If the Star Tribune editorial pages were part of some high school newspaper--maybe a newspaper just for English-as-a-Second-Language kids so they could improve their clumsy writing skills--I'd still be embarrassed at the sheer incompetence of it.

First, if I understand this correctly, Mr. Glasers letter appeared in the letters to the editor section. Correct?

Since when does and why would ANY publication do a background search on a letter to the editor?

If you believe that it should be done, you fail to understand the purpose of a letter to the editor.

Second, until 1999, I still considered myself a Republican. And honestly, I still consider myself more of a Republican than the current administration.

Mr. Glasers letter seems perfectly appropriate to me.

Newspapers don't check up on letter writers.

But I do.

Was the letter appropriate? Sure, but so is criticizing it.

Are you, apparently a Carlson/Ford Republican, more Republican than me? Sure, in the same sense that I am Marisa Tomei's destiny.

By the way, the *real* issue is that pretty much anyone who claims (however implausibly) to be a Republican who rips on the GOP is pretty much guaranteed space in the paper. As opposed to those of us who are actully in the party.

My mother-in-law's main sources of information are the STrib and CBS News. She is 80, very pro-FDR/New-Deal and thinks FDR walked on water.

I explained that these news sources actually reduce your level of knowledge of world events, leaving you less informed than when you started. She thought I was nuts of course. But over several weeks each time we happened watched CBS News together I'd point out "that's not true", "that's a fib". Finally, Dan Rather's on-the-air attempt to justify the AF memos made her see the light. She watches Fox now.

A few more Jim Boyd editorials and fake Republican letter writers (thanks for the tip) and I'll be able to wean her away from reading the Red Star with her oatmeal every morning.

Perhaps Gideon isn't aware of the viewer poll that establishes that CBS News viewers are among the stupidest and most uninformed viewers. Among... but not the worst.

That's right... CBS viewers were second, right behind FOX NEWS.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm

Make sure to pass this info on to granny OK?

Perhaps Dan is unaware that the "viewer poll" basically defined "intelligence" as "cohering with the left's party line", basically.

Fox's audience earns more per-capita, and is better-educated, than the mainstream audience. That's why advertisers like it so much. Now, are those traits compatible with being "stupid?"

Make sure you pass this on to every dipshit leftist who takes Kos and the Strib seriously.

Mitch...

I said...

"And honestly, I still consider myself more of a Republican than the current administration."

You responded...

"more Republican than me?"

Gee. I wasn't aware you were a part of the current administration. That's good to know.

There's a few things i'd like to pass along to your boss ok?

First, the deficit is too big. I understand that when most of you guys are done in 2008, you'll go on to running defense contracting companies and profiting from death but the rest of us will still have to work to pay off your massive debt. Maybe you could look into doing something about that ok?

Second, I have quite a few IRA's and other retirements investments already and I really don't mind some of my paycheck going to insure the security of other retirees. Maybe we could look at taking care of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance instead.

Third. Torture is bad and people don't like us when we torture people.

Thanks Mitch. I look forward to you and your buddies in the administration getting right to these problems.

"Gee. I wasn't aware you were a part of the current administration. That's good to know."

Haven't you heard Nick Coleman? We're all one big daisy chain.

"First, the deficit is too big."

Many conservatives would agree. So let's cut spending to the bone!

" I understand that when most of you guys are done in 2008, you'll go on to running defense contracting companies and profiting from death"

What a fecking jagoff thing to say.

"Second, I have quite a few IRA's and other retirements investments already and I really don't mind some of my paycheck going to insure the security of other retirees."

Well, good for you. I'm still rebuilding. I work damn hard, and dont' get nearly enough to show for it. I need the money more than the CPB does.

"Third. Torture is bad and people don't like us when we torture people."

Yeah. Maybe they'll start flying planes into our skyscrapers if they don't stop.

"Thanks Mitch. I look forward to you and your buddies in the administration getting right to these problems."

Know what I love? When the left pretends that they're the fiscal discipline people. It's about as convincing as Elton John working as a chippendale.

"What a fecking jagoff thing to say."

Awwww... did I upset you by suggesting that the administration would go right into the defense industry right after they leave office?

Record profits for Halliburton, Carlyle.

Record deficits for Americans.

We borrow money from China and Saudi Arabia, give that money to Corporations that profit from war and then stick the American public with the bill who pays back our creditors through higher interest rates or defered tax increases.

If you're too stupid to do the math, I can see why you're still re-building.

You know what I love? Conservatives robbing the treasury and getting angry at Liberals for filling it up in the first place.

"Fox's audience earns more per-capita, and is better-educated, than the mainstream audience. That's why advertisers like it so much. Now, are those traits compatible with being "stupid?""

Josh clearly hasn't worked in the corporate world.

I have and with one exception, every manager I have ever worked for was an over educated, putz who knew a fraction of what us "regular employees" knew.

They were always - ALWAYS, in their position because of their level of education, skill at bullshitting and their ability to sink a 30 foot putt - not because they were qualified. In addition they always took credit for our creativity and innovation when things were good and blamed down the chain when things weren't so good. Co-workers were laid-off when the sales dropped because of crappy planning and poor management and managers were promoted and given bonuses for having the courage to lay-off those co-workers when when the sales dropped because of crappy planning and poor management.

Also Josh, your level of education is more an indication of your ability to pay for that education than your intelligence. Either Josh is a high level manager blissfully unaware of his own incompetence like most managers or has never had a real job otherwise he would know that.

Now Josh, the reason advertisers like FOX news is because:

1. FOX viewers will believe anything they're told without bothering to scrutinize or question what they're being told. That's a fact son. BTW, I work in the world of marketing, advertising and sales and yes, FOX news viewers ARE a perfect audience because they are willfully ignorant and have the cash to spend. Advertisers also like teen's 13 - 18 too because they have a lot of disposable income (from their over paid, over-educated, unqualified, incompetent manager parents) and they make buying decisions based on trends and popular culture influences. Advertisers don't want an educated audience, they want a gullible audience. Do the math. If you're more educated, you tend to make more money. You make more money, you spend more. It's pretty simple Josh.

2. You don't get real fact based, source verified news on FOX. They air opinion as journalism and they package their content in easy to digest sound bites. That way, the "news" never gets in the way of the real programming which are the ads for products that overpaid, over-educated, unqualified and incompetent managers and their entitled little snot nosed kids are willing to buy.

3. They give members of the Administration a venue to spew their bile and rarely offer space or time for opposing views and when they do, they usually have weak kneed pseudo liberals who agree with the administrations positions or they present fringe elements of the left and present them as typical liberals. The advertisers like Walmart then get an opportunity to contribute heavily to the GOP who in return grant preferential treatment in the Republican held Congress when legislation comes up that affects them.

We live in a pay to play world Josh. If you don't get that, don't complain when you get screwed.

Dan,

"I have and with one exception, every manager I have ever worked for was an over educated, putz who knew a fraction of what us "regular employees" knew."

Josh gives us studies. You give us personal anecdotes. Just saying.

"1. FOX viewers will believe anything they're told without bothering to scrutinize or question what they're being told. That's a fact son."

Really? I've been looking for that "fact", and I can't see any peer-reviewed studies that establish that as a "fact".

Where are they?

"BTW, I work in the world of marketing, advertising and sales and yes, FOX news viewers ARE a perfect audience because they are willfully ignorant and have the cash to spend."

I dunno where in the marketing world you supposedly work, Dan, but "cash to spend" and "willful ignorance" are hardly inclusive.

"their over paid, over-educated, unqualified, incompetent manager parents"

Y'know, Dan, it sounds like you have a serious axe to grind.

"Advertisers don't want an educated audience, they want a gullible audience. Do the math. If you're more educated, you tend to make more money. You make more money, you spend more. It's pretty simple Josh."

But "more educated", "more money" and "stupid" are still somehow connected...how?

It's a saw that the Kossacks put together from some push-polls and some out-of-context data. No more.

"You don't get real fact based, source verified news on FOX. They air opinion as journalism and they package their content in easy to digest sound bites."

ALL networks package their news. And you get as much fact-based news on Fox as on any other network. In point of fact, their news coverage is not much different than that of the big three - it's just that the opinion side of their shop trends right. That, to the majors, is the unforgiveable sin - and the fact that Fox is slaughtering CNN can only be explained, to them, by the self-adulatory fiction that you have a dumb mass versus a smart minority. Just isn't so - and it certainly isn't verified by any objective data.

"3. They give members of the Administration a venue to spew their bile and rarely offer space or time for opposing views and when they do, they usually have weak kneed pseudo liberals who agree with the administrations positions or they present fringe elements of the left and present them as typical liberals."

In a world where Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Dick Durbin hold sway, they pretty much are.

Josh gave you studies???

He offered, "the "viewer poll" basically defined "intelligence" as "cohering with the left's party line", basically."

Thats an opinion Mitch. Not a study.

Facts?

Here it is again Mitch.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm

By comparison, look at the stats for Public television viewers. Also, keep in mind that PBS carries a wide range of international news coverage like the BBC which you won't find on the commercial alphabet networks.

Since you probably won't read it, here's a summary... PSB viewers were far better informed than FOX viewers.

"but "cash to spend" and "willful ignorance" are hardly inclusive"

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say.

"Y'know, Dan, it sounds like you have a serious axe to grind."

Why? Because I tell the truth about incompetent managers. Don't tell me you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. Besides, if you've had to sit through all of the "Who Moved My Cheese", "Total Quality Management", "Steven Covey" crap that I've been forced to endure, you'd have an axe to grind too.

"But "more educated", "more money" and "stupid" are still somehow connected...how?"

Don't try to draw connections by changing the context of my words Mitch. That's dishonest.

I said, "they make buying decisions based on trends and popular culture influences. Advertisers don't want an educated audience, they want a gullible audience."

"ALL networks package their news."

Again, you're being manipulative with my words Mitch. I said they air opinion as journalism and they package their news in sound bites.

Yes, all news organizations package their news from a marketing perspective but I'm not using "package" in that way. Perhaps I should have said they deliver their news in sound bites. They also have full reign to add running opinion and commentary as part of their news broadcasts. That would be fine if they had sources to back up their comments or did retractions when they are proven wrong but that never happens at FOX.

Apparently, you know a little bit about broadcasting and journalistic integrity so why would you defend this and accept it?

My guess is because it serves your purpose so you're fine with it.

BTW, I've been in the broadcasting world and production community since the 80's. I know a little bit about the field too.

"In a world where Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Dick Durbin hold sway, they pretty much are."

You forgot to add MoveOn.org to your silly little Hannity/Limbaughesque jab.

Josh gave you studies???...Thats an opinion Mitch. Not a study."

I read the "study" when it first came out. The "questions" were things like "do you think there's a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda"; people who answered "yes" were considered "ill-informed", for one example, despite the fact that that is far from established, and certainly disingenous to treat as a black and white issue. The "study" was largely composed of such questions, and as such was less an empirical study than a masturbatory orgy of self-contratulation for the left.

"Since you probably won't read it, here's a summary... PSB viewers were far better informed than FOX viewers."

I read it LONG before you did. Sorry.

""but "cash to spend" and "willful ignorance" are hardly inclusive"

"Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say."

You seem to think there's a link between being a solid advertising demographic (high income, usually a byproduct of education and achievement) and ignorance. Show me the data! And the study you link isn't data!

"Why? Because I tell the truth about incompetent managers. Don't tell me you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. Besides, if you've had to sit through all of the "Who Moved My Cheese", "Total Quality Management", "Steven Covey" crap that I've been forced to endure, you'd have an axe to grind too."

I have been through TQM, CQI, Covey, "Enabling Change" - the whole "Dilbert" panoply. And I've worked for managers whose IQs were below room temperature in an igloo. I haven't quite managed to make the turn to applying that experience to the entire managerial class.

I said "But "more educated", "more money" and "stupid" are still somehow connected...how?", and you responded "Don't try to draw connections by changing the context of my words Mitch. That's dishonest."

So then you added: "I said, "they make buying decisions based on trends and popular culture influences. Advertisers don't want an educated audience, they want a gullible audience."

Advertisers want an audience with money and motivation to buy their products. That is the context. You said advertisers want people to be "gullible", which is I suppose a way of saying "impresionable" or, most likely, "sellable". It depends, totally, on the product you're selling; "Enzyte" needs a gullible audience, Accenture Consulting Services perhaps less so. But you stated "gullibility" as the prime requisite - and I'm saying that since Fox's audience has a higher per-capita income and education than CNN's, and that achievement is rarely a sign of mental defect, you have something backwards.

"Again, you're being manipulative with my words Mitch. I said they air opinion as journalism and they package their news in sound bites."

I'm not manipulating anything, as I'll show below. All networks air opinion as journalism; Bill Moyers, Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, all of them do it. A whole cottage industry has built up around noting the instances!

"Yes, all news organizations package their news from a marketing perspective but I'm not using "package" in that way. Perhaps I should have said they deliver their news in sound bites. They also have full reign to add running opinion and commentary as part of their news broadcasts. That would be fine if they had sources to back up their comments or did retractions when they are proven wrong but that never happens at FOX."

Never? Oh, my. Amazing.

"Apparently, you know a little bit about broadcasting and journalistic integrity so why would you defend this and accept it?"

Defending and accepting? It's the status quo at ALL networks, and most newspapers. That's why I currently watch almost *no* network or cable news at all. Defend it? Hell, I vote against it with my feet.

"My guess is because it serves your purpose so you're fine with it."

I'm fine with it in the same way I'm fine with the Times of London or the Frankfurter Allgemeine mixing conservative spin into their news; because they're honest and forthright about their bias, as Fox is (although not in as many words). If one knows what the bias is, and is a critical consumer of news, then it all evens out.

"BTW, I've been in the broadcasting world and production community since the 80's. I know a little bit about the field too."

Excellent.

"You forgot to add MoveOn.org to your silly little Hannity/Limbaughesque jab."

Did you read the STrib's apologia for Durbin? Have you seen the left's continued defense of the TANG memos? Have you caught the endless, uncritical regurgitation of the far left's points on the major media?

If Hannity and Limbaugh jab at it too - well, good for them. It needs jabbing.

Mitch,

You're either lying, you're ignorant or you're spinning wildly out of control.

You frame the question like this:

"do you think there's a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda"

The actual question is:

Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?

The way you present it, there is no black and white answer. It is subjective and entirely opinion based.

But this isn't a question about believing there was a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda Mitch and you know it. This is a question about whether or not the respondent believed US has or has not found clear EVIDENCE of a link between Iraq and Al Qaida.

At the time this study was done, there was NOT clear evidence of a link. Viewers of FOX believed there was because they were being told there was a link even though there was no proof = only conjecture.

At the time, FOX viewers were wrong and yes, I'm sorry to tell you they WERE ill-informed.

Mitch, before the war in Iraq started, we all heard the same claims about WMD's. We all watched Powell and listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Some of us chose to look deeper and we found all of the data that was contradicting and debunking the claims being made.

The idea that we went to war based on bad intelligence is bullshit. We went to war based on buried, cherry picked and ignored intelligence.

You may agree with the ideological reasons we went to war in Iraq but that's irrelevant. If Bush had gone to Congress and the American public and said we needed to go to war for regime change and to plant the seeds of democracy, everyone, including yourself would have said no.

You guys talk a great game about accountability but that's all it is - talk.

Show some spine for a change Mitch.

Whew!
I sure like this debate, and this Dan fellow.

But back to the original post, I thought that "As a Republican..." letter seemed awfully fishy.

At the same time, the Bush Administration has veered far from traditional conservative and libertarian values, so it makes sense that there are Republicans disgruntled with Bush & Co, whether or not they're registered with the GOP.

And Mitch, I wasn't the one who brought up the income/education/ill-informed aspects of this "discussion". That was Josh.

I had already established that CBS Viewers as well as FOX News viewers were less informed as evidenced by the study cited.

Wanna see? Here it is:

"CBS News viewers are among the stupidest and most uninformed viewers. Among... but not the worst.

That's right... CBS viewers were second, right behind FOX NEWS."

Josh responded:

"Fox's audience earns more per-capita, and is better-educated, than the mainstream audience. That's why advertisers like it so much. Now, are those traits compatible with being "stupid?""

If you want to be consistent, you really should call out Josh for trying to argue that making more money and having more years of education makes a person more informed.

Again, So you understand, I never said, more educated", "more money" and "stupid" are somehow connected.

I did say FOX viewers are the least informed among the alphabet news organizations.

I did say advertisers want a gullible audience, not an educated one.

I did say the more education you had, typically, the higher your income is.

I also did say that in my experience, more education does not necessarily assure greater intelligence or increased capacity to perform.

but I never said there was a causality connection between these.

Again, you're drawing the connections to change the context of my words. Shame Shame Shame...

"And Mitch, I wasn't the one who brought up the income/education/ill-informed aspects of this "discussion". That was Josh."

In response to your citing a self-serving "study" that showed, lo and behold, that Fox viewers wuz dum.

"I had already established that CBS Viewers as well as FOX News viewers were less informed as evidenced by the study cited."

Er, yeah. And as noted before, you "established" it with a bogus push poll survey. Hardly dispositive.

"If you want to be consistent, you really should call out Josh for trying to argue that making more money and having more years of education makes a person more informed."

He was responding to what seemed to me like a tacit claim that earnings and education makes you dum.

"Again, So you understand, I never said, more educated", "more money" and "stupid" are somehow connected.

I did say FOX viewers are the least informed among the alphabet news organizations."

Right. And yet it was pointed out that Fox has better audience demographics - earnings, education, etc - which only supports your premise if you assume that earnings and education makes yoo dummer. Generally it does not.

"I also did say that in my experience, more education does not necessarily assure greater intelligence or increased capacity to perform."

Your anecdotal evidence is duly noted.

"Again, you're drawing the connections to change the context of my words. Shame Shame Shame..."

Whatever. And the end of the day, what you're doing is trying to make a self-adulatory point that Fox viewers is dummer than you is, by using a self-serving push poll whose methodology and questions, to the best of my knowledge, were never revealed, but whose "Well-informed" results tended to stick closest to MSM/lefty orthodoxy. And I'm pointing it out.

"Show some spine for a change Mitch."

OK. "Quit wasting everyone's time with your puerile regurgutations of DNC talking points".

I feel better already.

Wait a minute...

Earlier, you claimed

"I read it LONG before you did. Sorry."

But now you say...

"...what you're doing is trying to make a self-adulatory point that Fox viewers is dummer than you is, by using a self-serving push poll whose methodology and questions, to the best of my knowledge, were never revealed"

They were revealed Mitch... In the study you allegedly read LONG before I did...

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

You'd better stop before your credibility scores hit the negative numbers.

Dan,

Get over yourself. The public read the headlines: "FOX VIEWERS AR DUM, PBS VEWERS AR SMARTEEZ". They didn't read the study, the "Methodology" that basically equated "well-informed" with "believes the official party line".

The point being that the media - and you, natch, Dan - express this survey out of context, as fact, when it is in fact a self-serving massage of convenient statistics.

You keep scrambling to prove to yourself that Fox viewers, even though they are a better advertising demographic in terms of money and education than, say, CNN or CNBC or MSNBC, are still less intelligent and capable. Got any studies on that, Dan, or is it just your personal prejudice leaking out?

"it is in fact a self-serving massage of convenient statistics."

This coming from a guy who states that the polls questions and methodoloy were never revealed...

You don't like the results so in your mind, the study must be faulty.

Here's a pretty simple challenge Mitch. Go through the study and illustrate for me which specific questions demonstrate push polling?

Don't paraphrase the question. Simply state the question as delivered to the respondent and explain why it's a push poll question.

And here is an example of a push poll question for comparison...

If you knew John McCain had a mixed race child, would you be more or less likely to vote for him.

Does that soud familiar Mitch? Bush's people used that one before the primaries in 1999 but I'm sure you knew that already.

Since Karl Roves mentor Lee Atwater wrote the book on push polling, this should be pretty easy for you.

Hey Mitch,

I realize you're hard at work proving your claims of push polling but I thought you might want to take a stab at his one too...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/01/MNGHRDHP4R1.DTL

I'm still really looking forward to your analysis.

I find allof your comments back and forth very interesting, but you come back to "As A Republican" and it bothers me that you can assume that I am not. I went to the my local caucaus, I paid my money to the Republican Party, I went to the Itasca County Convention. I even wrote articles like "If You Vote For Kerry, Don't Wear that NO War button." I thought the party had a big tent, but I guess maybe the religious right has closed the door. James Glaser after all.