ATLAS VLOGS THE NEW YORK TIMES

A fisking VLOG of the New York Crimes commericial -a FLOG? It's a a Joy to flog the New York Slime.

The New York Crimes believes it is the almighty. Godless, they have assumed the position.

Lamestream Media hypocrisy

UPDATE: MORE INFO OF THE NEW YORK TIMES PROTEST

Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets, Monday, July 10, 5 p.m.

The exact place is still to be decided, but it will almost certainly be in the Times Square area. The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus for America, and the Congress for Racial Equality. High-visibility media people are interested in speaking at the protest. More information will be coming on this as we gather groups and speakers. So hold the date!
If you have been as sick about the Times's unconscionable act of treason - the release of our classified information  now is your chance to do something to make your outrage heard. (hat tip Hip Hop Republican)

ATLAS ON THE AIR debuts JULY 4th on  Wide Awakes Radio. My very special first guest is none other than the might- tay, might-tay Bostom. Andrew Bostom and I will be discussing;

America's First War on Terror

Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib).

Read it all and get your questions ready ......heads are gonna roll.

UPDATE: After a cyberterrorist attack, My Pet Jawa is back! YAY!

UPDATE: The House passed a resolution against media outlets betraying secrets  during war. Allahpundit has it here. (hat tip Mara)
 

 

Comments

[eavesdropper]

The NY Times - Propaganda Tool of the Terrorists

The NY Times - We Deliver to Caves

The NY Times - All the secrets that's fit to print

The NY Times - Blames America First

The NY Times - The Dixie Chicks of newspapers

[Jan]

nice vlog. i'm sooooo with ya.

jan

[TS]

Is it possible that heads will "roll"? As a wise man once said, "Words mean things."

[dventimi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking>Fisking generally marshals logics and facts to refute a news story or blog entry, and avoids "flaming and handwaiving". By this measure Pamela's "vlog" doesn't qualify.

TS, who said "Words mean things" and what did that person mean? What do you mean, in fact? What idea do you wish to conjure in the reader's mind by invoking these evidently wise words?

Regards,
Dave

[Netman]

Outstanding Vlog! That's some command center you work out of....very impressive.

[eavesdropper]

dventimi (keyboard's fixed), Thanks very much for the FISK link! I looked it up and here's what I found:

"The term Fisking, or "to Fisk", is a blogosphere term describing ruthlessly detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay.

A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual."

(So I say YOU'RE WRONG! and Pam's Vlog is a worthy "Fisk")

More stuff I learned about Fisking:

Andrew Sullivan did the first "fisk" on Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a deserving target of such treatment.

Robert Fisk went to Afganistan after 9/11 to report the war. He got captured by some Afghan refugees and was given a savage beating, but forgave them and in his article said he doesn't blame them for anything, instead Fisk blamed "the war".

Sullivan presented three arguments in response to Fisk's piece. Firstly, that Fisk's piece was, "a classic piece of leftist pathology" because "he refuses to see them as morally culpable or even responsible."

Secondly, disregarding the notion put forth by Fisk that Western activity in the region is a potential factor behind refugee anger, Sullivan argued that racism was the reason and identified Fisk as racist for believing that "the color of a person’s skin condemns him automatically and justifies violence against him."

Lastly, he dismissed the idea that the effects of Western activity in the region constituted "extenuating circumstances", calling Fisk's sympathy for refugee anger an "a priori moral absolution," that ignored the mob's culpability for their acts.

He concluded that, "(the left-wing intelligentsia) won’t recognize reality, or abandon their racism, or moderate their spectacular condescension to the inhabitants of the developing world – even when reality, literally, crushingly, punches them in the face."

Other Fisk Facts:
The NY Times calls him "the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain"
He's interviewed Bin Laden THREE TIMES, between 1994-1997.. (Hmmmmmm sympathizer maybe??)
Fisk has received widespread praise on the political left and criticism from the right, the latter in particular for an alleged anti-American and anti-Israeli bias in his emphasis on reporting the ills done to the Middle East by the West from the Great War onwards.

Note: for the Times protest I hava sign "NY Times - the Benedict Arnold of newspapers"

[Pamela aka Atlas]

Rich rocks!

[greenmiler]

I think the protest should involve placing NY Times on short flagpoles and burning them

[Steve]

From our little conservative vlog down in Nashville, to yours --- Great job on the vlog post!

[dventimi]

Eavesdropper, you can "say" that I'm "wrong", but if you can't formulate a cogent argument to back it up, why should anyone care? By my recollection of her "vlog" (I watched it once about 3 hrs. ago) Pamela failed to refute anything claimed in the NYT ad, she failed to organize her thoughts into a logical argument, she failed to introduce any salient facts, she exaggerated (I think she said the NYT is helping the "Jihadists"), and she handwaived (I think she said the NYT wants to take the place of God, or some such nonsense).

So, why again is this a good "fisking"?

Regards,
Dave

[Pamela aka Atlas]

Feed the troll at your own risk

[TommyG]

I've just read the Botsome piece at FrontPage and I can say without hesitation I have never been more depressed. Nevermind that I considered myself to have a laymen's sense of history (I know what sides of the conflict R.E. Lee and U.S. Grant belong)and I've never heard of the jihad that stretches back to the 6th century. To think the students of today think history began with Bill Clinton gives me an ill feeling.

Pamela,

Evidently you believe, or wish to convince others, that I am an internet troll, a subjective term if ever there was one. I don't believe I am one, however. For instance, I always try to avoid personal attacks, a courtesy not always extended to me by others on this blog. In fact, all I have tried to do is to highlight errors, dispute presented facts, or highlight other problems in statements made here.

You might call it "fisking".

Regards,
Dave

[eavesdropper]

Before we begin, I need to know where you're coming from, so I'll ask a question. Please answer (prefer Y or N, but will allow a 15 word explanation if you must)

Do you think the NY Times has harmed our National Security by disclosing the Bank Transfer Data Mining Program?

I do.

[eavesdropper]

Just because you don't insult doesn't mean you're not a troll.

I recall the "Gentleman bank robber" always said please and thank you and wore a suit and shined shoes, even had a hanky in his pocket.

He was still a bank robber, albiet a pleasant one.

[dventimi]

Eavesdropper, I believe neither The New York Times nor The Wall Street Journal have harmed "national security" by disclosing that the public though not-commonly-known-about bank transfer data mining program, which you refer to, was conducted without the congressional oversight that was probably required.

With respect to being an "internet troll", while such a new term cannot yet have a precise definition, I submit the Wikipedia one for the sake of argument:

Someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion

I do not believe I have been inflammatory, rude, or offensive, and I do not seek to antagonize, annoy, or disrupt. I confess to some repetitiveness, however. Nobody's perfect, after all.

Regards,
Dave

[eavesdropper]

dventimi- The Times were well fisked. First of all, the basic premise is that Pam believes the NY Times is a traitor that has caused grave damage to our national security based on how they have given away ANOTHER secret program which helped us capture the mastermind behind the Balli terror attack.

They were told by the highest admininistration officials that the Swift program was vital to our being able to catch the jihadists and they admit that it's legal and had no abuses.

Fisk as the definition states: When someone gives ruthlessly detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay.

A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, SARCASTIC and ruthlessly factual.

Pam's fisk was detailed, she stopped the video after EVERY Point and criticized or ridiculed it for being either ridiculous or a lie and she did it in a funny sarcastic way. It was point-by-point breakdown of the NY Times commercial, very witty. A slamdunk Fisk.

Your witness.

[md]

You are the female Michael Savage.

He has better lines.

You are better looking.

He is more depressed.

You are more angry.

Are you related?

BTW, I do not agree with what the NY Times did.

[eavesdropper]

My definition of troll is more like this: Someone who chronically s/trolls in and regularly posts specious arguments,
and opposing points of view, just because.

They do it for no other purpose than to annoy or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait.

Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." (compare to "kook").

I've seen time and again where others have spent a lot of effort and given fact after fact and it was as if the info hit a brick wall.

Would be nice to see a light come on every now and then (especially when YOU'RE WRONG).

To your credit, you're a very polite s/troller.

;o)

[Will]

Loved the video post !! I've seen that commercial several times and had to laugh. I'm glad someone decided to take that ad to task !! BTW, love the NY accent. Couldn't help notice how pretty you are !! Keep up the great work. I found a new blog to follow.

[dventimi]

Eavesdropper,

Pamela's premise is painfully obvious, yet still...unsupported. Against my better judgement I listened to it again, yet still I heard nothing in the NYT ad refuted. Can you name one thing that she did refute? Anything?

Regards,
Dave

[eavesdropper]

Ok dventimi, I have a fresh cup of coffee.

Set up: She’s watching a TV commercial for the NY Times and she pauses it after each of their “points” to make a fisk (a point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes presented facts, and recall that a really stylish fisking is witty, logical, SARCASTIC and ruthlessly factual).

note: you can put in your own eye rolls, smiles, pain, and various other faces she makes when commenting.

Let the Fisk begin:
The sentences after each number is the NY Times Commercial.
The sentences after the "dash" is Pam's comment.

1. Call now to order “the greatest paper in the world” without a doubt
- Yeah, if you a jihadi!

2. It’s the quality of the writing.
- Do ya think they’e talking about Jason Blair? Or that they run the "Oil for food scandal" on page 482 of the F Section…

3. It’s Aerobics for the brains.
- Did you see that fat slushy brain? OH, I’ll be accused of “looksism” by the PC crowd, but I’m sure it looks like Franken

4. Its very interesting, so many things you can get out of it.
- so many things you can get out of it, yeah, if you’re a jihadi

5. The Newspaper of New York
- the Newspaper of the Twin Towers (she’s trying to remind them of what happened on 9/11)

6. Call 1-800 bla bla bla for home delivery starting at $2.50 for a weekend.
- Don’t even think of calling, I’ll kick your ASS

7. I don’t trust just anybody to bring me the news.
- I have to go to the best LIAR in town, I don’t trust just anybody to bring me my lies.

8. From all angles
- ONE angle, Leftarded.

9. Whenever I’m in doubt I look in the NYT.
- Whenever I’m in doubt of my leftardedness epistemology, the nature of my knowledge, I just go to the mother ship

10. Call now for 12 weeks starting at $2.50 per week.
- They’re running THIS (commercial) at the same time that the news is running that they leaked classified info that aids and abets our enemy. These people have blood on their hands, American soldiers lives are being jeopardized because of these fools.

11. 50% off, No other newspaper can cover what the NY times covers
- no other newspaper can get away with murder the way the NY times does

12. More in-depth stories, a better array of international news
- a better array of international news, ONE. MYOPIC. FASIST outlook

13. There’s articles where I live, it’s a rich cultural celebration.
- Let’s not forget the multicultural PC nonsense, got to slip that in there.

14. What the latest trend is, its almost a guide to NY
- what the latest trend is… it’s called “Hate America”

15. Call now for Home Del and have the Times waiting for YOU.
- don’t even think of it

16. It’s my window to the world.
- Yean, it’s just covered up with bricks

17. I don’t really feel we’re ready for a Monday unless we read it on Sunday - there’s nothing quite like the Times,
- Oh, I agree, there’s NOTHING quite like them.

18. Call 800-4230707 for home delivery, There’s the Times and there’s Everything Else.
- Ah, they believe that, they believe that in a Godless society, they’ve assumed the role of the Almighty.
They were freaked, shocked, outraged over the outing of Valerie Plame - by who? Really her husband who outed her (mocks Plames hair) They were screaming SCREAMING about compromising America (over that).
- She ends this perfect fisk by asking everyone to go the Protest of the NY Times.

If your still not sure this was a fisking, check and make sure you had the volume on when you watched it.

Thanks for the transcript. I did have the volume up when I watched it, and though I heard everything she said, I don't consider it a fisking. She didn't highlight any errors, nor did she dispute any facts. And recall that while wit and sarcasm may confer style onto a fisk, neither is essential, the way logic and facts are.

Here, let me show you how it's done, son.

1. "Greatest paper..." is a marketing boast. Since the Times has among the largest circulation (if not the largest) of any daily, by that measure it is a great, if not the greatest, paper. Also, along with the Post, the Times is (I suspect) cited more than most other papers. These are attractive criteria, because they're objective (either the Times has a large circulation, or it does not) and can be measured. And, Pamela implies that "Jihadists"--and perhaps only they--favor the Times, but provides no evidence.

2. "Most accurate..." Another boast. Jayson Blair, who was fired 3 years ago along with editor Howell Raines, was just one of many many people who contribute to a truly gargantuan paper, and politics wasn't even his beat. If you want to highlight the Times important innaccuracies, a better example would be Judy Miller's now-repudiated articles about Iraq WMDs, aluminum tubes, ties to al-Quaeda, etc.

3. "Aerobics..." Yet another marketing boast, with some basis: the NYT is large and its writing is dense, which probably exercises ones powers of reading comprehension and memory. Also, the crossword puzzle is famously challenging.

4. "...yeah, if you're a Jihadi". Here, Pamela has started to repeat herself, perhaps because she never really had anything substantial to say. She's starting to lose points on style.

5. "...the paper of...the Twin Towers". Evidently we're to remember the 9/11 attacks at this point, for some reason. It's a non sequitor.

6. "...kick your ASS". Empty threat of bodily harm inflicted upon anyone who exercises consumer choice. Great. Sounds like a fascist tendancy to me.

7. "...best LIAR in town". Is this from the "liar liar pants on fire" school of wit?

8. "...leftarded". Knee-jerk juvenile namecalling. See #7 above.

9. "...leftarded". Again. See #8.

10. "...leaked classified information...blood on their hands". Just as some people question whether Valerie Plame was really covert, I have read that this was not classified information, that Bush himself boasted about it often in the past, that "terrorists" are not naive, and that the only truly new piece of information was not that the program occurred, but that it did so without congressional oversight. Incidentally, The Wall Street Journal published essentially the same information the very same day, so by Pamela's reasoning they also have blood on their hands.

11. "...can get away with murder". Who, again, has the Times "murdered"? Sounds like flamebait to me. Style points, fading fast.

12. "...more in-depth stories...MYOPIC...FASCIST". Fascism is something like a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. I don't think the Times fits. Maybe something like...incarcerating people (and sometimes citizens) indefinitely in an American gulag without opportunity to meet your accuser, to confront the evidence, or to receive counsel, fits the bill better.

13. "...multiculturalism". Many people regard respect for diverse cultural interests to be a virtue, especially in a city so diverse as New York. Since it helps circulation, no doubt the Times shareholders agree. If Pamela preferred they cater only to one culture, which would it be? White anglo-saxon Protestant? She might have a problem with that.

14. "...hate America". Now, Pamela's a mind-reader.

15. "don't even think of it". Pamela repeats herself again, and again. Once more, with feeling.

16. "...covered up with bricks". Actually, that's kinda witty. Nice one, Pamela.

17. "Oh, I agree, there's NOTHING quite like them". I thought a fisker was supposed to dispute the fiskee, not agree with them?

18. Oh brother. Does anyone REALLY believe that when the Times says, "There's the Times, and then there's everyone else", they mean "everyone else" to include all people, planets, and deities, rather than that they mean "everyone else" to include only the other newspapers in the five burroughs? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to see you.

Then, there was some stuff about Plame, but I'm not sure what the point was.

Jeez-Louise this was just a sorry substitute for real analysis. How do you listen to this stuff?

Regards,
Dave

P.S. I answered your question before, no I don't think the Times hurt national security. What of it?

P.P.S. Let me ask you a question. Do you only want to read posts on this and other blogs, if you agree with them?

[eavesdropper]

dventimi - You've always had the luxory of the alphabet news, hollywood, academia, etc with their biased non-stop drumbeat of liberal bias.

We haven't. Blogs, talk radio, vlogs, are fairly new and refreshing. So, whenever a Right winger does some humor against an enemy as coniving and evil as the New York Times, I (and many like me) are all ears and eyes.

Pam's Fisk was to me an enjoyable critique of their commercial - I got it. It was great satire. The disgust and contempt we feel towards the NY Slimes goes beyond words and Pam's Fisk was a tangible way for some kind of satisfaction, we see through them.

I noticed you had a little more bite in you in this thread, but that's okay, I'm flexible. (but maybe, lighten up a little..) On that same line, don't take Pam's use of "Kick your Ass" so harshly, you know what I mean. Have a little fun sometimes...

Bottom line, it's was a terrific fisking and she rebuked every "point".

I don't have time to split hairs on the fine points of it with you. Suffice to say, I read your viewpoints with interest.

Answer to your question, to be honest about it, I do prefer being with like-thinkers. I've been around the block for a while and I pretty much know what matters to me. I've had a military career, and been a lifetime sports jock and coach, so "team" oriented goals work for me.

I like it because I know that my teammate's goals are the same as mine and I/we can make progress towards the goal. I like to bounce ideas and theories off of my comrades, shipmates, and friends.

When someone from the other side joins in, it truly is an oil and water mix (for me). It would be like a rival coach joining me in my game prep against his team... it's painful and a waste of time.

Not to say this analogy is the same here. It's not, but it is similar. I "worked" with you on this one only because you deserve some quality time, from time to time....

I know this might sound hard to believe, but I learn a lot from like thinkers. I appreciate the differences between us and take their experiences into play. Wish I could say the same about the opposition, but if the goal is almost the exact opposite of mine, then there's no room for real learning... it's mostly an exercise in futility because we're polarized. I disagree with your take, but in spite of that, this was okay.

[eavesdropper]

dventimi - Check out today's VENT on Hot Air. It sums up the flip-flop by the Times since 9/11. Comment on it if you want, but not necessary. Do you have something similar for me to check out with your take? If so, let me know.

[dventimi]

Eavesdropper, I'm glad you noticed I added a little more spice (or "bite") than usual. I hoped you would, since it was for your benefit, to satisfy your palate for sarcasm.

I suppose I can't debate with your your lack of enthusiasm for...er...debate, since that would be circular. Oh well, I gave it the old college try.

I don't know what today's "VENT on Hot Air" is, but I'll check it out, thanks.

You aren't by chance the same bloke who went by "Underzog" or "Richard Davis" are you? Just curious.

Adios, mu chacho
Dave

[eavesdropper]

You're right, but I'm not Underzog. Did you find the vent? go to www.hotair.com.

If you don't mind, donde estas? I'm in Philly. You don't live in england do you?

I'll try to debate you from time to time sin insults (cause I've learned that you are a courteous commentor), even though we're polarized on most stuff I'm sure.

[dventimi]

Perhaps you will believe it confirms your preconceptions to discover that I am in San Francisco, home of the "Fighting 9th" circuit of the federal courts. Sorry I haven't written recently, I've been busy hot-tubbing in Marin with my Earth First friends, talking about what a genius Al Gore is with his global warming movie.

Regards,
Dave