The funny guys over at Wing Nut Daily have a "news story" that is making the rounds amongst some of the more gullible/paranoid on the Right-ish side of things. The "story" is...
A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the "subversive" message it sent, according to the driver's relative.
The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the "suspect" was investigated for "extremist" activities, the relative said.
Of course, WND (which really stands for "Whirled News Daily" but is only nominally a "news" organization - they are to "News" what the 'KKK' is to "Civic Organizations"), is suggesting and reporting that this Normal Law-Abiding Driver who happens to have a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker was a victim of profiling - suggesting he was pulled over because he fit the profile of a Right Wing Extremist.
And, of course, there is probably very little in terms of "Reality" attached to the story. If you're unfamiliar with them, WND - in my experience - tends to have SOME nugget of an actual story in their stories, but then they twist it and otherwise make up stuff.
In this case, there is probably a real driver who probably had this bumper sticker and he probably got pulled over, but that's probably the end of any actual reality in the story, at least "according to A Relative...". I don't know for sure since it wasn't reported by any other (real) news organization - although it's all over the interwebs, but mostly in the form of Right Wing blogs foaming at the mouth.
The upside of this is that perhaps some on the Right will begin to come out against profiling, now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Even though it is most likely an imaginary shoe.
28 comments:
That was weird. I had a photo along with this entry and I was encountering difficulty (not from the photo, though). I had entered that line about 'kkk is to civic organizations' and it wouldn't put the triple K word in the post. It was just missing.
I tried a couple of times and the last time I tried a different way of doing it, in quotes or something, and that is when I lost my picture and all my text was gibberish! What's up with all that?
By putting the offending term in single quotes, it was allowed, but still. Is this a Blogger thing or something to do with the Cyber Nanny thingee I have on this computer for the kids??
test - kkk - test...
Here's the thing about a story like this. Your surmise toward the end - someone with said bumper sticker was pulled over, yes - is probably true. The rest is pure piffle. Even if the account is completely debunked, right-wingers will hold it fast, repeat it for years on end, and it will become part of their folklore (like the mythical death of John Birch) thanks, in part, to mainstream feaux-journalist Cokie Roberts.
She codified what has become known as "Cokie's Rule". Back during the impeachment of President Clinton, during some discussion or other, it was brought up that this or that bit of information on the President, or his encounter with Ms. Lewinsky, was factually inaccurate. Ms. Roberts' response was a classic defense of rumor-mongering: "It doesn't matter whether it's true or not because it's already out there."
The far right lies.
Pretty much a dog bites man revelation.
I read it in an e-mail forward, so it must be true.
Are you having fun, Dan?
Funny, John. Thanks, Alan and Geoffrey.
Mr Captain, what do you mean?
For a direct answer to the general sentiment, yes, I generally am having fun. Did you have something specific in mind, though?
I believe Tug is referring to your trashing of a story and the presenter of that story, with absolutely nothing in the way of evidence that the story is false, twisted by WND in any way, or that this story is "making the rounds amongst some of the more gullible/paranoid on the Right-ish side of things." I haven't seen the story at any rightwing sites I visit. Instead, you just trash WND with comparisons to the KKK, and charges of "making stuff up". I thought you didn't approve of that behavior.
I believe that's the fun to which Tug referred.
Dan: "Those Right Wing Extremists over at WND (which actually stands for 'We need doughnuts') published a 'news story', so it probably isn't true. You know how those Righties lie..."
And the people said "Amen."
I just wondered if you were having fun stirring up a tempest in your little teapot over here...
Marshall said:
I believe Tug is referring to your trashing of a story and the presenter of that story, with absolutely nothing in the way of evidence that the story is false, twisted by WND
The problem, brother Marshall, is in proving a negative. I went out and researched the story and found not a single bit of reporting to suggest the story was true.
Since I have seen this to be the case in the past with WND, I am merely suggesting it seems to be their MO. I suppose I have investigated about 5-7 WND stories in the past (like the "story" suggesting that 1/10 public school students are sexually assaulted by their teachers!)
They do not strike me as an ethical, responsible or "newsy" news organization. I have a background in journalism and don't find their "reporting" to meet credible standards.
And since you and I both agree, I am sure, that it is important to be honest and not misrepresent stories, I bring it up so that people aren't deluded into thinking they are an actual news organization.
... I haven't seen the story at any rightwing sites I visit. Instead, you just trash WND with comparisons to the KKK, and charges of "making stuff up".
I am sure you know, brother Marshall, that just because you have not seen it in the (what? 10? 20?) places you visit does not mean that it does not happen.
If you will google the story, you will see that it has been "reported" at WND and then a bunch of other blogs repeat it, citing it as "evidence" of the downfall of the US. Those blogs that are repeating the "story" are of a Rightish nature.
Go ahead and test it out yourself, I believe you will see that I am correct.
And surely you and I can agree that the more ANY group of people report false news, the more likely people are to dismiss that group as fringe nuts, yes? It would serve the Right well to join me in opposing bad reporting and bringing false stories to light.
Tug, you cited a "quote" that I didn't say. I did not say that "righties lie." I did not say that because it is not true. My parents, for instance, are "righties," (that is, conservative and traditional). They are the most honest people I know.
Surely you can agree with me that it is important to stand opposed to false reports? This should be an area that you and I can agree, since we are both concerned about Truth, right?
Oh please. Why even bother trying to converse with people who think WND is a reliable news source, Dan? At some point it really is best to just ignore the trolls, then they might leave.
BTW, Tug, and this will be the first and last time I address you... It was I who said that the far right lies, not Dan. And as for the tempest in a teapot ... I think we were all having fun until you and the rest of the dittoheads showed up.
Don't you all have some fags to bash or something?
"Wingnut" for conservatives and "Moonbats" for liberals...we libertarians need our own derogatory label.
Let me brainstorm here:
Libertard
Free-ron
Aside from doing the grunt work of checking around if the story, as reported by WND, is accurate (since it was reported as hearsay, that's a good clue that it's a load of crap), one could apply a certain logic and discover it has all the reliability of a mesh condom.
The incident is alleged to have happened in Louisiana. Let's consider that for a moment shall we. Louisiana, corrupt, southern, a hot-bed of Republican support, with a truly nutty governor who thinks he has a future in a Party so racist it picks an idiotic and dishonest African-American as its national chair to prove it isn't racist. Louisiana, then, is a place where one could hardly imagine police in any township, parish, or even at the state level, to pull over some yahoo with bad rocker panels and a chuffing emissions system because of a right-wing bumper sticker.
It not only doesn't make any sense, it is counter-intuitive on a pragmatic level. Like Dan said, it doesn't mean it didn't happen because it is indeed impossible to prove a negative. Yet, it has the ring and smell and consistency of crap on hot pavement in the summer.
Poor persecuted conservatives, target of political profiling by all those Obama-loving law-enforcement officers across the south. Next thing you know, they'll try to convince us Obama is really a Muslim or something . . .
Alan, I respond as I do not so much as to converse, but just to remain civil. If they wish to converse, the door is open. If they merely wish to make up crap, the door is open for them to leave.
But I don't think they honestly want to make up crap.
1. Many conservative writers and thinkers ALSO lie or stretch the truth - this should come as no great surprise to anyone, either, I would think... - Dan Trabue
Tug, you cited a "quote" that I didn't say. I did not say that "righties lie." I did not say that because it is not true. - Dan Trabue
This mishmash of quotes proves . . . what, Tuggy? Seriously. You accuse Dan of saying something specific, then pull a quote out that says something entirely different.
What a master of the deliberative arts you are.
Thank you.
Perhaps you missed the context of that quote, Mr Captain. I was saying that there are many liberals AND many conservatives who twist facts and/or lie/misstate facts. I was lamenting this sad reality, as I recall.
The quote was made at Marshall Art's with Marshall making the case that liberals tend to lie and conservatives tend to tell the truth. I was suggesting that, to the extent it is a problem, it is a problem everywhere, not with one group or the other.
Perhaps you missed the context. Does that help?
Now, I still wonder: Wouldn't you agree with me that we ALL would do well to oppose false reports wherever they occur? That people who cite unreliable sources undermine their own credibility?
That seems like something all reasonable people could agree upon.
Tug, in case you missed the context, here's my full quote leading up to your quote you excerpted...
"1. Hollywood often lies or stretches the truth in telling its stories - no great surprise there.
2. That the Milk story particularly contained many lies and twists
which I have not disputed. I merely made the counterpoints...
1. Many conservative writers and thinkers ALSO lie or stretch the truth..."
As you can see, I was not necessarily disputing the point that "Hollywood [ie, "The Left"] often lies...", rather, I was adding to that, that many on the Right ALSO twist facts. A reality that was supported promptly when most of the conservative commenters at that blog twisted facts.
"Louisiana, then, is a place where one could hardly imagine police in any township, parish, or even at the state level, to pull over some yahoo with bad rocker panels and a chuffing emissions system because of a right-wing bumper sticker."
Indeed Geoffrey.
I spent some time looking and found not a single real news outlet reporting this story. Not even Fox Noise. It's all just blogs and other right wing sites that only quote the WingNutDaily.
I did find one blog on which someone claimed to have spoken to a receptionist at the Ball, LA police department who said there was no record of any such traffic stop.
I'd say if the liars want to man up and demonstrate the truthfulness of this report, that should be easy enough. Just request the police report, scan it, and post it. I suppose some 4 year old somewhere can show them how to use the internet.
Put up or shut up.
I know I'm asking for trouble by commenting here seeing as how I totally destroyed your vapid argument over at MA's place, but, for the record...
I partly agree with Dan about WND. I have stated this many times at my place:
I have no more use for overly Conservative news outlets like WND, than I do for overly liberally biased outlets like MSNBC.
When I want news, I want as unbiased reporting as possible.
Danielsan rips WND...probably while cheering on Olbermann.
Doesn't surprise me one little bit!
Danielsan rips WND...probably while cheering on Olbermann.
Does he? Ask him before assuming.
Thanks, John. For some folk, I prefer just to ignore them and leave their taunts unaddressed.
Since you mention it, though, I may have read a few Olbermann essays and I don't recall noticing factual errors in his writings. I don't especially follow his writings nor do I know much about him, but I get the sense (based on the few times I've read him) that I agree a great deal with what he says.
(And I'm assuming the commenter is talking about Keith Olbermann.)
Maybe you missed my point (what a surprise). It was that you ran a little post rife with nasty opinion for which you offered nothing in the way of evidence. I thought you had a background in journalism. Is this how you were taught to report?
Geoff,
You called Louisiana a "hot-bed of Republican support"? Why? Because they tired of the Democratic idiots who previous to the last election ran the state? OK. Just checking.
Blah, blah, blah.
"No evidence! No evidence!" they blather, not realizing that one cannot provide evidence of something that doesn't exist: ie. this traffic stop, the tooth fairy, or their brains.
I looked. I found no evidence that this was reported anywhere but WingNutDaily. Any other reports I found that linked elsewhere still eventually led back to WingNutDaily, which is itself a hearsay report.
Or how about the report from WingNutDaily just a few days ago that said the Lost Ark of the Covenant was going to be unveiled in Ethiopia? Of course it didn't happen. There were two and only two real facts in the case that were true: 1) there is a church in Ethiopia that claims to hold the Ark and 2) Ethiopia does exist. Pretty much everything else was fabricated, and the church officials in Ethiopia went so far as to call the report, “pure speculation on the part of irresponsible journalists." (Which is, I think WingNutDaily's motto.)
Just a couple examples of the stories thrown around on WND like so much crap in a monkey cage. I'm sure we could find others, certainly enough to call into question their so-called "journalistic integrity."
But hey, if you think there's evidence that this traffic stop happened, as I said, go find it yourself. If you want to show how accurate the story is, prove us wrong. Call the cops and get the police report. Scan it, post it. It really shouldn't be that difficult. Find a 4 year old to help you.
As I said earlier (and I tried to use small words so you'd get it): put up or shut up.
Post a Comment