Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Another funny bit from the media!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Another funny bit from the media!
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is another facinating look at the current East-coast mania over Hillary's new book. I found this bit about Packer hillarious.
quote:
Another average individual eager to get Hillary's book was Greg Packer, who was the centerpiece of the New York Times' "man on the street" interview about Hillary-mania. After being first in line for an autographed book at the Fifth Avenue Barnes & Noble, Packer gushed to the Times: "I'm a big fan of Hillary and Bill's. I want to change her mind about running for president. I want to be part of her campaign."

It was easy for the Times to spell Packer's name right because he is apparently the entire media's designated "man on the street" for all articles ever written. He has appeared in news stories more than 100 times as a random member of the public. Packer was quoted on his reaction to military strikes against Iraq; he was quoted at the St. Patrick's Day Parade, the Thanksgiving Day Parade and the Veterans' Day Parade. He was quoted at not one – but two – New Year's Eve celebrations at Times Square. He was quoted at the opening of a new "Star Wars" movie, at the opening of an H&M clothing store on Fifth Avenue and at the opening of the viewing stand at Ground Zero. He has been quoted at Yankees games, Mets games, Jets games – even getting tickets for the Brooklyn Cyclones. He was quoted at a Clinton fund-raiser at Alec Baldwin's house in the Hamptons and the pope's visit to Giants stadium.

Are all reporters writing their stories from Jayson Blair's house?


Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*laugh*
Independently, it's kind of funny; I like the idea of this guy so driven to be first in line for everything that he winds up being repeatedly interviewed by reporters who, being unlikely to having ever read many crowd quotes from fluff pieces, don't recognize his gig. [Smile] Coulter, in a somewhat sleazy attempt to suggest that the Times -- and other papers -- are manufacturing interviews, misses the amusing story about Greg Packer: that he's a celebrity hound who's pretty much a full-time queue-sitter, and prides himself on generally being the first guy in line for everything. Since journalists tend to assume that the first guy in line is the most passionate and devoted fan, they tend to interview that person more than anyone else -- and so it goes. *grin*

Had she, in her attempt to suggest that Clinton's book is just a silly flash in the pan (because, make no mistake about it, that's what her hack job is mainly intended to do; a sideways slap at the New York Times was just an added bonus for her), simply pointed out that Packer's comments were -- given his obsessions -- possibly less than sincere or well-reasoned, that would have been fair, if catty. She could well have argued that Hillary's book, like so many celebrity biographies, is just another one of those over-hyped and ghost-written "histories" that comes out now and then, only to wind up in Borders bargain bins.

But the great thing about Ann Coulter is that she'll never stick to the justifiably nasty when there's an unreasonably nasty slant out there. It's not ENOUGH for her to point out the merely obvious -- that a fluff piece of a book is a fluff piece of a book; she has to make it "news" by hinting at the smell of sleaze. It's made her who she is today.

http://faculty-staff.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-07-07/632.asp

[ June 12, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm shocked, just shocked to see Coulter engaged in hyperbole. Who can you trust any more? Who?!?*shakes fist at sky*
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

He seems to be more than someone who is first in line. I mean I was first in line for both of the LOTR movies by several hours, saw each 3-4 times the first day and no one from the local paper interviewed me. He was interviewed at parties, parades, a Papal visit and many other things. I think that many of the reporters know who this guy is, he does have over 100 interviews, and that they search him out becuase they know what he will say.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's also the insinuation - with the Blair comment - that they really don't talk to this guy, or just call him up when they need a catchy phrase.

As for the evil pundits - I actually like that "nasty" and "mean spirited" comments are being used again.

I am so, so tired of all the beating around the bush and oh, poor, poor people, we can't possibly say anything offensive or hurtful, ohhh, we might hurt someone's feeling crap.
Trying to be nice and go at someone with kid gloves just convolutes and waters down the point.
Say what you think, be nice, be nasty, poignant, and pithy, whatever, just say it with out the irritating fluff!

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Trying to be nice and go at someone with kid gloves just convolutes and waters down the point."

You don't think Coulter, by implying something that isn't true, didn't convolute and water down her point? Or is it just that the point -- that fluff books are basically just fluff -- is so self-evident that you agree she had to spice it up by implicating the media in some wrongdoing?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomD posted:
quote:
You don't think Coulter, by implying something that isn't true, didn't convolute and water down her point? Or is it just that the point -- that fluff books are basically just fluff -- is so self-evident that you agree she had to spice it up by implicating the media in some wrongdoing?
Actually, Tom the only person here who has flat out lied is you. You made the specific point that Coulter misrepresented the news in order to attack the media. What really happened is that you misrepresented both the story and her reporting of it to serve your own agenda .

Ann Coulter was the one person who should have your kudos on this instead of your condemnations. I thought it was particularly funny that this guy has been so effective at getting coverage. Sort of reminds me of Catch Me If You Can with Coulter playing the role of Carl Hanratty. We can all laugh at this and compare this guy to Frank W. Abagnale Jr., at least to how successful he's been. Either Coulter was a good detective who let us in on an interesting bit of someone pulling the wool over the eyes of the media, or she let us in on an inside story which does not reflect too well on the reporters, themselves. If they did know about him and used him to get good, but lazy quotes, then shame on them.

You trying to make this an attack piece on Coulter is a whole other issue that you should think really hard about. Why does Coulter need to be bashed everytime you see her name mentioned? ..And why do we need to be lectured about her everytime you see anything attributed to her? Recall that her book was factual and not filled with misrepresentation. We've been all around this and your examples and opinion are not the end-all and be-all to the argument. As a Liberal you can well be embarassed by her topic, but attacking the messenger is so typical.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of interest, how -- specifically -- did I misrepresent the story?

It might take you a while to come up with an answer, but I'm willing to wait. [Smile]

I attacked Coulter precisely because she turns her piece into an attack on the Times -- and reporters in general -- and insinuates that the "liberal media" is (at best) foolishly or (at worst) dishonestly using people like Greg Packer to provide them with useful quotes. The problem with that kind of irresponsible slander -- which would normally be pretty harmless -- is that it plays directly to certain conservative stereotypes and paranoias (as we see in your case; you certainly only provided this link because it satisfied a certain primal liberal-bashing tendency in you).

Note that Coulter did NOT provide a bit of earth-shattering reporting that "lets us in on" a guy who's "pulled the wool over the eyes" of the media; there have been a number of articles about Greg Packer and his obsessions. She provided it only to throw "insidious" aspersions around, hoping that people without the ability to see through her crap would take the ball and run with it. *rolls eyes*

Since the facts of the matter don't provide enough fodder, she relies -- as she so often does -- on half-truths that make her insinuations more palatable to the uninformed. *shrug* You may well consider this article, as with her book, to be a font of well-researched information; I consider it to be a heavily biased, poorly written, and highly manipulative bunch of L-N searches tied together with ranting. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion, at least until you grow out of it. [Wink]

(Edit: As a side note, my own guess is that Coulter's MO on this article was similar to the one she revealed in her book: looking for SOMETHING or SOMEONE to slam Clinton and the media frenzy around her fluff bio with, she plugged all the major proper nouns in the Times article into Lexis. And "Greg Packer," of course, returns a LOT of hits, precisely because he's often first in line for fluff pieces. *grin* 'Investigative' reporting has gotten a lot easier since Woodward and Bernstein, don't you think?)

[ June 14, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<<Sigh!>>

When you posted "You don't think Coulter, by implying something that isn't true, didn't convolute and water down her point?" you did not specifically lie, because you parsed your statement to make a question of it. If this typically average man on the street is not a serial interviewee then you could certainly suggst Coulter "Implied something that isn't true."

However since it appears to be true - the only conjecture is either how incompetent or how misleading the reporting of this is. You can always use a strawman argument and pretend her point is about how the reporters and editors of liberal newspapers conspired to delude the public. I still think it is funny, and on the heels of the Jayson Blair scandal it tends to show how easily duped the media can be.

Get some humor in your life, Tom. "Jousting at windmills because you think they are Giants is not wrong... because they just might be Giants, afterall." - Justin Playfair, They Might Be Giants.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you contending that Coulter was NOT implying the two following, and mutually exclusive, untrue things:

1) That journalists were "fooled" by Greg Packer into somehow letting him foist quotes onto them, and that this calls into question whether or not anyone GENUINELY liked Hillary Clinton's book.

2) That journalists, being lazy, have exploited Greg Packer -- note her Blair reference -- in order to obtain fluff quotes that pander to the subject of their article.

Personally, it seems obvious to me that these two insinuations, which are complete and total speculation, are in fact the whole POINT of mentioning Greg Packer in the first place. For what other reasons do you believe she mentions him within the context of the article?

You make an assumption -- that interviewing someone who is a serial interviewee is somehow INHERENTLY BAD -- that I don't believe you can back up with any facts. Care to explain, without any insinuations of your own, why this is in and of itself a terrible thing?

[ June 14, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I don't care to. It is obvious to the rest of us. You made a pretty funny article sour. Congratulations.

In the future avoid anything from Coulter. It may help you avoid ulcers.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never expected you to start speaking in the Imperial plural. [Smile]

Just to be clear, then: do you or don't you agree that the above two things were indeed what Coulter was insinuating?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, when people publish the by-God truth it is not insinuation.

You have only two choices you can make about the situation. Either the guy has pulled one over on the media who consistently use his quotes and attribute it to an average guy on the street interview (which they are not) - or they do so purposefully because they consider his quotes either meaningful, newsworthy, or entertaining (and then promote them as if they were random samplings of public opinion.)

Either of these two situations is deceitful. You much choose. Was it the interviewer or the interviewee? There are no insinuations necessary beyond that, are there? You can speculate all you want - but in the historical drafting behind the Jayson Blair career of laziness, in either situation the media should have policed itself and recognized what was happening.

Please note that there is no liberal or conservative bias in this. It just is.

Let's pretend it was Bill Moyers who wrote the article and let it go, okay?

[ June 15, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: WmLambert ]

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I reread the article and wish to call to your attention the funny part of the article that I posted in quotes is what is being discussed here. I did not bring in the acknowledged deceitfulness from the first part of her column of having interviews prearranged with staff members like Charles Greinsky, who was a campaigner for the Clinton's - which he neglected to mention - but stated his attachment was because of Hillary's Healthcare stance.

You seemed to have parsed the two together as one and ignored the seemingly incestuous behavior that is hard to defend by Greinsky and used only the funny part at the end that I referenced. If you don't see that a serial interviewee is funny then I don't know what to explain to you that will fix it.

To your posts about insinuations about Parker, I don't see that any are made - except that he stated a fondness for the Clintons as part of this interview - however, if you want to defend the planted stooge that Coulter exposed in the first part of her article then go ahead. I prefer to keep them separate.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me ask you again, William:

For what purpose do you believe Coulter included the bit about Packer?

To me, it appears obvious that she did so as part of her standard technique -- a technique you have remarked upon, mind you, in other instances -- of mentioning one potentially serious issue, then throwing in some tangentially related issues in hopes of buttressing the point. In this case, her point was that the media buzz around Clinton's book was fabricated by evil, conspiratorial liberals -- who, after all, cannot be trusted to even be the first in line for Hillary's book without an ulterior motive.

Do you disagree that this was her point? Do you disagree that she included the Packer bit precisely because she wished to insinuate the two things I listed above? Or are you merely falling back to the somewhat ridiculous defense that the two things above are "God's truth," and therefore not insinuation -- despite the fact that she has no proof whatsoever?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's something else funny, by the way, and just as biased, to perhaps explain why Coulter's reacting the way SHE is:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/06/16/hillary2008/index.html

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Tom. but you're stretching. Your insinuation is your own. It is also your formula for posting one thing and buttressing it with another - not mine, thank you. You shouldn't keep telling me what I am saying when what I am saying is very clear. The divergence from what I say which you claim I say is simply strawman argumment.

The point about the Coulter article in total making evaluations about the Clinton effort for good press is awfully ridiculous, isn't it? Do you want Hillary not to try to maximize her good press? You act like saying that since her normal action is apparent is somehow a conspiracy. Coulter said she is fed up with the Clintons' for not going away. She noted a couple of examples of the press not letting them go away - and you act like Coulter's public enemy number one. Nothing she said was wrong was It?

Sheesh. We all know that the Hillary book will sell a certain number of books. It is relatively preordained isn't it? The Salon article is hardly news, and is certainly not the genesis of Coulter's article. Why you linled to it is questionable. Your link did say that the book was prep for a run in 2008 - however Hillary specifically said she was NOT planning to run for the Presidency in 2008. Are you insinuating she is a liar, or is Salon the liar? Are you trying to make a point that Coulter is jealous of the Hillary book? Coulter is probably offended by it because of the $8 million dollar up front award to her when other books which will sell better, and are not so thoroughly ghostwritten and devoid of promised content are not given such largess. If Coulter keeps numbers on this - perhaps she will include the unfair payouts in future Coulter books documenting unfairness in the liberal book selling business. I don't know - Why is that so important to you?

The funny part, Tom... go read about the funny part. Have a chuckle. laugh a little. See the humor not the hubris.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You shouldn't keep telling me what I am saying when what I am saying is very clear."

Actually, I've ASKED you what you're saying; I haven't once put words in your mouth. If you don't agree with those two implications I'm getting from Coulter, what DO you believe she was saying?

And, yes, I think Coulter wrote the article because she believes the book is a way for Clinton to get back into the news preparatory for an election run -- rightly or wrongly -- and, as she herself has said, wants nothing more than for the Clintons to go away (AFTER she gets her shots in, of course). [Smile] It certainly wasn't because there's not enough political drama going on in the world and she HAD to write about a fluff book; it was, IMO, because she couldn't pass up the chance to take a pot shot -- even if she had to drop a few sleazy insinuations to do it. *shrug*

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1