Shot In The Dark: Coleman Discovers Buh-LAW-gers

February 21, 2006

Coleman Discovers Buh-LAW-gers

Scott Johnson with an interesting point about the two columns "Non-Monkey" Nick Coleman has written about the Gold Star Families' ad campaign:

And what of the Minneapolis Star Tribune? Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman has now devoted two hysterical columns to condemnations of the advertisements. Coleman's first column made a basic error of fact as a result of its reliance on a far-left Web site and cited the testimony of a Kerry delegate to the 2004 Democratic convention as a "nonpartisan" source. (John fisked the column here.)

Coleman's second column fastened on "the Delores Kesterson issue" -- attacking the Gold Star Families ad for presenting the stepmother of Erik Kesterson in lieu of his mother. For this bizarre point Coleman relied without attribution on his friend "Hesiod"at Daily Kos. Coleman overlooked fellow St. Paulite Merilee Carlson -- the genuine biological mother of Michael Carlson -- in this rant.

Oh, Coleman overlooked a lot.

Coleman - he of the "well-developed baloney detector" that has generated so much mirth this past year or so - based his "sourcing" on (as Scott noted) a Kossack named "Hesiod".

We've run into Hesiod before on this blog.

In fact, we've run into him quite a bit. Feel free to flip through some of the lad's greatest hits on this space.

And then remember - he is Nick Coleman's source.

Nick is a "journalist"; his experience, "baloney detector" and all of the fabled checks and balances of the media - of the Star/Tribune - have brought you this: the rantings of one of the most deranged of the fever swamp bloggers, delivered straight and unchecked to your computer by Nick Coleman, Ace Journalist.

Rocketman has more, as does Trunk.

OK, mainstream media defenders out there (and you pop up in my comment section contantly) - it's your turn. Defend Coleman from:

...the charge that he is acting in league with the DFL
...that he's given up any rational claim to credibility by passing off, uncritically, the rantings of "Hesiod" as news?

Did Coleman decide to go out on a bah-LAWG, perhaps by trying out that Google contraption on the Internets, trip across Hesiod's piece, and run with it? That would be an "innocent" mistake - and make Coleman of no more value as an information source than a ba-LAWG-er.

Or was Coleman fed the Hesiod piece by someone? Someone at the DFL? Someone from a PAC or Soft-Money group that opposes the ads? It'd explain how something as half-assed as Hesiod's piece would slip past Coleman's "Baloney Detector" - but it'd be because Coleman is a stooge of the DFL or its minions.

Or is there another explanation?

Feel perfectly free to let us know.

Posted by Mitch at February 21, 2006 12:02 PM | TrackBack

Comments

During the Cold War, National Review asked this question: It may be that Democrats do not have Soviet interests at heart; but if they did, how would they act any differently?

Similarly, it may be that the Star-Tribune is not merely the Antique Media wing of the DFL; but if it were, how would it act any differently?

Posted by: nathan bissonette at February 21, 2006 01:58 PM

A friend of mine was recently abused by Nick Coleman, and I dream of his departure from the Red Star-Tribune. To me, the biggest issue isn't his taking of "information" from Kos, but rather the huge disregard for the basic principles of rhetoric ordinarily taught and reinforced in Journalism 101. How nonthinkers such as Coleman (and Al Franken) get precedence over thoughtful liberals is completely beyond me.

Posted by: Robert Perry at February 21, 2006 03:52 PM

Nathan, your comment is spot-on. I've been struggling (and failing) for months to say the same thing: Anti-war Liberals might not have the Islamists' interests at heart, but if they did how would they act differently? Calling for Bush's impeachment, calling him a war criminal, saying (PB) that UBL is winning the 'ideological argument,' calling for a withdrawal of US troops, focusing on Gitmo (which I don't have a problem with) and Abu Graib (an aberration that was handled better than any military in the world would handle it), shouting "Oil" but disregarding the crimes of the UN's Oil for Fraud, etc. etc. etc. With enemies like that UBL doesn't need friends!
Nick Coleman is simply one of the saddest examples of this. The mainstream news is one long commercial highlighting everything that is going wrong in Iraq. Along comes a group of people who want to honor their sons' sacrifices by publicizing what they accomplished and the progress that is being made, and Coleman disregards the ad because of a mom/stepmom question. Then there's the issue of bloggers. When a Powerline reader starts a chain reaction that proves the CBS documents to be utterly bogus, it's a Rove coordinated conspiracy. By contrast Soros-funded lefty blogs are credible sources.
The truly sad thing is that the commercials shouldn't be necessary. The justification for the battle of Iraq and the unprecedented level of success we have achieved should simply be understood.

Posted by: chriss at February 21, 2006 11:09 PM

Just wanted to update you guys on the great "progress" we are making in Iraq. I'm sure Midwest heroes will be updating their "Progress Report" with this information as soon as possible, correct?

As for Chriss and his asshat Neo-McCarthyite comment, the best way to refiute your asisnaine and disgusting rant is to send you to my proposal for how we could win the war in Iraq and get out completely in less than two years.

The fact is, we want to win. You want to lose. You put George W. Bush and the GOP's political heinies over our national security. I am all for going after the terrorists.

But Bush is such an incompenet boob, he has made things ten times worse.

Posted by: Hesiod at February 22, 2006 10:10 AM

Hyperlinks don't work in your comment section, eh?

Here you go, then.

http://kydem.mydd.com/story/2005/8/26/95547/2349

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/in_iraq_bombing.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_shrine_1;_ylt=AkYQJK_Cd0cprLW47gZQo5NX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Posted by: Hesiod at February 22, 2006 10:14 AM

"Or is there another explanation?"

Mitch, if you would have actually read the diary you linked to, you would have found the answer to your questions rather then having to make stuff up:

==
But, the strongest, local, critic of Midwest Heroes has been Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist, Nick Coleman.

And this brings me to the subject of this diary!

Yesterday, I e-mailed my diary about Dolores Kesterson to Coleman, and he responded requesting more information. Yesterday, he published a column highlighting the Dolores Kesterson issue.

The full details of the issue are laid out in my Kesterson diary, and in Coleman's Feb. 16 column.
==

Posted by: Flash at February 22, 2006 10:50 AM

"As for Chriss and his asshat Neo-McCarthyite comment, the best way to refiute your asisnaine and disgusting rant is to send you to my proposal for how we could win the war in Iraq and get out completely in less than two years."

Hesiod HAS A PLAN!

Posted by: Ryan at February 22, 2006 02:23 PM

Yes. I had a plan.

http://kydem.mydd.com/story/2005/8/26/95547/2349

I have had some favorable comments on it from national security professionals.

IN any case, with the sectarian civil war raging in Iraq now, I think debating the Midwest liars for Bush is pretty much a waste of time.

Every time they run those ads, now, will generate guffaws and incredulous stares from the sane people of Minnesota.

And, I also encourage everyone to read my so-called "half-assed" diaries on them. Judge it for yourselves, and don't rely in a jackass lying hack such as Mitch to tell you about their quality.

Posted by: Hesiod at February 23, 2006 10:09 AM