Skip to main content

Just heard on Rachel Maddow's radio show, and I couldn't belive it, but I searched nypost.com and it's true.

New York Post GOSSIP columnist Richard Johnson has published Keith Olbermann's RESIDENTIAL address, right down to his apartment number.

I refuse to put up a link to the story, but if you search their site you can find it.

Reprehensible, disgusting, appalling.  I don't think there are words enough to condemn this.

Sure, for the intrepid it would likely be easy enough to search public records to find this information, but to publish it in a newspaper?

Am I over-reactng?  Given the ongoing rivalry between MSNBC's Olbermann and Murdoch owned Fox "News" Channel's Bill O'Reilly, this smacks of a disgusting breach of journalistic integrity and taking a profesional feud into the personal.

Here are a few contacts where you can lodge a complaint:

Online Editorial and News: Erle Norton webeditor@nypost.com  
Letters to the Editor: letters@nypost.com  
Editorials, Columnists: letters@nypost.com  
Page Six: Richard Johnson rjohnson@nypost.com
Administration: Anne Aquilina aaquilina@nypost.com

UPDATE: In the heat of the moment I neglected to give the context of the story in question.  The State of NY has filed a tax judgement against Mr. Olbermann, and that's what passes muster for the Post to publish his home address.  I'm shaking with anger over this.

Thanks to sistermoon for this comment:

I just sent a "tip"

to Media Matters about this:

mm-tips@mediamatters.org

Please do the same, if you have the time. This really needs serious attention.

With the prevalence of celebrity stalkers, this is not only a journalistic ethics breach, but could also pose a threat to Keith's safety.

Originally posted to figurefive on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Looks like Fox and O'Reilly are losing it. (12+ / 0-)

    Perhaps it's lawsuit time?

    Or just the people's justice to the New York Post.

    "There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08

    by TomP on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:04:56 PM PDT

    •  Unbelievable... (4+ / 0-)

      Didn't Keith get some fake anthrax or something sent to him a couple of years ago?  I may be thinking of someone else.  I say hold Murdoch responsible personally.  I'm gonna look for that article.

      •  I found the article (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        figurefive, TomP

        Being on that website makes me feel like I need an acid bath.  I had to see it to believe it, there is no limit to how low they will sink.

      •  make no mistake, that's Murdoch's wish (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        second gen, figurefive, TomP

        The address was published by Murdoch with O'Reilly's nagging, with the hope that one of their listeners or readers would carry out such an act.

        I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

        by davefromqueens on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  (sigh) (0+ / 0-)

          Another comment attributing a controversial action by someone with no sourcing.

          I don't suppose you have a link to establish that O'Reilly "nagged" Murdoch to publish Olbermann's address?

          Of course you don't.

          davefromqueens--Citizen narcissist, flogger, hack, ambulance chaser, propagandist. Note -- everything he writes at DK is legal advice and meant to be construed as such.

          I shall not rest until vitriolic, hate-mongering, smear merchants from 4th rate law schools are annoying gadflies limited to offering minor comments on legitimate diaries once or twice a year.

          "I drank what"? -Socrates

          by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:10:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  disgusting! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MajorFlaw, figurefive

    John W. McCain, Bush's third term.

    by aaraujo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:08:12 PM PDT

  •  For what purpose? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lost, MajorFlaw, figurefive

    In what context?

    "A person is as free as they believe themselves to be off." - Fortune cookie

    by The Termite on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:09:05 PM PDT

    •  Context was a story about a tax judgement (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lost, petral, Mad Union Electrician

      NY State had filed a judgement against Mr. Olbermann.

      "nothing" the unjust man complained "is just" / ("or un-" the just rejoined) -ee cummings

      by figurefive on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:10:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He Didn't Pay Back Taxes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Termite, bablhous, figurefive

      ...on his corporation last year, apparently. However, there was absolutely no context for Johnson (a colossal douchebag)to use the address, save for the fact some reporter asked him a question about it as he entered his building.

      Trust none of what you hear. And less of what you see. This is what will be. ~ Bruce Springsteen

      by lost on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Termite, figurefive

        ...I have got to type faster. Apologies to those who answered before me.

        Trust none of what you hear. And less of what you see. This is what will be. ~ Bruce Springsteen

        by lost on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:12:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  These asshats (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          figurefive, State Department

          better hope I don't fine Billo's address... I'll be flinging poo from the sidewalk.

          •  FINE=FIND EOM (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Termite
          •  You'd respond to thuggery with (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tecampbell, figurefive, voila

            thuggery of your own?  How enlightened.

            •  Yes because flinging poo (0+ / 0-)

              from the sidewalk is a reasonable response and definitely qualifies as thuggery, especially when primates do it.  

              •  I know bill oh's address (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                figurefive

                It's so tempting

                so tempting

                so very very tempting.

                (I know I'd say if he ever released something like that against me)

                I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                by davefromqueens on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:37:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Luckily (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  davefromqueens, figurefive

                  Thats what seperates us from them.

                •  Dave, believe it or not I'm glad you're here. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Termite, tecampbell, figurefive, voila

                  What's going on in this diary is exactly what I've been telling you for the better part of a year.  What you are doing with Hannity is no different in kind from what Murdoch's Post's gossip columnist did to Olbermann.  I really want you to read the reactions that people are having to this slimy tactic and think about it.

                  •  And I should point out that this is the second (5+ / 0-)

                    time that you have volunteered the fact that you possess the home address of a RW media figure.  Is anyone else paying attention?

                    •  not denying it (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      figurefive

                      When the Mike Stark incident came out I learned it then, came across it on the "internets."  Actually was accidental.

                      As for my Expose Hannity Express, everything I have on him is legit.

                      But let's get back to your original point which is a fair one.

                      At what point does one fight fire with fire?

                      What you might be saying to yourself is this:

                      Dave KNOWS all this information but doesn't release it publicly.  

                      As for releasing the info on Hannity I have not done that publicly either although I have the right to in my view considering that they (via the Detestable One) divulged my real name which of course led to my address and then a bunch of vicious dirt was smeared about me in Freeper land. (And no I'm not regurgitating it, it didn't go far.)

                      I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                      by davefromqueens on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:39:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How could you? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BraveheartDC

                        Deny it, that is.

                        At what point does one fight fire with fire?

                        I don't believe in fighting fire with fire;  you only end up with a bigger fire and there are no guarantees that only the 'right' people will get burned.  One does not effectively highlight the thuggish nature and underlying threat contained in this sort of outing by doing it to them.  When you do, the emphasis shifts away from thuggish tactics as both sides are guilty and becomes a question of who started it/deserved it.  That's not the discussion  I want, dave.

                        Dave KNOWS all this information but doesn't release it publicly.

                        What bothers me is not that you have the information but that you brag about it as if acquiring O'Really and Hannity's personal info is some sort of accomplishment.  As I said earlier, it's difficult to imagine a legitimate use for that info.

                        considering that they (via the Detestable One) divulged my real name

                        Maybe.  At best it's a maybe, but even if you have some sort of 'right' to release it you don't have the right to drag this website into your feud by revealing it here.  This is a place for grownups not temper tantrums.  Pursue your legal remedies and leave it at that.

                        a bunch of vicious dirt was smeared about me in Freeper land.

                        I'm sorry to hear that but it appears that you laid the groundwork for this yourself.  BTW, I don't know your secret identity and haven't read any of the smears.  They could be exploring Jupiter on RW radio and I would be blissfully unaware.

                        •  response (0+ / 0-)

                          and I'll remain civil as you did in yours.

                          1.  I don't claim knowing 3 addresses that took a collective 40 seconds to attain, and 2 of which were simply found by reading articles for my knowledge with no intent to find said addresses, is somehow some great accomplishment.  My knowledge of such has been mischaracterized for weeks by some.
                          1.  The question of where that line is drawn, what tactics to use or not use, when to fight fire with fire (and when not to) is something you and I have different ethical and moral lines.  For the record I do not approve of using the tactics you mention on people for no reason but applying conservatism to conservatives (my phrase) or Hammurabi's Code X3 (Don't throw the first punch but if a conservative punches you, pound him 3x as hard minimum) are to me options that should be available and options I will not intellectually preclude myself from using.

                          I think it would be a great debate to have at something like the Great American Thinkoff and it would be a terrifc topic to argue about but I just think we have to agree to disagree.  I haven't walked your shoes in life nor you mine.  Perhaps my experiences in life have shown me that there are times where one must fight back against the bully on the bully's level. (The last thing Rupert Murdoch wants is a 100 "left wingers" stalking his apt but if Murdoch or Robert Johnson or Bill Oh understand that that is what they'll get if they pull these shenanigans, it is probably the only thing that will get them to stop.

                          See if Jesse Watters or Bill Oh stalk me like that or release my address, I may very well be outside their homes with a camcorder filming them for my news stories and I'll have plenty of friends.

                          I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                          by davefromqueens on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:32:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MajorFlaw, tecampbell

                            The question of where that line is drawn, what tactics to use or not use, when to fight fire with fire (and when not to) is something you and I have different ethical and moral lines.

                            The difference is, MajorFlaw seems to know where the moral and ethical line is.

                            You clearly don't.

                            "I drank what"? -Socrates

                            by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:17:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what you blockquoted (0+ / 0-)

                            would be a great area for a civil debate in some other forum.

                            Where is that moral and ethical line?

                            Perhaps I know where it is and you and MF think it is somewhere else.  Who's right?  That's subjective.

                            I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                            by davefromqueens on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:23:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Amazing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MajorFlaw, figurefive

                  Are you still bragging about this?  That you use your time collecting the personal, home address of RW media figures? (You've admitted to having Hannitys address as well).

                  Note -- everything davefromqueens writes at DK is legal advice and meant to be construed as such.

                  "I drank what"? -Socrates

                  by BraveheartDC on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sticking to facts (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes I have the address of Murdoch (learned that one tonight actually in 20 seconds), O'Reilly (learned that a while back unintentionally, and Hannity (learned that in 10 secs at the time, he's since moved to a new location which was publicized in the newspaper)

                    I confess to using this 40 secs of my life as charged.  

                    And I confess spending more than 40 secs typing this message.

                    Hope you had a great weekend.

                    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                    by davefromqueens on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:41:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Personal Information (0+ / 0-)

                      Yes I have the address of Murdoch (learned that one tonight actually in 20 seconds), O'Reilly (learned that a while back unintentionally, and Hannity (learned that in 10 secs at the time, he's since moved to a new location which was publicized in the newspaper)

                      Use of LEXIS for such purposes is strictly forbidden.

                      You know you're being watched, don't you?

                      "I drank what"? -Socrates

                      by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:56:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I never (0+ / 0-)

                        and I mean NEVER

                        use westlaw, lexis or any other such outfit for anything other than a legit legal purpose.

                        The addresses of the 3 were obtained through other sources.

                        I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                        by davefromqueens on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well then (0+ / 0-)

                          You have nothing to worry about.

                          ;)

                          "I drank what"? -Socrates

                          by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  So... (0+ / 0-)

                          You admit that you have these addresses for other than a "legit, legal purpose".

                          Interesting. And useful.

                          "I drank what"? -Socrates

                          by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  not what I said (0+ / 0-)

                            Assuming you are a lawyer, you know that there are certain ethical and professional responsibilities you have.

                            At the top of that list are some very basics.

                            1.  Don't commingle funds. (inapplicable here)
                            1.  Don't knowingly lie to a tribunal.
                            1.  Preserve confidentiality.  
                            1.  Don't misuse your position.  For example, you reference certain databases where one can access certain information that the general public can not.  What I said is that I have NEVER violated my responsibilities in regard to such and NEVER would have.
                            1.  The info I have on the 3 addresses was NOT attained through any such database and two of those addresses were known to me long before I was admitted to the Bar. (Murdoch the 3rd was learned yesterday in a thread at another site.)
                            1.  If you are really an attorney, and I am suspect of that claim, then you know it is improper to make such an allegation of another attorney without a modicum of proof.

                            I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                            by davefromqueens on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Um, Dave (0+ / 0-)

                            Thanks for the (totally irrelevant) lesson on PR.

                            Dave, just because an attorney has certain ethical obligations does not mean I believe you follow  all of them...indeed, some of your actions on this site (such as encouraging people to harass private citizens, conduct citizens arrests, etc.) are in fact, highly unethical, and possibly illegal.  

                            Furthermore, I haven't made any "allegations". Show me where I have accused you of anything.

                            Once again, link please.

                            And I'm sorry if you are "suspect" of the claim that I'm an attorney...suffice it to say, I've been one a lot longer than you have, have practiced in more areas than you, and went to a better law school (though I must admit this would not be hard to do). If anyone  is suspect about being a lawyer, it is you, who had the temerity to suggest that people on this site attempt a citizens arrest of a person who has not been accused of anything (which would be tantamount to false imprisonment, a crime), and making the pronouncement that Liz Trotter is guilty of a crime with a laughable legal analysis.  Not to mention your ridiculous assertion that you had a case of false imprisonment against Hanity's people, when most lawyers on this site told you that you clearly didn't.  

                            But, prove me wrong.  Show me the link where the Secret Service has made an arrest of Liz Trotter?  Tell me the status of your lawsuit?

                            That's what I thought.  

                            The irony is...I do believe you are a lawyer...just a poorly trained, unethical, bad one.

                            "I drank what"? -Socrates

                            by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Retraction (0+ / 0-)

                            The irony is...I do believe you are a lawyer...just a poorly trained, unethical, bad one.

                            I retract this partially.  You may be a fine lawyer in your professional life, and do a competent job.

                            I'm refering primarily to what you write on this site...your consistently flawed legal analysis, your advocating people do unethical and illegal things, etc.

                            By the way...a bit of advice.  Merely saying that you are "not giving legal advice" does not inoculate you from liability if you encourage someone to commit a crime.  I can't really comment much on it, but if I were you'd I'd scale back on this type of thing.

                            "I drank what"? -Socrates

                            by BraveheartDC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't claim (0+ / 0-)

                            to be an expert.

                            As for my background, I support myself, rent, etc..

                            So let's see what my choices were.

                            A.  Go to a rock solid law school full time and pay a fortune for 3 years and have no job during the time and be unable to pay rent OR

                            B.  Go to a lousy law school (and it was) part time, work during the days, get approximately 1/3rd of my tuition paid for so I could use that money to live and because my resume/Lsat score boasted their profile average and be comfortable in my own abilities to learn what needs to be learned using my innate intelligence, hard work, people skills, and personality.

                            Hey I like being the underdog.  We all make choices of avenues to pursue and the time to put in it.

                            If I decided to put in the time for example I'd have been the United States Scrabble Champion.  (It would take about 40 hrs a week for 6 months.  I was ranked very high after 2 tournaments and a 12-2 record which should have been 14-0 had it not been for some stupid mistakes which were a result of me not knowing changes that had been made to the scrabble dictionary.)  (Was kind of fun wiping the floor of people with Ivy education's and walking intellectual circles around them -- been there done that many times over in life.)

                            Please feel free to underestimate my intelligence and ability to make a difference.  Please feel free not to take me serious.  If you truly are a libertarian who thinks that MCcain is "way to the left of me" and you have no intention of voting for McCain or Obama, you should admire someone like me. I'm sure you've read books like the Fountainhead  Then again are you really a libertarian because if you were, then you probably find the likes of all those RW talk show hosts and the Republican Party unpalatable and be voting for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.

                            I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                            by davefromqueens on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:00:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  moreover (0+ / 0-)

                            Think of the movie Good Will Hunting without those particular emotional issues.

                            I much prefer hanging with the salt of the earth than the ivory tower elitists.

                            oh as for lawyers.  Some very well known ones in my family.  They teach me well.

                            I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

                            by davefromqueens on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:05:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you serious dave? (0+ / 0-)

                            Good Will Hunting, one of my favorite movies, is about a kid with Einstein like Genius...one in a million intellect.  And that's what you're comparing yourself to? You're more like Will Hunting with the emotional issues and not the intelligence.

                            Dave, I'm sorry...but you are narcissistic. Why do you constantly make these posts announcing to the world how intelligent your are?  If you are truly a genius on that level, it should show in your writing, and your legal analysis.  You should not try to have to broadcast it.

                            And frankly, it doesn't show.  I'm not questioning that you're a reasonably bright guy, but genius?  I'm not seeing it.

                            "I drank what"? -Socrates

                            by BraveheartDC on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Responsible media (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MajorFlaw, figurefive

      usually redacts information like this.

      But we are talking about NewsCorp.

      January 20. 2009 cannot come soon enough.

      by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MOTHER Effin' what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    figurefive

    What kind of rationale could they give for doing something like that?  It doesn't even matter because whatever it is it's PURE garbage.  I hope Olbermann takes Murdoch to court.  He's probably peeved that Olbermann responded to the crap Murdoch said about him being 'crazy'. MAN I hope KO sues him.

    Not only is another world possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. Arundhati Roy

    by Denni on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:24:23 PM PDT

    •  I wonder what recourse there is? (0+ / 0-)

      The article seems to try and immunize itself by pointing out they get the info from public records.

      From a standpoint of integrity and fair play (and clearly Murdoch, Fox and the Post have none) it's reprehensible, but illegal?  Hmm, I wonder.

      "nothing" the unjust man complained "is just" / ("or un-" the just rejoined) -ee cummings

      by figurefive on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:46:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  when Mike sTark went to O'reilly's house (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    figurefive, BonzoDogBand

    The theory was that the way to dissuade these thugs was to let them know that you can fight them on their terms.

    Curious what everyone thinks about it.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:35:05 PM PDT

  •  I just sent a "tip" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    figurefive

    to Media Matters about this:

    mm-tips@mediamatters.org

    Please do the same, if you have the time. This really needs serious attention.

    With the prevalence of celebrity stalkers, this is not only a journalistic ethics breach, but could also pose a threat to Keith's safety.

    "I run the kitchen, so I can stand the heat" - Nikki Giovanni

    by sistermoon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:26 PM PDT

  •  Where's the tip jar for figurefive on this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    figurefive

    Would be good to get it rec'd so more dkos see it.

    •  I didn't feel right asking for tips for this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nicolemm

      And was torn about pimping for rec's.

      Granted more visibility would stir up greater reaction, but it would also raise exposure to potential lurkers and trolls from the other side.

      It's just such an unseemly story.

      Thanks for the mention, though!

      "nothing" the unjust man complained "is just" / ("or un-" the just rejoined) -ee cummings

      by figurefive on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:19:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I saw that too. I was pissed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    figurefive

    But I have to say, I was tempted to publish miss "I'm not a racist but I won't vote for an inadequate black man" Harriet Christian... but I won't.

    Because it's reprehensible. Especially in light of all the famous people who are stalked on a regular basis.

    "If Appalachia was a country, Hillary could be President." ~Ron Reagan

    by second gen on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:26:38 PM PDT

  •  Murdoch's Rosebud (0+ / 0-)

    August 1915, reporter Keith Murdoch endures arrest and further potential consequences to report on the abuses of troops by military commanders.  He was kept safe from government persecution by the support of a powerful British press baron. He was later knighted for his efforts.

    In 1959 Rohan Rivett, Rupert Murdoch’s mentor(son of now deceased Sir Keith Murdoch) and the Editor in Chief of Murdoch’s newspaper at the time, spearheaded a story which embarrassed the Australian government but saved an innocent aborigine’s life.  The government brought several sedition charges against Rivett and the newspaper which they were cleared of except for one which lingered for months until it was withdrawn by the government.  Shortly thereafter, in spite of the fact that circulation and profits were much higher since Rivett took over the paper, Rivett was fired by Rupert Murdoch.  Thereafter, according to contemporary observers, the government also began to receive more favorable press from Murdoch’s papers.  The child learned his place was to be found in the dichotomous role of slave/master to government.

    So, the father speaks out against a tyranny and is protected by a powerful press baron.
    The child becomes a media baron and persecutes those who challenge tyranny.  
    The child would seem to have cowered into yellow journalism where the father stood firm in objectivity.  

    One can’t help but wonder if he’s a bit like Kissinger, (who as a child fled the terror of the Nazi’s and went on to support atrocious governments and their actions) and twisted himself into what twisted him.  The child has become a distorter, distracter, and denouncer of truth in black and white.   The child who for months and years has slung mud, now sing’s the praises of Obama.  How powerful the archetype of "your father comes home" is to a child.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site