February 15, 2005

The Challenge

Luke Francl at NewPat swerves into Lil' Ollie Willis territory, saying saying - the midst of criticizing local conservative bloggers "Kool Aid Report":

It's not like we get paid, unlike some right-wing shills I could name.

The NewPats have been doing some investigation?

You "could" name them, Luke Francl?

Then do it. You're no Nick Coleman, Luke - you certainly don't need to hide behind an editorial smokescreen, because you'd never defame anyone you disagree with. Right?

So favor the world with the scoop, Luke Francl. What conservative bloggers are on the take and not being up-front about it?

Because I just know the NewPats wouldn't be blowing sunshine up their audience's skirts. Right?

UPDATE: Well, I did say I knew, didn't I? Francl was referring to Williams, Lauck and Van Beek. And he raises an interesting question in the comments - one I'll be going into in a later post.

Posted by Mitch at February 15, 2005 07:51 AM | TrackBack

Why do you assume I was talking about bloggers?

I wasn't.

Posted by: Luke Francl at February 15, 2005 10:43 AM

But now that I think about it, there were the two South Dakota bloggers who got paid by the Thune campaign.

Posted by: Luke Francl at February 15, 2005 10:46 AM

I apologize. Although it might have been clearer had you said "...shills that have been named over and over in the past", rather than "...I *could* name...", which sort of implies that you have some sort of exclusive.

Posted by: mitch at February 15, 2005 11:00 AM

Sorry, I was trying to be witty. I'll stick with being causticly humorless from now on. ;-)

That asside, I wonder if all this crap about credibility and accountability and unrealistic standards of moral purity is going to end up falling over on us, all of us. It's already made politics a minefield. No man or woman is a saint. Should you have to be one to be a pundit or a leader?

Posted by: Luke Francl at February 15, 2005 11:12 AM

That last is an interesting question.

Worth a post on its own.

Posted by: mitch at February 15, 2005 11:25 AM

Thanks Mitch.

I'm not working on a post on the subject, but I've been kicking it around in my brain for a while. I'm interested to see what you have to say.

Posted by: Luke Francl at February 15, 2005 11:52 AM

You guys just provided a perfect example of the superiority of blogs over the mainstream media.


Posted by: jdm at February 15, 2005 12:13 PM

idm is right: This comment string is a great example of why blogs trump MSM. Look how much context Luke was able lend to his comments, and it would seem the challenge has been met. I could probably enjoy a cocktail and an argument with Luke if I did drink.

Posted by: v at February 15, 2005 05:56 PM

Context? Explanations? Fact checking? Everything the MSM can't or won't do. I just finished a letter to the StarTribune about a letter in Tuesday's paper praising Arthur Miller for standing up to Joe McCarthy. The facts that Miller testified before HUAC, not McCarthy's committee, that he testified some two years after McCarthy's censure by the Senate, and that McCarthy's concern was communists in government (who were there and were a threat) while HUAC was after show business communists, (who were there, but probably weren't a threat) were seemingly ignored or were unknown to the letters editor, but must have supported his or her own beliefs. So they don't fact check Nick Coleman, don't edit Bill Moyer's rantings and are left with egg on their face, and won't edit a letter (even though their web site says they do). Is it any wonder MSM influence is diappearing?

Posted by: Don Lokken at February 15, 2005 11:07 PM

Whenever I have a drink with Luke, we come to blows. It's a sad thing, really.

Posted by: Chuck Olsen at February 16, 2005 12:35 AM