I tried to comment on this story, which was innocuous enough on its face, but had a lot of heinous comments on it. I must admit I found it while perusing the Drudge Report, which I do on occasion to see what the enemy's talking points are at the moment. Read it if you like but you don't really need to in order to get the point of this diary.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
I have noticed that Drudge often links to blogs by one Jake Tapper of ABC news and it occurs to me that since the economics of websites are driven by hits, and Drudge generates a ton of hits for his linkees (if that is even a word), that certain "journalists" might write blog entries that pander to Drudge and his acolytes in order to earn the coveted link, score a bunch of hits, and line their pockets with ill-gotten cash.
Anyway I constructed a nice comment that I thought made a good counter-argument to a lot of the posts by neocons on the article, when lo and behold I received an error message from the website. It was a cryptic message suggesting that my comment was some kind of spam. I had posted plenty of comments on Jakes blogs and other ABC journalists' blogs and never gotten this message before now. Furthermore if you look at this blog there are numerous lengthy comments posted, spewing all sorts of neocon nonsense. In fact there are some that are completely off the wall, containing falsehoods about Obama that I had never seen as of yet, and I thought I had seen them all.
I didn't know what to make of all of this, but this was not the first time I disagreed with Mr. Tapper, so I wrote him an email, which I reproduced here:
I tried to comment on your article and it gave me an error message saying my comment was spam. I was merely trying to contradict the bogus Neocon comments posted underneath your article. This tends to happen when your article is linked to on the Drudge Report, you get a lot of racist, neo-Nazi, Klan members posting comments on your article, who post completely untrue nonsense.
Someday I hope the standard of review for libel set forth in NY Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) will be enforced in the digital age. If that ever came to pass your employer ABC / Disney, and you personally, would be liable for damages for publication of untrue statements that are damaging to a public figure's reputation if you publish those statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. As it stands now, this seems to be what goes on:
- Hack reporter gets paid by number of hits. Hack reporter lacks talent to write well enough to generate enough hits to earn as much money as he would like.
- Hack reporter realizes there is a web portal known as "The Drudge Report". Hack reporter knows that if he writes an article that will appeal to the twisted, dangerous, racist philosophy of Matt Drudge and his readers that his worthless article will be linked to on The Drudge Report and he will get countless hits, hits that will enrich him, in spite of the lack of any merit, newsworthiness, or truth to the article.
- Hack reporter goes ahead and sells soul, writes article, submits to editor.
- Editor, being just as much of a whore as hack reporter, puts article online.
- Matt Drudge, being a soulless douchebag, after hours of scouring the World Wide Web for articles that either portray Barack Obama in a negative light or John McCain in a positive light, stumbles upon article written by hack reporter. [Or am I being naive and does hack reporter email link to Matt Drudge, sort of like a subservient puppy dog dropping a stick at the feet of his master?]
- Matt Drudge links to said article.
- Countless Drudgetards post inane and untruthful comments underneath dubious article. Hack reporter, hack that he is, does not censor or moderate inane and untruthful comments.
- Not only that, hack reporter, realizing his bread is buttered by Matt Drudge, actually deletes truth based comments that repudiate his own contentions and the untruthful hateful garbage spewed forth by his commentators.
- Hack reporter collects hefty paycheck.
- People who read ABC News website thinking it possesses the same journalistic integrity it must have had when Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel worked there rely not only on the veracity of the article itself, but the comments made beneath the article.
- Millions of Americans draw incorrect conclusions about the Presidential candidates.
- Millions of Americans vote for the incorrect Presidential candidate.
- John McCain and his moron running mate are elected President and Vice President, respectively.
- As promised, "there are gonna be more wars, my friends". People die. Brave American kids and people in foreign countries, including women and children, are among the dead.
- Hack reporter does not die. He collects hefty paycheck and lives happily ever after, because he is not genetically encumbered with a conscience.
So what I am trying to say I guess is, fuck you Jake. Burn in hell, you talentless, soulless hack.