Not Exactly Confirming That "Journalists Are Held To A High Standard" Schtick
Tim "Not The Author" O'Brien in a Blog House post about Michael Brodkorb's role in the DFL's internecine squabbling over the fifth CD, in referring to Sycophant, according to Merriam-Webster:
Latin sycophanta slanderer, swindler, from Greek sykophantEs slanderer, from sykon fig + phainein to show
Tim "Not The Author" O'Brien is a "journalist", at a newspaper that trumpets its' superiority over bloggers based on its resources in "gatekeeping" and "editing" and "fact-checking" (which are, by the way, nearly non-existant at the Strib, as a matter of organizational fact), and their supposed commitment to journalistic ethics and "accuracy".
And if he's a "trained" "journalist", he certainly knows that words have meanings, and that they matter.
"Sycophant" has a deeply negative connotation (confirmed by its definition); its synonyms include:
yes-man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, minion, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler (or groveller), idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, convert, disciple, follower, partisan, pupil, votary
Is Gary M. Miller any of these things? I will let the reader be the judge...
...but what we're really judging here is Tim "Not The Author" O'Brien, and the word he chooses to describe the bloggers that are part of his beat.
So I'm wondering: has he ever called the always-reliable kids from MNPublius "yes-m[e]n; hanger[s]-on or leech[es]? Has Rew - a paid operative of a left-leaning flakery - a "parasite, sponge, sponger or henchman"? Or referred to Mark Gisleson, who turned his entire blog over to Ford Bell (reportedly for money - as opposed to Miller, who does his blog for free) as "lackey, minion, satellite, slave, stooge", or Jeff Fecke as an " admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler (or groveller), idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, convert, disciple, follower, partisan, pupil, votary..."
No?
Why?
Does he know something we don't?
Or might it be something else?
UPDATE: Gisleson got no money. My bad. I apologize for not confirming that before writing it.
And - let me make this clearer (or make it clear in the first place): my examples (MNPublius, Gisleson, Rew and Fecke) were chosen not to highlight any behavior on any of their parts, but to illustrate Tim "Not The Author" O'Brien's gross gaffe in tone (for a "journalist").
I apologize for not stating that clearly, and most of all for the factual error.
Posted by Mitch at
September 10, 2006 09:45 AM
| TrackBack
Darn, darn, darn that Librul media. They must be in cahoots with them Lefty bloggers. Yep. That's for sure...
...not.
C'mon, Mitch. Stop acting like Right-wingers are victims.
BTW, how's everyone on the Right doing this week? They must all be tired after all that bloviating on the ABC schlock-u-drama. Remember, you all need to be ready to continue making the case that free speech... is... under... fire... holdonasec... Weren't you just complaining about the freedom of the press here? Dangit! You people have to pick a side: Are you for or against the First Amendment? Stop waffling.
Posted by: Moses at September 10, 2006 05:30 PMTo save money I shut down Norwegianity, cloned and tweaked the template, and blogged per campaign instructions. I got paid a WHOPPING flat fee that worked out to $10 an hour.
At no time did Ford Bell or anyone on his campaign have any direction, control or say so of any kind regarding Norwegianity and I resent your saying otherwise. I shut down that blog and let it grow cold before starting Blog for Bell so we could get accurate stats and not just my old readership.
None of this turned out that well for me: I lost audience for my old blog, my candidate bowed out and in all candidness the blog I did for Ford didn't meet my expectations. I'm not very frigging happy about any of it and I'm even less happy to have you gratuitously hinting at improprieties on my part.
Oh, and "reportedly"? If by that you mean MY SPELLING OUT THE DETAILS BEFORE AFTER AND DURING EVERYTHING, yeah, I got paid. Hell, I was on a national list of bloggers who quit their blogs to work for campaigns. "Reportedly" is the kind of smart-mouthed wording that gets Brodkorb so much love. It's not a lie, but it sure doesn't help remind anyone that I was completely transparent right down to my pay.
NO POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR PARTY STAFF or anyone else ever contacted me about doing work or PR for the party in conjunction with Norwegianity. There is NO there there. 100% of my political instructions in Minnesota have come from the Bell campaign, and only during that period when I did the blog for them.
I resent your implications because I stood on my head to do all of this the right way and I'm not please to see you insinuating I didn't.
Posted by: Mark Gisleson at September 10, 2006 06:53 PMA more simple definition for sycophant.
Mitch Berg around actual movers and shakers in the Republican party.
or
Mitch's neo-con readers
Posted by: ted at September 10, 2006 10:38 PMMark,
EXACTLY MY POINT!
You didn't do any of those things! EITHER DID GARY MILLER!
If it's unfair for me to say that about you (and fail to disclaim it properly - I do apologize), then why is it not wrong, for starters, for O'Brien to do it to Miller for the same reasons...
...and, given the degree to which the Strib hides behind the "We're Journalists, We Are Objective and Detached!" myth, isn't it also atrocious that O'Brien reverted to using such an intensely judgemental tone in his piece *in referring to Miller?*
Ted,
You remain a waste of time and bandwidth. But otherwise, feel free to post away!
Posted by: mitch at September 11, 2006 10:22 AMMoses,
Waffling? Huh?
Help me out here; where am I calling for O'Brien to be censored by the government?
The answer to bad speech is more speech.
I can say you're utterly wrong (and irrational, and a guy with a dubious command of basic logic)and that Tim O'Brien is a hack; that isn't "censorship".
The disctinction DOES mean something to you, doesn't it?
Posted by: mitch at September 11, 2006 10:28 AMMark,
Note my mea culpa in the update. I apologize for the factual error.
Posted by: mitch at September 11, 2006 10:31 AM