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 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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site