Posted under Media
His recent termination from the Washington Post thanks to the hit done by his fellow Orange Line Mafiosi hasn’t driven Dave Weigel underground as he wrote a recent piece for one of Andrew Breitbart’s online pubs. One juicy tidbit: Apparently Weigel’s departure from Reason as a regular reporter wasn’t so amicable as we were lead to believe:
“After the 2008 election, I drove up from Atlanta to D.C. and was greeted by my editor, Matt Welch, with surprising news. It would be better, he said, if I worked somewhere else. I’d voted for the Obama-Biden ticket (having joked, semi-seriously, that I was honor-bound to vote for a ticket with a fellow Delawarean on it) and wasn’t fully on board with the magazine’s upcoming, wonky focus on picking apart the new administration. “
Again what you have here is the world’s biggest high school (Beltway High) where one faction of the student council, in this case Cosmotarian Cool Kids Club, decides to cast off the geek who follows them around because he won’t join in on their planned attack to undermind the new student body president.
To me Weigel’s problem as a journalist was not that he voted for Obama, it’s that you could never quite figure out from what angle he was coming from and thus were pissed off whenever he wrote something that seemed out of line from what you thought he was. That plus an edge of snarkiness too (I still remember how he trashed a friend of mine for his wardrobe at the Iowa Straw Poll) probably didn’t endear him within his new clique at Beltway High, so they published embarrassing info like one would publish “sexting” pics and got him fired. Did WaPo hire him to cover “conservatives” like one would observe monkeys at the zoo (I’m sure he probably thought so)? Or did they feel he was a “insider” within the movement which could provide information, background, and context to what they were thinking? (which he definitely was not). Because this wasn’t clear, his work wasn’t clear and in some cases incredibly shoddy.
Case in point, the whole Ron Paul “newsletters’ issue. Weigel never dealt with the main question in his article about them, whether Paul himself actually wrote things himself. Instead he delved into the internecine world of libertarian factionalism, no doubt at the request of his bosses at Reason in order to strike at the provo Rockwellians. But if Paul didn’t write them as he has always claimed, then what does it matter who wrote them? As I said before, fault RP for negligence if you wish but if he’s not a racist then don’t insinuate it. Just answer the question yes or no. But he never did, a fact he went back to time and time again, betraying a Cosmotarian fetish to expose racism (Stomfront blogger in Paul’s tent at the Iowa Straw Poll, avowed Nazi gives money to Paul, all unsolicited) and “kookism” (Truthers, Jesse Ventura and John Birch Society at Rally for the Republic, eek!) wherever it showed itself around the campaign.
Oh, then there was his article he wrote about Kentucky’s annual Knob Creek Gun Show for the Washington Independent, which was a course in itself at David Weigel School of Journalism. This school is where a reporter attends an event, finds the craziest people there and interviews them, then portrays whole event as tainted because crazy people just happen to be there. I assume most people went to Knob Creek just to fire off some rounds, not buy Wermacht uniforms or listen to Orly Taitz but apparently Weigel thought this was important to mention. He did virtually the same thing with his article on the Rally for the Republic.
Neither myself nor most people really have a problem with what a reporter’s political views are so long as they are up front about it so the reader can take such information into consideration when reading the reporter’s work. With Weigel it certainly felt like the knife was being stuck into Paul’s back despite the number of favorable articles he wrote about Paul’s candidacy for Reason, far more than any other reporter, when he accused Paul of “pandering to racists” or being “leader of the fringe”. All of this one can read in his email comments on the very people he is supposed to be covering which was why he was canned. His work at Reason foreshadowed what was eventually coming for him.
They teach you at J-school a reporter is supposed to be objective and yet you find out in the real world of journalism there is no such thing. Fact are facts of course but we all have our way of telling the tale. We are human beings not robots spewing out data. Dave Weigel is certainly entitled to his opinions and write what he wishes, but he’s not entitled to being something he isn’t just to get a quote or a news tip.
RedPhillips on 29 Jun 2010 at 5:28 pm #
Is it possible that Weigel started out as more of a regular libertarian and became more cosmo over time? That is the impression I get. The Beltway can do that to you.
Sean Scallon on 29 Jun 2010 at 5:36 pm #
Actually its worse Red, he started out as editor of the campus “conservative” paper at Northwestern.
orly taitz on 29 Jun 2010 at 8:16 pm #
Weigel has written about me numerous times. There were times when he was right, there were many times when he was wrong and I felt like strangling the guy, however he at least made an effort to get the information and stay informed.
Most MSM is happy with brainwashing and regime propaganda without any intention or any effort to get truthful info.
I presented the courts with evidence, that not only Obama does not have a valid long form BC, but he doesn’t even have a valid SSN of his own. I provided an affidavit from a senior deportation officer from the department of Homeland Security that the ss 042-68-4425 that Obama is using today in the White House was issued in CT to another individual.
The author of this article needs to make an attempt to show some journalistic integrity and honesty and not committ journalistic malparactice by implying somehow that attorneys, working 24/7 to bring issues to court are crazy. By the way, no judge stated that Obama is legitimate, they said that they don’t have jurisdiction. Rest assured, I will find a judge with proper jurisdiction and wit some guts not to be intimidated.
Sean Scallon on 29 Jun 2010 at 9:29 pm #
“Rest assured, I will find a judge with proper jurisdiction and wit some guts not to be intimidated.”….
….Maybe in Moldova
RedPhillips on 29 Jun 2010 at 10:10 pm #
Ms. Taitz, thanks for commenting. I believe we have been very even handed at this site on the birth certificate issue. Not enough to satisfy some “birthers,” but open enough to make some mainstream conservatives uncomfortable.
I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that Obama was born in Africa, but I do believe he is hiding something. (I made a reference to his CT SSN here recently.) I believe if the “long form” was clearly exculpatory we would have seen it already. I have said that while I am not a “birther” I am an anti-anti-birther. See these posts, and I think you will agree we have been fair.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4796
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=3585
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4821
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5394
But I think you might have misunderstood the comment. Patroon can speak for himself, but I don’t think he was implying you are “crazy” per se. He was suggesting that folks like Weigel focus on elements that they perceive to be “crazy” or “fringe” in an attempt to discredit the whole.
Unfortunately, like Sean, I am skeptical of your ability to find a judge who will be favorable to you.
orly taitz on 30 Jun 2010 at 2:21 am #
I got a favorable ruling yesterday. It is an order to show cause issued upon my opponent in Ca primary, Damon Dunn.I AM GOING
for a stay of certification of election (I ran in Republican primary for CA sec of state) and I am asking for an expedited trial.
My opponent Damon Dunn is a lifelong Democrat, who committed fraud by not providing mandatory disclosure on his voter registration card of the fact that he registered in two other states and registered as a Democrat. He also contacted the registrar in FL and demanded to erase from the database his voter registration, where he was registered as a Democrat.
the reason it is important, is that George Soros has poured millions of dollars into the project secretaries of State, in order to put Democrats as Sec of States, in order to allow Obama to run again in 2012. I believe the trial of Damon Dunn will help shed some light on a number of unanswered questions.
You can visit my web site OrlyTaitzEsq.com and get info or e-mail me at orly.taitz@esq.com I will send you some docs.
Captainchaos on 30 Jun 2010 at 4:18 am #
Ms. Taitz, honestly now, is your concern with the merits of Obongo’s claim to citizenship and hence the correctitude of his presidency merely one of upholding the “rule of law” or is it but a means to the end of delegitimizing an ideological opponent?
An interesting question with profound philosophical implications in that let’s say there was a law, or in fact many of them, which you deemed to be intolerably unjust. Given that, would you still exhort upholding the “rule of law” in obeying those laws which you deemed intolerably unjust? If not, then you could not be said to categorically uphold the “rule of law” – your personal convictions, or ideology if you will, would take precedence. In which case, you would be no better in the abstract, from the sole consideration of the merit of upholding the “rule of law,” than the pro-Obongo operatives you criticize; the “rule of law” being in the end merely instrumental, just a slave, to your ideological convictions.
Captainchaos on 30 Jun 2010 at 5:16 am #
Hands off Moldova, Mr. Soros:
“A crowd of more than 10,000 young Moldovans materialized seemingly out of nowhere on Tuesday to protest against Moldova’s Communist leadership, ransacking government buildings and clashing with the police.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html
Now, if one stands in solidarity with these courageous Moldovans who, um, actually act with the courage of their convictions, one cannot precisely be said to be categorically disposed to upholding the “rule of law.”
Sometimes, one must fight as if one actually means it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
Point taken?
Weaver on 30 Jun 2010 at 8:28 am #
CC,
‘
I don’t follow. Youths should terrify the populace into backing Communists?
Workers of the world unite against CC! Machiavelli would approve – brilliant idea. We just need some idiot false flags to play at violent fascists…
Captainchaos on 30 Jun 2010 at 8:36 pm #
The protesters were not pro-communist, but anti-communist:
“The protesters, some of which carried Romanian flags,[27] chanted pro-Western, pro-Romanian and anti-government slogans such as “We want Europe”, “We are Romanians”[27] and “Down with Communism”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Moldova_civil_unrest
They suspected the communists of rigging the election. Of course we both know that communists would never, ever stoop to that.
If democracy is subverted, what option does that leave?
Bede on 01 Jul 2010 at 2:36 am #
Read Richard Spencer’s interesting take on Weigel (partly from personal meetings):
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/how-to-make-it-as-a-paleo-in-washington/
Captainchaos on 01 Jul 2010 at 7:14 am #
What does the Right culminate in at the last but fascism?
RonL on 01 Jul 2010 at 6:23 pm #
CC,
It is so nice to see you shill for the Soviets. I guess they were not Jewish Bolsheviks, huh. Or are you a nihilist with no concern for the truth.
Either way, you forget to note that the Soviets stole Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania in June 1940.
And why shouldn’t ethnic Romanians be angered with communists and Russian settlers?
Captainchaos on 02 Jul 2010 at 2:25 am #
Ron, either you are being ironic or your reading comprehension has deserted you. Just what part of my comments in this thread would lead you to believe I have thrown my lot in with communists and not the inverse? The protesters were anti-communist; they were the puppets of no-one; their activities arose organically from contact with one another on the networking website Twitter. I see no reason that consistent with the principles you profess here they should not enjoy your support as well.
Captainchaos on 02 Jul 2010 at 2:42 am #
Bourgeois conservatism a la the Tea Party will conserve nothing. Acting as a release valve by giving the lemmings the illusion that they are achieving something when in fact they are not only brings the European race and civilization that much closer to final destruction. The Birch Society filled that role in former years. The scope of the task is not conservative but revolutionary. As such, I believe bourgeois conservatism should be deconstructed.
“I guess they were not Jewish Bolsheviks,”
Jews have largely given up on communism as a viable vehicle for their interests, which is what it was really at bottom ever about for them.
“Or are you a nihilist with no concern for the truth.”
Specific examples of what you do not consider to be true in my comments in this thread would be appreciated. As stands, I do not know what you are referring to.
Captainchaos on 02 Jul 2010 at 3:06 am #
I think the misunderstanding of my previous comments flows from the mistaken impression that I was implying the protest was yet another Soros orchestration. It was not a Soros orchestration, nor did I mean to imply that it was. I did intend to imply that the soil Soros tills is fertile for fellow travelers of communists. The tacit ethnic nationalism and extra-legal muscularity of the protest is something I doubt Soros would wish to engender because…enough of that would mean the end of Jewish power and the creeping genocide of the White race. Soros does not wish an end to Jewish power but an end to the White race. I’m surprised that isn’t clear.