As I said in the comments of my post, it's a tit-for-tat.

I don't give a crap what Coleman writes. I don't read his column.

Cooper's using his money to try to stop something he doesn't like. Fine. Whatever, that's how America works. I can do the same.

Are you questioning my right to do what I want with my money?

I didn't think so.

The interest I'll be earning in my new money market account doesn't hurt either.

"I don't give a crap what Coleman writes. I don't read his column."

But since the column was *the entire motivation* for the removal of TCF adverts from the Strib - an action that seemed to be the motivation for your posting - then certainly that's more relevant than saying it's "something that Cooper doesn't like", right?

Do what you want with your money, indeed; I recommend USBank. But just make sure your motivations are clear; in case you or your readers are having trouble, I'll lay it out:

* Nick Coleman, by way of defaming Scott Johnson, insinuated people should boycott TCF.
* When the depth of Coleman's *lies* about and defamation of Johnson became known to Bill Cooper, THEN he pulled his money from the Strib.
* Although the ickypoopy republican nature of TCF's management wasn't enough to get you to close your account, this particular brouhaha was.

How, logically, does this not mean you and your "tit for tat" are a defense of the big-media status quo, as well as the defamatory, almost libelous statements by Coleman that started the brouhaha that was, by your own admission the event that pushed you over the edge, TCF-wise?

Have you been taking Mark Gisleson seriously again? Maybe that's the problem.

Actually, one of my New Year's resolutions was to ditch TCF, but Cooper's attitude particularly irritated me.

He's trying to do what he says Coleman is trying to do: quelsh free speech.

Don't expect me to defend the "MSM" as you call it. In case you haven't noticed, we lefties hate the media as much as, if not more than, you. Conservatives have been "working the refs" for decades now, and attacking Coleman is part of that.

W/r/t this particular Coleman column, I don't think it's libel. Let's look at the two things you bring up in your post:

1. Hinderaker says they keep Powerline separate from their day jobs. Coleman says Johnson posts from work. True statement. Was the post about Dayton "despicable"? That's a matter of opinion.

2. Do Powerline bloggers get money from right wing benefactors? You call that a "demonstrably false statement" but I disagree. It's a question, so it can't be false. Do they? They say no, we don't get money for blogging. That's not the same thing as not having benefactors. What about stuff unrelated to the site, like speaking fees? This is a big problem with a number of columnists (maybe even Nick Coleman?) See, for example: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/12/143558/031

I see the Coleman column as two parts:

The first part is a general look at how nasty the right-wing blogosphere can be, and the irony of powerful bloggers who say they're tearing down the status quo, while much of what y'all are really doing is protecting and justifying powerful, entrenched interests.

The second part is an exercise in blogospher-style "fact checking". It's stupid, like so many of these "gotcha" exercises (witness Glen Renyold's recent "A ha! The Contras were in Nicaragua" BS: http://WWW.THEPOORMAN.NET/archives/003640.html#003640 ).

I think the Powerline guys need to decide what Coleman is to them. Is he a gnat, nipping at their ankles ( http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009062.php ) or is he a serious threat to their reputations? ( http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009119.php ).

He can't be both.

I posted my response in the New Patriot comments:
http://newpatriot.org/2005/01/time-to-switch-to-wells-fargo.html

I basically made Luke's #1 point above, but much more long-winded.

Also, I hereby withdraw all of my advertising support from A Shot in the Dark. Let that be a lesson to you, tangling with the likes of me! Mwahahahahahaa!

Shameless plug? Please spread the word to the Northern Alliance - this is the only other Twin Citiies screening in the near future:

Blogumentary: Viewing and Discussion

Date: February 3, 2005
Time: 5:30 pm – 8:00 pm
Place: Student Center – UMN St. Paul Campus – Theater, lower level
Directions: http://www.spsc.umn.edu/directions.php
Schedule:
5:30 – 5:35: Welcome and Intro – Nora Paul
5:35 – 6:40: Blogumentary
6:40 – 7:00: Pizza break
7:00 – 8:00: Panel discussion – Moderated by Laura Gurak
Panelists: Chuck Olsen, blogumentarian
Dan Gillmor, author of “We the Media”
Krista Kennedy, rhetorician and blogger - Shane Nackerud, UThink coordinator

Blogging culture is one of the hottest topics in media. These web self-publishing sites have influenced public opinion, created new social networks, and provided opportunities for anyone to be a publisher. Come to the Blogumentary event to watch Chuck Olsen’s documentary about blogging and bloggers and take part in a discussion on the impact and import of this form of web publishing.

You're getting Dan Gillmor on your panel? Cool. And my old boss, Shane Nackerud!

"He's trying to do what he says Coleman is trying to do: quelsh free speech."

Right. Because Cooperian militias occupied the building and executed reporters after drumhead courtmartials.

Buncombe, Luke. Cooper exercised his (and his company's) free speech. Coleman still writes.

Free speech has consequences - do you disagree?

"Don't expect me to defend the "MSM" as you call it. In case you haven't noticed, we lefties hate the media as much as, if not more than, you."

That, alone, is worth a post. In fact, I think it's related to one I have in the hopper for one of these days.

I doubt that we on the right "hate" the MSM so much as we're adapting to living without it.

"W/r/t this particular Coleman column, I don't think it's libel."

I said defamatory, which is a different shade of the same concept.

"1. Hinderaker says they keep Powerline separate from their day jobs. Coleman says Johnson posts from work. True statement."

True, but still a petty, vile little thing to say. As if it has anything to do with either the blog, the bank, or the facts in play?

"2. Do Powerline bloggers get money from right wing benefactors? You call that a "demonstrably false statement" but I disagree. It's a question, so it can't be false."

Cute.

" Do they? They say no, we don't get money for blogging. That's not the same thing as not having benefactors."

And none of your examples are the same as what Coleman said; "...does Powerline or its mighty righty allies take money from political parties, campaigns or well-heeled benefactors who hope to affect Minnesota's politics from behind the scenes? We don't know, and they don't have to say". No money from parties or campaigns, period. All of their blog-related income is right there on the page. And - this is important - a *real* reporter would have confirmed it, or tried to, one way or the other. And with few bloggers is it as easy to do as Scott and John; their direct-dial numbers are right there on the blog! Coleman did no such thing - just made a reckless, defamatory, malicious statement that had no bearing on reality.

"What about stuff unrelated to the site, like speaking fees? This is a big problem with a number of columnists (maybe even Nick Coleman?)"

What about it? It's all out in the open. The Powerguys openly publicize their speaking engagements on their blog and if you're wondering, you can call or email. Coleman?

"The first part is a general look at how nasty the right-wing blogosphere can be, and the irony of powerful bloggers who say they're tearing down the status quo, while much of what y'all are really doing is protecting and justifying powerful, entrenched interests. "

Broad and untestable.

The second part is an exercise in blogospher-style "fact checking".

Right. Coleman didn't check his. The Powerguys did.

So did Cooper. Forget the labels you people seem to lean on so hard for just a moment, and think about it; do you think for a moment if Scott Johnson's work for TCF wasn't amply worth his salary *from a business perspective* that Cooper would have so supported him? He has a fiduciary duty to his shareholders to do the right thing. He's a smart guy and knows that.

You think he makes business decisions without business rationales?

"I think the Powerline guys need to decide what Coleman is to them. Is he a gnat, nipping at their ankles ( http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009062.php ) or is he a serious threat to their reputations? ( http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009119.php ).

He can't be both."

Says you! The man is an intellectual midget, a hack, a moron. As a writer, he's not fit to carry John Hinderaker's lunchpail or Scott Johnson's CD case. Yet when he uses his position to use *false* information to adversely affect a business or a reputation, then he's a threat, legally speaking.

There's a difference.

"The man is an intellectual midget, a hack, a moron."

I would now expect Luke to say something along the lines of: "He can't be all three."

But, he is all three. Oh, he so is all three. Even his column today, about the Fishing Hat Bandit, was so horribly written and awash with pathetic literary devices, it made me tired.

The most maddening thing is that he's a columnist for the Strib, and I'm not. Yup, Coleman and Lileks, conspiring to keep me down.

And, now I feel I must apologize for placing Coleman and Lileks in the same sentence.

Argh! I did it again!

Luke sez: "Don't expect me to defend the "MSM" as you call it. In case you haven't noticed, we lefties hate the media as much as, if not more than, you."

And then Luke goes and defends Nick Coleman by ignoring what he did.

Which is it, Luke? It can't be both!

"I basically made Luke's #1 point above, but much more long-winded."

Heh.

I'd suggest washing some Beano down with a Listerine chaser, but then you'd be at a complete loss for a mode of transport for all of that fiiineprogressive wisdom Chuck..

"'1. Hinderaker says they keep Powerline separate from their day jobs. Coleman says Johnson posts from work. True statement.'

True, but still a petty, vile little thing to say. As if it has anything to do with either the blog, the bank, or the facts in play?"
...
Okay, so you acknowledge this is true. You keep trying to focus attention on the statement about Power Line's benefactors which does not mention TCF. Only here does Coleman mention TCF.

It comes down to this: TCF looks the other way while Scott Johnson posts to a right-wing blog. Coleman - and now, lots of other people - don't want their money supporting TCF and Power Line. Nothing vile about that.

What's vile is TCF trying to punish anyone who speaks ill of them - even if it's true!

What's the impact of this exchange on journalism? I think the positive impact is - you can't just make stuff up in an editorial column and expect to get away with it anymore. The negative impact - I fear - is *don't say anything bad about our advertisers.* This is a Very Bad Thing for the press in this country.

"It comes down to this: TCF looks the other way while Scott Johnson posts to a right-wing blog."

What are they supposed to do? Burn him in effigy? If Johnson does his job, and does it well, why would TCF care one fig if he posts occasionally from work? If it represented some sort of conflict of interest with TCF, then you'd maybe have some sort of point. As it is, you don't. It's like saying "It comes down to this, IBM looks the other way when Ryan Rhodes takes 15 minutes of his work day to write a post about his flatulence." Hardly an act that requires some sort of disciplinary action, and the same holds true for Johnson's posts. Johnson's political opinions are none of TCF's business.

"The negative impact - I fear - is *don't say anything bad about our advertisers.*"

Now, if Coleman had written something to the tune of: "According to a new report released today, TCF revenue was down last quarter, and its customers have been warned to exercise caution with their TCF savings," and TCF reacted by pulling advertising, you'd maybe have a point. What Coleman did, however, was to basically urge his readers to pull their money out of TCF for no other reason but because Scott Johnson hurt Coleman's feelings a couple times, and that he *gasp* takes a few minutes each day to post to Power Line. That's what you call a petty little columnist taking rather reckless liberties with his newspaper position. If I were at TCF, and I read that piece of Coleman's twaddle, I'd think "gosh, maybe we don't want to be advertising with them."

First: What Ryan said.

Second: sed Chuck, "The negative impact - I fear - is *don't say anything bad about our advertisers.* This is a Very Bad Thing for the press in this country."

Chuck, that has *always* been true about *all* opinion transmitted via commercial media in this country.

You New Patriot people seem to have trouble with the following concepts:
* It's TCF's money.
* The Strib's agent, acting NOT as a journalist
but as an opinion writer, acted to harm
TCF's fiduciary interest.
* Bill Cooper, by law, must look out for TCF's
fiduciary interest. I'm sure that before he
wrote any letter, he had to decide which
course best served that legally-defined,
fiduciary interest; reprimanding or terminating
Johnson for his activities, or terminating
the business relationship with the entity
that had acted with malice toward TCF's
interest. His decision HAS to be the one
that's in the best interest of TCF's
shareholders, or Cooper could wind up in
legal trouble.
* In Cooper's position, opinion has little or
nothing to do with it.

It's not just TCF's money - it's the best interests of their shareholders that are the issue to Cooper. That he's a Republican is both a side issue and a pavlovian trigger to some of you...

Chuck, it's not vile. It's TCF's own money, and the owners will punish Bill Cooper if he moves advertising dollars to less effective uses. If Coleman and Francl et al. want to REALLY punish Bill Cooper, buy enough stock to start a proxy battle.

My position is very simple.

1. The right-wing flog-o-sphere is misinterpreting what Coleman wrote and is over-reacting because of it.

2. Cooper is using his advertising muscle to try to change editorial policies at the Strib.

You and he can justify it however you want, but the end result is that he wants the Strib to change the what its writers are saying, for political reasons.

People do this all the time with advertiser boycotts. But companies usually try to stay out of politics to avoid pissing people off (after all, that's why advertising boycotts work). Cooper's made TCF political, so he can kiss my money goodbye.

I've never said what TCF can or can't do with its money. Based on what they do with theirs, so I shall do with mine. It's that simple.

Luke,

Your position has to be simple, to account for all the logical flaws in it.

"1. The right-wing flog-o-sphere ["Flogosphere?" Profound.] is misinterpreting what Coleman wrote and is over-reacting because of it."

Really? What's the misinterpretation? I'm not seeing it.

"2. Cooper is using his advertising muscle to try to change editorial policies at the Strib."

Really? That's wrong on a couple of levels.

First, where's the quid pro quo? Cooper left no wiggle room in his letter, which said no jing for the Strib as long as he's the chairman. That sounds more like a divorce than a trial separation. Where's the incentive to change policy?

Second: Coleman is a columnist; he's only tangentially related to either news coverage or the editorial policy. Your case would be more convincing if it focused on news coverage, rather than a defamatory opinion column.

"You and he can justify it however you want, but the end result is that he wants the Strib to change the what its writers are saying, for political reasons."

Er, yeah. If you say so. Because that's all the evidence you have for that conclusion.

"People do this all the time with advertiser boycotts. But companies usually try to stay out of politics to avoid pissing people off (after all, that's why advertising boycotts work). Cooper's made TCF political, so he can kiss my money goodbye."

"I've never said what TCF can or can't do with its money. Based on what they do with theirs, so I shall do with mine. It's that simple."

Nobody's argued that. I've done the same thing; I've not only not subscribed to the Strib in years, but I've rejected free Stribs as marketing tie-ins with other promotions.

Question: Why are all you New Pats cuddling up to Coleman? It's not going to earn you any points.

I should elaborate: Luke said:

""You and he can justify it however you want, but the end result is that he wants the Strib to change the what its writers are saying, for political reasons."

I responded:

"Er, yeah. If you say so. Because that's all the evidence you have for that conclusion."

I meant to say, it's a logical error to say that because:
* Johnson writes a political blog, and
* Cooper is a political figure emeritus, and
* Cooper took action...

...that it was a political action. Without actual evidence, it's just another speculation.

"Question: Why are all you New Pats cuddling up to Coleman? It's not going to earn you any points."

Amen. If the left and right can't, at the very least, agree that Coleman has the writing skills of a drunken monkey (which is actually kind of insulting to drunken monkeys), we will never be able to agree on anything, ever, at all.

For those who don't agree that Coleman's an intellectual midget, a hack and a moron, well, ya'll can go eat a fart.

I don't want to earn points with you, Mitch.

"Really? What's the misinterpretation? I'm not seeing it."

Maybe it's more "reading comprehension" than "misinterpretation".

You keep ducking around Chuck and my point that what Coleman said about Johnson blogging from work was 100% accurate.

When you can come around to the fact that you were wrong on that, we can talk some more. Otherwise, chatting with you about this is like banging my head against the wall. You just keep bring up the same things over and over again. It's like talking to a computer psychologist.

"I don't want to earn points with you, Mitch."

That's fine, but I'm talking about points with Coleman and the mainstream media. They probably hold you-all in little less contempt than they hold us.

"Maybe it's more "reading comprehension" than "misinterpretation".

Right - naturally, we is dummer than you.

Look, you say...

"You keep ducking around Chuck and my point that what Coleman said about Johnson blogging from work was 100% accurate..."

...no, I concede it. I'm not "ducking around it", it's not a contention to Johnson and Cooper, to say nothing of lil' ol' Mitch Berg. The two of you keep trying to slip past the fact that it's irrelevant to Cooper, to TCF management, to TCF's bottom line (Johnson's productivity is measured in court decisions).

"When you can come around to the fact that you were wrong on that, we can talk some more."

Talk about reading comprehension, man. YOU'RE RIGHT, Johnson blogged at work. The fact that IT DOESN'T MATTER to anyone but the two of you and various others who can't distinguish the performance metrics of a bank veep and a Banana Republic cashier doesn't make it any more of an issue.

"Otherwise, chatting with you about this is like banging my head against the wall. You just keep bring up the same things over and over again. It's like talking to a computer psychologist."

Look, if you want me to say "blogging from work is wrong" - pffft. Check the posting times for EVERY member of the NARN. Most of us blog, at least a little, from work; we'll wrap up and post things we started elsewhere, or drop a quick post or two during breaks, or whatever. Here's a radical notion; most of us have worked it out with our various employers. Obviously Johnson has.

And yet it's what you keep harping on! Go on, Luke - declare an irrelevant victory, and let it go! The REAL issue here isn't Johnson's work habits (he works harder than just about anyone I know); it's Coleman's defamatory column. Sorry, that's where I'm staying.

If that sounds like a computer psychologist - well, I guess I'm funny about journalists abusing their prerogatives the way Coleman has. So sue me.

" chatting with you about this is like banging my head against the wall. You just keep bring up the same things over and over again."

Because, having read the thread, Mr. Francl, you keep forgetting or ignoring a number of key points.

Your rudeness doesn't make up for what is in the end an empty argument.

Never give a child a hard time for asking an honest question.

gay latin fucking lesbian latin