A Quick Response to Jane Hamsher

By
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 6:16 pm

At the “Code Red” rally today, I did the reporting for this post. When I returned to the office, I fired off a 3:41 email to Jane Hamsher.

Picture 7

Hamsher did not respond; I posted at 3:57. At what’s timestamped as 2:33 — Pacific Time, I assume — she responded:

Dave Weigel isn’t a journalist, he’s a smear-monger that makes things up and projects his own fantasies onto his stories… I know Katherine, we were on MSNBC together and we’ve spoken about working on the pot legalization measure in California in the future. She tells me that when Weigel approached her and asked her who her “source” was, she didn’t say. He said “It’s Jane Hamsher, isn’t it…I’ve been around.” According to Katherine, she didn’t respond. Weigel decided to print his own suspicions as fact, and didn’t bother to contact me for confirmation.

More insults follow, including a subtle swing at possible TWI donors. I’m more interested in Serkes’ response to my post in an email — she now says that she did not mean to attribute “union thuggery” to Hamsher, and because Hamsher denies saying that, I’ll update my original post. But I am disappointed that Hamsher would use such personal insults and fabricate quotes to make me look like a liar.

Here is the relevant part of my conversation with Serkes. I was recording the rally, so I have audio to back up this transcript.

SERKES: They’re saying that there’s some serious arm-twisting, and their words were union thuggery.

ME: Who’s the they?

SERKES: The progressive side. A progressive source told me that there was serious union thuggery going on this weekend.

ME: Is this the Firedoglake folks?

SERKES: It’s Jane. You’re figured it out.

ME: I’m not new at this.

SERKES: She said they were after Altmire this weekend. Yeah, because Jane and I last talked Saturday.

As I said, Serkes no longer stands by her attribution of “union thuggery” to Hamsher, so I will correct that. I apologize to Jane Hamsher for not giving her more time to respond to my email. When Serkes spoke to me, it seemed clear that she was characterizing her conversation with Hamsher and recalled “union thuggery” enough to use it twice and, twice, attribute it that way. But that is not what she meant to say.

As for Hamsher’s insults of me and my publication — which she supports with fabricated quotes — I’d welcome an apology and a retraction.

By the way, by “I’m not new at this,” I meant I’ve been covering this stuff closely and know that Hamsher has made some high-profile team-ups with conservative activists such as Grover Norquist. And I’d argue that figuring this stuff out, and getting people to name sources, is absolutely the work of a journalist.

UPDATE: Here’s the audio.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | |

Comments

100 Comments

Remainders: Next generation
Pingback posted March 16, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

[...] Hamsher vs. Weigel. [...]


Credigy Receivables and Steve Stewart | Seven Quick Credit Repair Solutions
Pingback posted March 16, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

[...] A Quick Response to Jane Hamsher « The Washington Independent [...]


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted March 16, 2010 @ 8:29 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by washdcnews: A Quick Response to Jane Hamsher http://dlvr.it/Fmgk...


Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » And yes, I will pile on…
Pingback posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

[...] bad for Jane that Weigel taped the conversation with the Tea Party activist. And that conversation shows that Hamsher is working with wing-nuts to [...]


CestWhat
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

Are you going to post online the audio between yourself and Serkes?


CestWhat
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

Maybe Hamsher will photoshop your picture into blackface.

It would make about as much sense now as it did in 2006.


yablonowitz
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:24 pm

You did nothing wrong. The story is Serkes blatant misrepresentation of what FDL is doing. It's obvious in the quote. Why would Hamsher say “union thuggery”? It makes no sense. The quote WAS the story.

Hamsher's reply completely tone deaf and inappropriate.


dave
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

I like the way you make up quotes.


dave
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

“Are you going to post online the audio between yourself and Serkes?”

Are monkeys flying from your butt?


Don
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

Nice work Dave.

I expect Jane will be retracting the “erroneous quotes” and apologizing appropriately.


edgery
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

Serkes (a tea partier) using the words “union thuggery” makes sense. Jane, as you have now admitted, was never named as the source for those words. As for “Hamsher has made some high-profile team-ups with conservative activists such as Grover Norquist”, love the use of “some…such as” to give the impression this happens often (without of course actually saying it, wink wink). Have ANY OTHER progressives ever teamed up with conservative activists on issues where there were mutual interests? Um, yes, I believe they have — with Grover Norquist even.

But, as I've said before, this is just about silly women's rights. Let's take down Jane because she (rightfully) insists that the current Senate language with the Nelson provision is a grievous and unwarranted curtailment of women's access to a legal medical procedure, and a set-up for a challenge to the now-tenuous Roe v Wade decision. After all, this fact is totally unsupported, right? Oh, wait, there's Digby (http://bit.ly/axG6zl) and the NYT (http://nyti.ms/c3ndqT).


JenJen
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

The only reason to post the audio would be if Jane Hamsher continues to accuse Dave Weigel of “projecting his own fantasies onto his stories”, which is a rather provocative charge, or if she asks him to post the audio. Otherwise, this reader is satisfied with Weigel's follow-up.


dave
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

I got a real kick out of this:

“I posted at 3:57. At what’s timestamped as 2:33 — Pacific Time, I assume…”

The old time stamp smear. What a fucking moron you are.


LauraNo
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

It sounds to me like the tea-bagger paraphrased in a way she's accustomed to talking about people. I guess she thinks nurses are scary?


dave
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:52 pm

I see Wiegel's post is timestamped 6:16 – Eastern time, I presume. But who really knows? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!


Karoli
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

Classy. You should receive your apology. Each and every one of us who are not insured should receive one from her too.


Dave Weigel
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Yes, that's my opinion.


Dave Weigel
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

Less a smear, more me trying to figure out why her response post is dated more than an hour before my original post.


dave
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

Hey, Dave – Kathryn Serkes says you're lying, too.


24WienersAheadDotCom
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

The lefties bleat on about this-isn’t-progressive-enough-so-it-must-die. Sadly this seems to be an inherent feature of lefties. Here in America’s hat I have lived through numerous examples of the lefties trying to teach-the-moderates-a-lesson. After the righties got done kicking the shit out of the economy (sound familiar?) it took the moderates the better part of a decade to get things back in some kind of shape.
Apparently none of them are familiar with the old cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face phenomenon.


Swopa
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

FDL does indeed operate on Pacific Time, FWIW.


Jon
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

really……waiting for an apology from the Hamster-queen… really.


kquark
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:21 pm

We have Teabaggers and Firebaggers dominate the discourse in this county. They both use the same tactics but for different ends.


Weigel Blows Teabaggers
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

You purportedly gave Hamsher sixteen minutes to respond..

Mighty fucking white of you, Weigel.

Is everyone supposed to sit around and wait for your e-mail before you make shit up?

What a douchebag you are.


Dave Weigel
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

I had no idea — Hamsher lives in DC and at least one of the FDL blogs is on eastern time. Huh.


yablonowitz
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

Reporters are under no obligation to wait for the subject of their source's quote to respond before posting. If Hamsher has a problem with what Weigal wrote, it should be with Serkes.

Hamsher's vituperative, unprofessional response aimed at Weigal demonstrates what gives people the most pause about organizations like FDL – the notion that they view EVERYONE who is not with them to be out to get them or somehow part of a broad coalition trying to tear them down. It gets old.


strangely_enough
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

Would those “moderates” you speak of be the same ones voting along with the “righties” to “kick the shit out of the economy?”
Sure would appear so…


24WienersAheadDotCom
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:39 pm

Point taken – I should have clarified that my experience was with the Canadian version of moderates. I believe that most residents of the USA would refer to them as “Marxists”, which of course is not quite a Commie. But it's close.

If the Global Overlord would just hurry up and finish that NAFTA Super-Highway we could put all this behind us – once we are all in the FEMA camps it's universal health care and Ameros for everyone!
VIVA NAFTA!


dave
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:41 pm

I do enjoy the string of qualifiers and errata that now grace the top of the original post. I'm sure they will increase exponentially over the next hours.

On the plus side, it looks like Dave has figured out that whole “EDT/PDT” time thing…


LTOR
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

What's your reply to Serkes saying (or allegedly saying) that she didn't know she was being recorded?

I like you, Dave. For what that's worth. But if you think you deserve an apology (and I won't argue with that, she overreacted), doesn't it follow that she might deserve one, too, given what to me is a pretty offensive charge with the “union thuggery” quote?


mepmep09
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:50 pm

Yep, gotta beware the time stamp thing. The servers for some blogs popular in the U.S. are located even farther away (e.g., Sadly, No! time stamps appear to be European; I'm guessing Atlantis-time). Doesn't mean the blog time stamp has to match the server's clock, but some blog proprietors clearly feel no need to change from the default.


Dave Weigel
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:55 pm

Indeed, Serkes emailed me to revise her remarks and I did so.


CestWhat
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

I'm in the “post the audio” crowd still. Serkes and Hamsher are still playing word games.

Serkes was talking to journalist and she knew you were a journalist, but she's acting like it was chit-chat at the bus stop. Plus “what's your source” the normal and obvious follow-up and she's acting like “how you dare.”

Plus Serkes claim about “I'm not working with Jane Hamsher” stuff is moronic. She is planning a rally and getting information from Jane Hamsher and telling that same information to members of the press. Serkes can play word games about that, but it's working together. This “we were just talking” stuff is silly from Hamsher and Serkes. Serkes wanted information before the rally and got it from Hamsher. That's working together.

Mr. Weigel, I vote for you to milk this.


Dave Weigel
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

For obvious reasons I'm now… skeptical of content that appears on FDL.

My take on “union thuggery” was that it was Serkes using a phrase that, she said, her “progressive source” had used. I had no problem taking the quote marks out after Serkes and Hamsher both said they implied too much.


LTOR
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:14 am

But about the recording?


zonk84
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:16 am

For the love of God….

Can someone with connections please, please PLEASE talk to Oliver Stone and convince him to make Natural Born Killers 2: Woody Gets a Blog.

Anything for Hamsher's 15 minutes (a seemingly eternal, unending, soul devouring 15 minutes) to be mercifully put to an end.

Scholars need to get started on figuring out how a snuff film auteur became a noted expert in health care legislation, and the serious scholarly work cannot begin until this nightmare ends.


mepmep09
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:19 am

And if it's any consolation, you're not the only one bearing a sabre scar from Ms. Hamsher. Take that Booman feller, for example (boomantribune-dot-com). He found the following from Ms. Hamsher's in the comments to a post on the FDL site:

Booman is a troll with a blog. Don't worry about him, I only do it occasionally because he's a bottomfeeder that puts up stuff nobody else will print and then the DNC pushes it. But of his own, he's meaningless.

See the Booman archive for Monday, Dec.14 at about 2pm – that's Booman time, whatever that may be. No link provided – AFAICT, I'm on some kind of troll probation with Windy's server, and any links seem to get my comments disappeared.

I don't know Booman well, but he seems to be thoughtful and calm leftie, or at least that's how his posts read. Clearly he somehow rubbed Ms. Hamsher the wrong way, though.


CestWhat
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:24 am

This isn't print, it's a blog. Hamsher can email at anytime to respond and it will go up.

The story is “Serkes says she is working with Hamsher (or getting information from Hamsher and talking about defeating the bill, but in Serkes' mind, that's very different from “working with”) and moronically tells a journalist this. Whether or not Hamsher denies this isn't the main story, although certainly part of it.

Plus Hamsher and Serkes acting like this just told each this information while in the randomly in the same supermarket check-up line is also moronic. They are in-touch, and unless they are former cabinmates from summer camp, it's in a professional manner.


Direct Response Copywriting | Mr Fourty Money Making Online
Pingback posted March 17, 2010 @ 1:46 am

[...] A Quick Response to Jane Hamsher « The Washington Independent [...]


Plantsmantx
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:53 am

Dolchstoss!

LOL.


Timetester
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:59 am

I agree they are indeed playing word games and I would love to see Hamsher faced because she'll never apologize she'll just continue to smear and dig in deeper.


dave
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 1:13 am

Here's Weigel over at FDL:

“Hamsher denied ever using the phrase, and Serkes said she misspoke to me and meant that other progressive sources were using that phrase. I cut her some slack and let her revise her statement.”

Aren’t you just the sweetest thing? See, if I were a reporter and I actually “had the goods” – i.e., a tape recording of someone saying what I reported them saying – there’s no fucking way in hell I’d be “cutting… some slack” and letting the subject “revise her statement” and leave me holding the bag. For two reasons: ego (if I’m right, I’m right) and journalistic ethics. I’m thinking you’ve got plenty of the former, none of the latter, and right now, egg all over your face.


grumblepuppy
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 1:16 am

It would appear that Jane is not backing down from her accusation that you are “projecting [your] own fantasies onto [your] stories.” People at FDL are explicitly calling you a liar.

I think it is time for you to post the audio, Dave.


ellid
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 1:22 am

I gave up completely on Jane Hamsher and FDL over her alliance with Grover Norquist. As far as I'm concerned, she's a fifth columnist, not a true progressive.


grumblepuppy
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 1:24 am

Replying to myself – Thank you for posting that.


Swopa
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 1:54 am

When she started the blog, she lived in Oregon and California.


mepmep09
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:28 am

Eh, just to correct this trivial comment of mine – the Booman entry I posted above is actually a comment by Booman, to a post “Clarifying the Dispute” that went up at 10:47am.

Whatev…


CestWhat
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:43 am

It's so moronic, but I love blogger wars (this one, David Sirota v. Nate Silver, etc…)

Just realized something. Jane Hamsher's claim of Dave Weigel running around Kill Bill rally eariler today secretly recording Kathryn Serkers is based only on Serkers telling her so (no second source, no confirmation or denial from Weigel himself). While this is enough for Hamsher to put on her blog, she is upset with Weigel for believing Kathryn Serkers without a second source or waiting (emphasis on waiting) for a confirm or denial from Hamsher herself. Usually have to wait awhile for somebody to do something to hypocritical. Lt. Gov. Bill Hatler, consider this a warning. Only a matter of time before she photoshop Weigel and then Sen. Blanche Lincoln into blackface.


Quick Performance Success. : World online computer review
Pingback posted March 17, 2010 @ 4:32 am

[...] A Quick Response to Jane Hamsher « The Washington Independent [...]


Greg
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 4:16 am

Well done, Dave. Way to stand up for yourself. Hamsher really isn't making herself look good after she dug in a little too deep against HCR and refuses to admit she made a mistake. I think all her chips are on the table and she's getting a little erratic and defensive as a result. Just an opinion.


mepmep09
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 4:54 am

Well, there's been one good thing to come out of this tempest-in-a-teapot. It appears to have brought billmon out of his hidey-hole, just to see what's up. That is, assuming that is the real deal in comments over in Dennis G.'s post at Balloon Juice this evening. The manner of logic and delivery of 'billmon' is consistent with that of the muchly missed genuine blogger of that name.


mepmep09
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 7:39 am

Kathryn Serkes has weighed in at the end of that hate-on-Weigel thread over at Fortress FDL – comment #233 (as of this typing). It's basically an apology to Ms. Hamsher, and acceptance of responsibility for poor wording in her interview.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 8:15 am

Very disappointed in Dave Weigel.


ohsuzanna
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

I stopped reading FDL because it seems to me that with Jane Hamsher it is her way or the highway and she's not shy about getting personal with anyone she perceives as disagreeing with her. I just had to stop reading the venom that frequently leaks from her pen…..


tmv
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

Um, there's an audio clip posted. Moron.


tmv
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

Jane Hamsher is a destructive whacko. A comfortable, wealthy person who gets to be a purist because things like health insurance don't actually affect her. And her followers (Exhibit A is their comments below) remind me of nothing so much as Limbaugh's Dittoheads.

They should just join the teabaggers and stop tarring the rest of us with their fanaticism.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

Weigel made nothing up. The audio is proof.


Julian Sanchez
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

I found it weird that so many people were mystified by the purported use of the phrase “union thuggery”. I know a ton of professional progressives, and I can easily imagine every single one of them describing (say) a SEIU campaign that way, tongue planted firmly in cheek. The same way friends on the right might jokingly refer to their “warmongering” activity. Are people really that unfamiliar with casual conversational irony? In my experience, sarcastically adopting the tropes of the other side is a pretty normal part of how folks in politics talk.


Julian Sanchez
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

I found it weird that so many people were mystified by the purported use of the phrase “union thuggery”. I know a ton of professional progressives, and I can easily imagine every single one of them describing (say) a SEIU campaign that way, tongue planted firmly in cheek. The same way friends on the right might jokingly refer to their “warmongering” activity. Are people really that unfamiliar with casual conversational irony? In my experience, sarcastically adopting the tropes of the other side is a pretty normal part of how folks in politics talk.


Julian
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

I found it weird that so many people were mystified by the purported use of the phrase “union thuggery”. I know a ton of professional progressives, and I can easily imagine every single one of them describing (say) a SEIU campaign that way, tongue planted firmly in cheek. The same way friends on the right might jokingly refer to their “warmongering” activity. Are people really that unfamiliar with casual conversational irony? In my experience, sarcastically adopting the tropes of the other side is a pretty normal part of how folks in politics talk.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

The audio proves who is lying, and it is not Weigel.


trippin
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

Now, now! Children, behave!

Ms. Hamsher's opposition to this bill is totally understandable, as conscription of 35 million new ratepayers in return for a promise to hold up the insurers' end of the contract (something that should have been enforced before these negotiations even began) is not a victory.

Mr. Weigel's support of this bill is also understandable, since it will provide some cost relief and subsidy, albeit many years down the road, enough years in fact for Republicans to repeal it.

So there's no need for anyone to try to get on a high horse about this. If you hate each other, that's fine. Take it outside.


mantis
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

Too bad Hamsher's a liar who allies with scum. She's no progressive. She's a poison pill.


ellid
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

Anyone who would willingly make common cause with Grover Norquist is not a progressive. Period.


Doctor Helen Ahandcart
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

Yeah.

Like when people refer to Julian as Dirty Sanchez. They're not referring to his hygiene or his vocabulary, but to his relationship with Glenn Reynolds.


Weigel Blows Teabaggers
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

Wiegel's original “quote” is not what Serkes said, either in order or meaning. You don't move sentences around or change words when you quote someone. A quote means you are repeating something verbatim. No exceptions. No excuses. And Weigel had the tape, so he can't blame faulty memory.

He made shit up. All the teabagging in China can't change the facts, wolfie.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

Why? The audio proves he reported the Serkes interview accurately the first time. Serkes mislead Hamsher and Hamsher hypocrytically (with only Serkes as her source) bashed Weigel about not checking first with her, without checking first with Weigel about what Serkes had said to him.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

What sentences were moved and what words were changed that constitue “making shit up”? Weigel's reporting accurately captured what was said in the audio. You're splitting hairs to characterize it any differently.


mantis
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

Wiegel's original “quote” is not what Serkes said, either in order or meaning.

Yes it is. Trying to tell us otherwise is pretty stupid, considering we can just listen to the audio. Dumbass fake-progressive firebagger twerp.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

Because reporting “news” is supposed to be about more than finding one person saying something controversial and reporting it to the world. A game that used to be called telephone.
Unless the world in question is a fifth grade classroom and Wendy Testaberger just told you BeBe just said something awful about Sally. A real reporter would have waited for confirmation or denial from the subject and then made up a scandalous headline with the added subhead that “BeBe denies Wendy Testaburger said Sally was fat and stupid!” Oh wait, that was the cynical side of me. Dave Weigel just heard something that he thought he could smear an activist and cancer survivor with- a bit of political incorrectness, and played telephone instead of reporting a non-story or better yet ignoring it as the inside baseball it is. Now we get an idea of where the bottom might be.
At the end of the day I find that disappointing. Is the WI really no better than the WaPo?


wolverstone
Comment posted March 17, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

And what are your credentials for telling the world what “news” is supposed to be, Sir?


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 12:42 am

I am a consumer of news and information. If your standard for news and information is “Oh my god did you hear what Khloe Kardashian said Lindsey Lohan said about Britney Spears?” then the Perez Hilton approach to news is acceptable for you.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 12:46 am

What makes you think you would be insured should the bill pass?


CestWhat
Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 5:30 am

If you oppose this bill because it's a give away to insurance companies, then why didn't see oppose it months ago. Even with the public option, only about 1% would qualify to have that public option (key word being an option) and it would start for years, so insurance companies were still going to get some new customers since the get-go.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

You state a false choice. It is not your standard or the “Perez Hilton” one. Nor was Weigel's reporting the latter. You have every right to choose to be disappointed with a reporter's choice, but that does not make you the judge of whether it meets journalistic standards. Nothing Mr. Weigel reported was at odds with what was said to him, as the audio proves. The choice he made to report it as he did might disappoint you but it was certainly not to smear “an activist and cancer survivor.”


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 19, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

On the contrary, I am the sole judge of what I think is quality news. The blog format offers me the option to question the author and the authors methods, means, and motivations, and share with other news consumers. It is incredibly naive, in my opinion, to divorce what was said, how it was reported, the actors in the information exchange, and the other contextual pieces from the point of the piece itself. Blogging provides “thick” news and allows some dialogue. It would be VERY difficult not to infer a personal animus against Hamsher on the part of the reporter on the basis of what the author apparently thought was good “gotcha” journalism. Now when I run across a Weigel piece I have to consider his motivations in greater detail because he has demonstrated what I consider to be poor judgment in this case. It clearly appears to me to be a politically and personally motivated effort to smear Hamsher as having said “union thuggery” through a third party. I have no doubt that had Hamsher meant to say “union thuggery” she would have no qualms in saying exactly that. He said she said that she said “union thuggery” omg totally. That's a journalism fail, unless your standards are Matt Drudge and Perez Hilton, but it is a gossip WIN. Just another torch and pitchfork on the way to Hamsher's figurative house.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 20, 2010 @ 1:17 am

Granted, you are the sole judge of what you think is quality news. You are NOT the world's judge of what is quality news. Nor do you have the ability to know why Weigel chose to report as he did. You are ascribing motives to him without any factual basis. He reported what he was told and when the teller changed her story, he updated his blog. Fine journalistic standards for most folks, Sir.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 20, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

I am the sole worldwide judge of what I think is quality news and further I will waste my time shooting my mouth (fingers?) off on the internet. I do indeed have the ability to evaluate the work before me and by use of logic attempt to determine the reasons for why the author chose to report as he did. Welcome to the post-modern critique.
I am ascribing motives to the author based on the sociopolitical context of the events taking place, his reportage of the events, Hamsher's response, and the subsequent responses to each. I have to ask these questions: What value was added to the reporting to attribute a perjorative term like “union thuggery” to Jane Hamsher? How does Weigel benefit from transmitting this information? What is the point of putting this information out?
All I can see was a chance to play “gotcha” against a public scapegoat. Piling on and a personally motivated attack at best and at worst cooperation in a politically motivated smear designed to intimidate ardent progressives so Rahm doesn't have to call them “fucking retards” again for the crime of wanting a better country and being willing to work for it. Not cooperation in the conspiracy theory sense of meeting in a smoke filled room, but in the sense of a race between “liberal” news bloggers to see who can punch the hippy hardest, fastest and first . It doesn't take much reading of comments to see the two minute hate has a new Goldstein.
Hamsher has exactly zero votes in Congress. Who benefits from making her the whipping boy in this issue? What risk do blogger journalists take in victimizing a citizen activist as opposed to investigating people with actual power? What happens when people on the same side in a political movement have a substantial disagreement? Should Hamsher avoid Mexico City?


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 20, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

Hamsher doesn't purport to be a journalist.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 20, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

False equivalences are something we usually oppose when the television and print media do it.


CestWhat
Comment posted March 20, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

Yes, she does. She worked for San Francisco Chronicle and she isn't saying it's her opinion, but fact that Dave Weigel recorded Kathryn Sekers was recorded with her knowledge.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted March 21, 2010 @ 9:48 am

First, just because a cat has kittens in an oven doesn't make them biscuits. Hamsher's a movie producer, a three time cancer survivor, an activist and blogger, not a “reporter.”
Secondly, does she have a right to be angry at being attacked? Sure. Is it understandable if she lashes out? Yes, not smart strategy on her part but understandable. Is she the most effective activist for her causes? Debatable. Is the information reported, even if it were absolutely accurate and not a game of telephone, germaine in any way to discussions about the health care bill under question? Not really. It was a cheap shot that didn't add to anyone's understanding of the issues and really says more about the author's ethics than anything else.


wolverstone
Comment posted March 21, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

Sir, You are guilty of the fantasizing that Hamsher incorrectly accused Weigel of. You have no valid basis for concluding that he reported as he did as a “personally motivated attack…” Since you obviously are not capable of accepting that, this concludes my comments on your delusion.


CestWhat
Comment posted March 21, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

And she hasn't produced a major motion picture since 2001, but you still her a “movie producer.” She did work as journalist as the San Francisco Chronicle. But Firedoglake.com is reporting on HRC, not restating other's reporting and giving her opinion on it.

All of that was so far off anything involved in the original post.

An organizer for Tea Party said progressive groups were also working against the bill and she was in contact with them and exchanging information and she said it was Jane Hamsher. Hamsher at this point doesn't even despite that. If she's upset, blame the Tea Party activist, not they guy who was reporting on it. She just throwing a bunch of different accusations against the wall to see what sticks.


Tips For Success | Chocolate Covered Marketing
Pingback posted April 7, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

[...] A Quick Response to Jane Hamsher « The Washington Independent [...]


forex trading dummy accounts? | Currency Trading Exchange Guide
Pingback posted April 19, 2010 @ 1:44 am

[...] A Q&#965&#1110&#1089k Response t&#959 Jane Hamsher « T&#1211&#1077 Washington Independent [...]


mbt shoes
Comment posted May 10, 2010 @ 12:36 am

DO you like it?


adidas online
Comment posted June 4, 2010 @ 8:12 am

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.


christian louboutin shoes
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

thanks for your shareing

Fashion legancy– we sell famous brand christian louboutin

100% Authentic, 50% discount cheap christian louboutin shoes.

christian louboutin shoes authentic hot sell online, welcome for retail and wholesale christian louboutin,
christian shoes, louboutin shoesorders.

24 hours/day customer service online, louboutin paypal accepted.

Hi, I like to lose weight!
thanks for your shareing
Recently so many people who want to lose weight choose this style shoes– mbt shoes!

we call it massaqi shoes, it is special design have lose weight function.

come to our website, and choose cheap mbt shoes online, 65% discount mbt shoes Cheap MBT Shoes sale online.

welcome for retail and wholesale mbt shoes orders.


ghd
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

100% Authentic quality gurrantee,3 days free shipping.

World cup soccer jerseys is coming, hot sell

soccer jerseys

recently.

we are the wholesale jersey company from china, mainly selling

nfl jerseys

,

mlb jerseys

, and

cheap soccer jerseys

.

all our jerseys are made in embroidered. and top good quality. nowdays, we have so many customers doing

wholesale nfl jerseys

,

wholesale soccer jerseys

,

wholesale mlb jerseys

from us, especialy for the orders in usa, uk, australia, canada, and another euro

countries.

wecome for retail orders and wholesale orders of

cheap nfl jerseys

,

cheap mlb jerseys

, 2010 new nfl jerseys hot sell.

2010 new nfl jerseys

we believe we are your best choice.
http://www.jerseylink.com

hey, do u want to have a straightening hair style?

why are u hestitate!!

come to our website to buy

cheap ghd

,

ghd hair straighteners

online.

we are special ghd website for

ghd purple

,

ghd straighteners

.

welcome for

wholesale ghd

orders online. yours satisfied is our honor.

cheap ghd

cheap ghd hair straighteners

here, get much discount ghd.

surprise so much.

please chlick here to our website.

http://www.hghdoctor.com


jordan shoes
Comment posted June 10, 2010 @ 3:46 am

Demonstrate a unique new concept;Thereforejordan shoes|michael jordan shoes|cheap jordan shoesboth dressed in fashionable taste therelinks of london|air jordan 23|air jordan 11|air jordan 13So,air jordan 12this is the dress of a good choice!air jordan 21|air jordan 14|air jordan 16|At the same time,also has a super-powerful visual force;air jordan 17|air jordan 19|air jordan 18|This is a pretty good article!


nike running shoes
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 2:22 am

more choose http://www.mbtshoeslatest.com


download full movies
Comment posted September 4, 2010 @ 8:17 am

Usually I do not write-up on blogs, but I need to say that this article really forced me to try and do so! Thanks, very nice article.


polo ralph lauren
Comment posted September 17, 2010 @ 6:37 am

we are the wholesale jersey company from china, mainly selling


Inowa
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

I dont agree on that. I think shes done some real good.
weiß wickelkommode


Loveyou
Comment posted March 11, 2011 @ 4:24 am

Some other information, thanks for share.


Conveyancing Solicitor
Trackback posted April 3, 2011 @ 6:47 am

Property Solicitor…

[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…


RICH
Comment posted September 3, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

use other methods now available. It is a traditional method of paying off debt through the use of


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.