report the facts.

>>>>I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>>>seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.

>>>Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>>>analysis masquerading as fact.

>>I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
>>their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
>>at that point, fine.

>I wasn't commenting on them at all. I was only saying that The Dispatch is
>not a news site. It's a collection of opinions or commentaries. When the
>article's headline is "why people are leaving Fox News" it makes it sound
>like their "news" is more factual.

Aren't they saying that their news analysis is more factual? I think
that's reasonable.

>As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
>then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
>would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
>lol

Not if they were serving ice cream.

>>>This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>>>"Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>>>conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>>>the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>>>and Carlson is the case in point.

>>I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
>>wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
>>decision.

>I like to read facts and decide things for myself. Sadly, those are
>becoming more and more difficult to find or figure out what is real and
>what's not as you wade through the left/right commentary. Rittenhouse's
>trial should be a wake-up call for people but it won't be. A lot get their
>"news" from reading celebrities on twitter. It bugs the shit out of me
>that you can't hardly read a news story nowadays without the article quoting
>someone's twitter. That's just lazy.

My local public radio station has a late-morning talk show which is part
of the news operation. Tomorrow: Are juries reliable? Oh my gawd

> As you may know, we've been Fox News contributors for a long
> time.

As a matter of fact I've never heard of either of you because I don't
watch Fox News.

> And the tension has grown between what we are building at The
> Dispatch -- a fact-driven, center-right media company -- and what's
> come to dominate the network, particularly in primetime.

Fox News has tried being fact-driven and center-right, most everyone
defected to OAN or Breitbart TV. A sad situation but there it hangs.

> We're disappointed it came to this. We've enjoyed great relationships
> with many of the news professionals at Fox and we know there is still a
> sizable audience that tunes into Fox for reported news.

Yeah we know 100 billion burgers served and all that.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>> Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:57:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>> Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading
>>>>>> one set of opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts
>>>>>> commentary. You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's
>>>>>> commentators. Granted it's getting harder and harder to do that.
>>>>>> That's because most news sites on the web all default to a page that
>>>>>> mixes in all the opinion articles with the news.
>
>>>>> I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>>>> commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>
>>>>>> On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't
>>>>>> tell if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or
>>>>>> outright biased report based on their own opinions.
>
>>>>> That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>>>> story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>
>>>>> That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
>
>>>> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>>>> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>>>> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
>
>>> You'll just have to acknowledge the existence of STOOPID people. There
>>> are people whose news knowledge comes from entertainment talk shows too.
>
>>>>>> Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news
>>>>>> not just report the facts.
>
>>>>> I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>>>> seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
>
>>>> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>>>> analysis masquerading as fact.
>
>>> I agree with that! I was not agreeing that it was attention-seeking on
>>> their part, but if were no longer directly commenting on the two of them
>>> at that point, fine.
>
>> I wasn't commenting on them at all. I was only saying that The Dispatch is
>> not a news site. It's a collection of opinions or commentaries. When the
>> article's headline is "why people are leaving Fox News" it makes it sound
>> like their "news" is more factual.
>
> Aren't they saying that their news analysis is more factual? I think
> that's reasonable.
>
>> As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
>> then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
>> would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
>> lol
>
> Not if they were serving ice cream.
>
>>>> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>>>> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>>>> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>>>> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>>>> and Carlson is the case in point.
>
>>> I agree with them. They had their own reputation to consider and they
>>> wanted control about how their commentary appeared. It was a reasonable
>>> decision.
>
>> I like to read facts and decide things for myself. Sadly, those are
>> becoming more and more difficult to find or figure out what is real and
>> what's not as you wade through the left/right commentary. Rittenhouse's
>> trial should be a wake-up call for people but it won't be. A lot get their
>> "news" from reading celebrities on twitter. It bugs the shit out of me
>> that you can't hardly read a news story nowadays without the article quoting
>> someone's twitter. That's just lazy.
>
> My local public radio station has a late-morning talk show which is part
> of the news operation. Tomorrow: Are juries reliable? Oh my gawd
>

That’s the show they record at that card table out on the quad with the
sign that says “CHANGE MY MIND” right?

—
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:44:15 -0500, EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:

>As you said, a lot of people even get their views from entertainment sites
>then they parrot those opinions. The View, for example. Whoo boy. Who
>would ever believe the ladies of the View wouldnt give you the real scoop?
>lol

You are presuming (incorrectly in my opinion) that the ladies in
question would recognize a scoop if it landed in their laps...

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:06:48 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> I'd be curious to see a poll on what percentage of Americans know what
>> comes after "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and I'd
>> settle for the next 5 words and not require anything like the full
>> paragraph. Or who authored them.
>
>I think I could pass ...and I don't even agree they're "self-evident".

Fair enough - but you're an American and it's a somewhat important
phrase in your country as is the document from which it comes.

I would fear for anybody's cultural literacy who had trouble answering
a question like that or knowing from what document it came.

Bottom line is that the Founding Fathers knew it was an aspirational
document and 250 years later America is still working on the
aspirational part.

There's a reason you know that especially on the subject of slavery
William Wilberforce is one of my personal heroes and Thomas Jefferson
isn't.

On 11/22/2021 2:52 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:06:48 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I'd be curious to see a poll on what percentage of Americans know what
>>> comes after "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." and I'd
>>> settle for the next 5 words and not require anything like the full
>>> paragraph. Or who authored them.
>>
>> I think I could pass ...and I don't even agree they're "self-evident".
>
> Fair enough - but you're an American and it's a somewhat important
> phrase in your country as is the document from which it comes.
>
> I would fear for anybody's cultural literacy who had trouble answering
> a question like that or knowing from what document it came.
>
> Bottom line is that the Founding Fathers knew it was an aspirational
> document and 250 years later America is still working on the
> aspirational part.
>
> There's a reason you know that especially on the subject of slavery
> William Wilberforce is one of my personal heroes and Thomas Jefferson
> isn't.

Heh. I thought he wrote 'Amazing Grace', but discover now that was a
movie about him... a good one... which I've seen...

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant wrote:

There's another one for my Book of Tautologies. "Smart Conservative".

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Nov 22, 2021 at 8:33:33 AM PST, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
>>>> opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
>>>> You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
>>>> it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
>>>> on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
>>>> the news.
>>>
>>> I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
>>> commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
>>>> if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
>>>> biased report based on their own opinions.
>>>
>>> That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
>>> story that isn't commentary. I agree.
>>>
>>> That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
>>
>> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
>> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
>> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
>>
>>>> Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
>>>> report the facts.
>>>
>>> I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
>>> seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
>>
>> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
>> analysis masquerading as fact.
>>
>> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
>> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
>> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
>> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
>> and Carlson is the case in point.
>>
>
> Note that they actually gave us a lecture on last weeks DA FLASH that
> journalists aren’t supposed to report the facts are supposed to report
> opinion especially the opinion of the uninformed. Don’t report what the
> mayor announced, ask his cleaning lady what she thinks about it instead.
> Actual example.

They actually teach "activist journalism" in colleges these days. You're not
woke if you just report facts. You have to inject morality-- i.e., leftism--
into the story, too, so your readers will make the 'correct' conclusions.

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:36:46 UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/22/2021 11:04 AM, RichA wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 10:13:52 UTC-5, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> >> Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg
> >> Nov 22
> >>
> >> Dear Dispatch reader,
> >>
> >> Jonah and I strongly prefer covering and analyzing current events to
> >> being the news. But some developments over the past few weeks mean that
> >> we’ll be the focus of some reporting and attention and we wanted you to
> >> hear it from us first.
> >
> > Click, whirrrr. "We-must-be-come-C-N-B-C view-ers-on-ly." Click, whirrr..
> As CNBC is a business channel, perhaps you mean MSNBC. Meanwhile,
> surely "click whirrr" refers to robots who do as they're programmed...

Hard to keep track. NBC, CNBC, MSNBC. I continue to marvel at how the Left NEEDS everyone to parrot the same line...Republicans are more pragmatic. They don't give a s--- what losers do. Join up, don't join up, who cares?

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 10:25:25 AM UTC-6, EGK wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
> wrote:
> >EGK <memy...@null.net> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:13:47 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Non...@fake.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The problem with sites like The Dispatch is you're just trading one set of
> >>opinions for another. It's a newsletter that posts commentary.
> >>You have to differentiate news (on any site) with it's commentators. Granted
> >>it's getting harder and harder to do that. That's because most news sites
> >>on the web all default to a page that mixes in all the opinion articles with
> >>the news.
> >
> >I don't have that problem with sites like The Dispatch. They are
> >commentary and don't pretend to be otherwise.
> >
> >>On the other hand, even AP and Reuters are suspect anymore. You can't tell
> >>if reporters are merely reporting facts or giving a slanted or outright
> >>biased report based on their own opinions.
> >
> >That's a problem should other-than straight facts get reported in a news
> >story that isn't commentary. I agree.
> >
> >That's the problem. Sites like The Dispatch are not the problem.
> The problem is people who think they're getting actual news and not just
> opinion pieces from sites like that. It's like people who read Fox and
> think Carlson and Hannity are reporting news rather than opinion.
> >>Jouralists nowadays seem to want to make the news or shape the news not just
> >>report the facts.
> >
> >I'll take Hayes and Goldberg at their word that they absolutely were not
> >seeking tv celebrity talking-head status by resigning from Fox News.
> Adam, they resigned because of exactly what I'm talking about. Opinon and
> analysis masquerading as fact.
>
> This is a direct quote from their resignation.
> "Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible
> conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis," the men wrote. "But
> the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible,"
> and Carlson is the case in point.

Appears that Fox local news rooms are sharing dresses for the weather ladies. Amy Freeze never repeated a dress in Chicago and now Emily is freshly wardrobed every night. One wearing in each city and the dress is Fedexed to the next town. Must be a separate Murdoch dress inventory for each size