Skip to main content

View Diary: CBS Reports a Daily Kos Hypothesis: Romney Avoided Prison via '09 Tax-Cheat Amnesty (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This comment you wrote in your (13+ / 0-)

    diary is more than a bit frightening.

    This diary censored on Daily Kos? (0+ / 0-)

    At 530am on 9/24, I checked most recommended, hotlisted & commented diary, and saw this one had been inexplicity removed from all rankings. I double-checked & see censorship as the only logical explanation, which is ironic given my quip that the narrative I painted dictated that I be the most censored, discredited academic in the US. Perhaps Daily Kos thought I was requesting to be blacklisted or censored. To be clear, I can still read my diary, but it's removal from the rankings significantly reduces likelihood others will stumble across it, and defeats purpose of the daily rankings.

    I took screen shots that prove this. Any explanations?

    The comments here + this mysterious "disappearing" this diary from the rankings suggest my hunch was close to the truth & raises the question of why DEMS or DailyKos would want to bury this, or was it just me personally? Perhaps, I anticipated Obama's October surprise, or it's aother tactic deal media & campaigns don't want public to think about.

    Less than an hour later, you did post a comment to disregard the comment. But you went someplace completely CT accusing this site of censoring you because your "hunch was close to the truth". Pretty bizarre.
    •  My laptop had been hacked & something similar (5+ / 0-)

      had recently happened on 2 other sites...one disappeared all past months of comments & was targeting/censoring specific people, who're advocating for transparency...in short, recent events lead me to suspect same fishiness, but I clearly am not accusing, but merely asking for explanation, assuming I was missing something.

      Thanks for making a big deal about 1 of 100+ comments in that blog to depict me as bizarre, even though I quickly said disegard it as I figured out what was going on. Must be important to you, at least.    

      •  You're new here. Chill out. (10+ / 0-)

        You're making me very uncomfortable with your persecution complex and conspiracy theories.

        Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

        by Clem Yeobright on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 05:15:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dueling persecution complexes (4+ / 0-)

          It's the new American pastime.

        •  Lots of things bother me about this. (18+ / 0-)

          This theory has been out there for months. Matt Yglesias wrote about it in July, it's been diaried here numerous times. So it isn't some new theory. And the CBS story is just strange, quoting a "journalist" at dKos with a "falsifiable theory". I've never seen an article in the MSM that is so poorly sourced and written. Call me skeptical.

          •  ok, you're skeptical (3+ / 0-)

            and you're making yourself quite a spectacle as well

            •  This is a community-moderated site. (4+ / 0-)

              You know what that means? It means it is our job to express skepticism when we are suspicious of something. You find nothing to be skeptical of here? Fine. But don't try to intimidate people who are doing what any good community member should do.

              •  Unclear what you're paranoid/supicious about (0+ / 0-)

                that I haven't addressed. Above, you cited one of my random comments from the origianl artical, depicting it as "frighteningly" suspicious, now you're being "suspicious of something."

                At least I specificed what didn't smell right & quickly corrected myself after seeking the most logical explanation.

                Like you, I was "suspicous" or puzzled why my little diary suddenly was seemingly going viral-ish, as I expected little attention, esp. since I openly admitted I hadn't researched the tax info that is out there, my main point was to show how I'd go about investigating, my hunch was based upon my superficial knowledge of issue, and I had no base of subscribers.

                Nothwithstanding the fact that it was hypocritical to depict me as "frighteningly" suspicious/skeptical before expressing the same sentiment, I think your skepticism of something you can't put your finger on is perfectly reasonable, but it should NOT be directed in my direction.

                Is it likely a mediocre article by someone who professes their virtual ignorance of the available evidence spontaneously & rapidly get shared 70,000+ times & get cited on a CBS website?

                You're right about the sourcing. Why report a hypothesis articulated by someone who professes their lack of interest in seriously researching topic, instead of one of the more established writers who've expressed the same hypothesis & done non-trivial research already? Why would a single local MSM outlet report my name specifically without establishing if I had any expertise/authority on the subject, who I was, instead of reporting about rumors in the blogosphere?

                I'll tell you it was one of the most uncharacteristic things I've written, and least (from my view) important.  

                You're right to smell something about the attention to this doesn't quite fit standard "laws" of behavior, but it's not my doing. I was transparent & woke to find this thing seeming to be the "free speech/press" working its magic...    

                Maybe you should be a journalist b/c that's the talent our investigative journalists need.

                •  There is no viral. There is no buzz. (0+ / 0-)

                  You wrote of something that countless others had already written. And a site run by CBS Local, a division of CBS Radio, posted an article about your diary. Not exactly "CBS", and not exactly viral. You did succeed in convincing 100 people here that there is a buzz. People here act like sheeple when told something good has happened. But some people here read the CBS Local story, and realize that article was not written by a journalist.

                  •  I agree w/ you, so why keep nagging me? (0+ / 0-)

                    My response to this vanished, so I'll recap briefly what wrote on 25th.

                    You keep criticizing me for things for things I never believed/said, or things that are beyond my control...even though I already agreed w/ some of your points.

                    You shame me for using word viral in some cases, when I use semi-viral, or viral-lite in various comments to describe response between "normal" range of sharing & mega-viral...can you specify at what precise point something is buzz, and then becomes viral?

                    You falsely imply I'm trying to inflate importance/buzz, or take credit for a hypothesis others previously discussed, when I explicitly clarify in original that IF I WERE ACTUALLY INVESTIGATING THIS QUESTION I WOULD DO PROPER RESEARCH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS HUNCH USED AS AN EXAMPLE IN MOCKING "TUTORIAL" FOR JOURNALISTS, repeatedly indicating I hadn't done more than superficia, passive skimming of headlines & it wasn' t objective to test/prove hypothesis.

                    I've listed others who've discussed this before in updated version (again, I hadn't bothered to research this before as it wasn't my point)

                    I agree the buzz and CBS article are suspicious. The CBS article was not standard journalism at all, and quite bizarre. It never happens in MSM. I've blogged about this.

                    You should focus on why previous mentions of this didn't get attention. You're right to suspect something fishy here, but it's not my doing. I wrote a mediocre critique of media & used this issue as example to illustrate a bigger point.

                    Maybe you should re-read my blogs. Maybe something else I've written better explains this bizarre level attention & surreal, unprofessional CBS article on a random blogger's musing.

          •  agree doc2--the amnesty theory is not new. It (5+ / 0-)

            may be true--but it certainly is NOT new.  As usual, the msm is light years behind the tubes.

            If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

            by livjack on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 07:05:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I was clear about my superficial knowledge (0+ / 0-)

            about this subject was based upon my inadvertant scanning of headlines that I came across issues I was researching, and didn't even intend on doing research as I normally would do to determine if my hypothesis was ridiculous b/c it had already been debunked or was facially implausible. Indeed, I thought it was one of worst pieces I've written in the past years...so go figure.

            Had I known about the Yglesias article you mention, I wouldn't have written this, and it wouldn't have generated this buzz.

            I trust you're correct that this rumor has been swirling around here, and if this is true, I can't explain why my article got legs, or why the CBS article was the way it was. Maybe it was the way I framed it, or maybe it was just luck, timing, or all the above.  

            Had I know this was going to get such attention & scrutiny, I wouldn't have published it until conducted proper research, but again, I'm clear about that & that I'm mostly trying to pressure media by showing how a person who wasn't following this issue could come with a plausible explanation of what Romney was hiding worth the damage of hiding it, and how this- even if wrong- could be enough to pressure him to disclose to prove it wrong. I was expecting a bunch of responses telling me this was ridiculous or had already been done, but the overwhelming bulk of responses have been positive and "Damn...I think you nailed it."

            I refrain from reading MSM b/c it's such crap much of the time. Apparently you hold them in such higher regard.

            If I get around to updating/correcting the orginal (e.g. amnesty was not reserved to Swiss banks), there's many things I'd correct, and I'd cite the articles you. Academics, scientists, & journalists often independently come up w/ the same idea, and battle over who was first. I trust you're correct, and I wouldn't pretend that I was first or proudly defend this theory subjected to rigorous testing & analysis. Perhaps part of the appeal to the others is that some average person simple said X seems to be the most logical, plausible, and why haven't people been harping on this...

            I don't think I'll delete the diary, however, as it seems to have done some good.

        •  Both labels are ridiculous & totally unfounded. (0+ / 0-)

          Asking if anyone knows why why 2 seemingly (to me) extremely improbable events co-occured (e.g. my diary shares go off the hook & then disappear from rankings) is not a "conspiracy theory"...it was a question I objectively investigated & resolved. Perhaps, "WTF?" would've been better phrasing. But doc2's choosing to highilight this question/selection & characterize it as "more than frightening" is frankly, disturbing and unfair. You allude to my multiple "conspiracy theories" when there were 0. Reporting that I'd been seriously hacked to put my initial response in context, is not a "persecution complex" as you say, both of which are labels used to unfairly discredit/stigmatize someone, as is saying such innocuous discourse "makes you uncomfortable," as if I'd done/said anything outside the range of community norms, based upon the comments I've read. I can deal w/ troll criticism & name calling, but believe it reinforces community norms to refute unfair, misrepresentative, unfounded labeling...if the person keeps nagging, then you know the are a troll. The original comment & responses like this just waste time/space & distract from the topic.  

    •  Nothing could be further from the truth (4+ / 0-)

      Yes, I see the desire for self-censorship on this site. Personally I see it as some sort of a "don't rock the boat, things could be worse" strategy.  

      Your wild guess - that the diarist believes it is because self-appointed censors think it is too close to the truth - is conjecture unsupported by the quote you have copied here.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site