s skippy the bush kangaroo: mainstream media bites roo

skippy the bush kangaroo



Friday, June 27, 2008

mainstream media bites roo

readers of this space may remember our letters to various (three) journalists asking why they forced the "arrogant" narrative onto the story about obama's campaign seal, when mccain's own national republican senatorial committee used the same sort of prototype (the presidential seal) for their own campaign logos.

we received a response from andrew malcolm of the latimes blog top of the ticket. readers of this space know we have quoted and linked to top of the ticket before, and have nothing but respect for their work. but apparently the guys who write top of the ticket don't know that.

[please be aware of two things are you read mr. malcolm's answer to skippy: firstly, we accidentally ascribed jake tapper's quote about obama to mr. malcolm in our original email, ergo we had to write a second, apologetic and amended letter. and secondly, skippy, hoping to get farther in communication with real jouranalists(tm), not only used his real name in his signature, he used capital letters. that's how important he thought it was.]

mr. malcolm wrote to skippy:

your apology is accepted. we are a political blog that writes around-the-clock about all aspects of the campaigns with attitude and hopefully some insights. apparently millions of readers are getting something from the ticket as our global ranking has surged to #133 in one year out of 100+ million. what’s yours, skippy? since there was almost universal derision over the premature presidential seal of sen. obama and his staff has been quoted as saying it was a mistake, it’s curious you defensively only ask us about it. we’re delighted to receive such attention. but if the seal was such a good idea, why isn’t he still using it?

people laughing and snickering at the seal detracts from the messages he wants to deliver, which is the professional measure of such tools.

haven’t come across sen. mccain’s pretend presidential seal yet. in fact, from our inquiries, we understand he doesn’t really like podiums, which might explain his poor deliveries at them. but if we do, you’ll see it roundly humorized on the ticket with a huge photo, especially if he attaches some faux latin motto. for now, we’re stuck with criticizing his crummy fundraising and policy inconsistencies. thanks for reading, though hope you do also get around to scanning our items not on your candidate.
we were taken aback by the dismissive tone of mr. malcolm's reply. but we were mainly frustrated that mr. malcolm failed to address, let alone answer, our questions. skippy wrote back:

i'll readily admit i don't have as many readers of my blog as yours, but i'm not sure what that has to do with my question. i don't believe i was snide or sarcastic, nor even defensive in my letter to you. and i do believe my question was legitimate. i am wondering at what point a reader of your work has to have credentials to engage in dialogue with you without being dismissed. your sarcasm and condescending attitude kind of proves my point, in my opinion.

this still is not really addressing my question, is it, though? please rest assured that you are not the only journalists i wrote to about this, and i am not sure what in my letter would give you that impression. i would say that assuming i am questioning you alone is itself defensive, if not downright egotistic. but that's just my initial reaction to your incorrect premise that i only wrote one email and it was to you.

the "universal derision" you point to was among the press corps and beltway pundits. and i actually did not say that it was a good idea or bad idea, so asking me why he's not still using it has little to do with my original point.

what i asked was, why did you so quickly fit obama's use of the presidential seal as a prototype for a campaign logo into a narrative about obama's arrogance when mccain's own caucus uses the same seal as a prototype for a campaign logo, and yet you don't mention that.

if it is because you don't know about mccain's caucus logos, i respectfully suggest that you read the link i sent you, do some research and then publish a follow up pointing out that the republicans are doing the exact same thing the democrats are doing (though, as i said in my original letter, for senatorial campaigns and not presidential campaigns).

again, when you say "people, [are laughing]" what you really mean is "the press corps." it is my contention that the press corps should not be the final arbiter of what a candidate offers to the public, especially when the opposing candidate is offering the same sort of thing, but the press corps ignores it.

please follow the link i provided, though, again, it's for senatorial campaigns, and not presidential campaigns. but the link does provide republican faux seals based on the presidential seal.

obama is not my candidate, thank you very much. as i have said on my blog post concerning your coverage of the seal, i'm not after a fair shake for obama, i'm after a fair press corps.

two minor points. my name is not skippy, that's the nom de plume i use on my blog. i gave you my name in both my original email and my follow up. i would point out that your refusal to use of my real name indicates either lack of respect for me, your reader, or more sarcasm, or just plain sloppiness on your part.

and i re-read my original email. i don't see any place in which i was sarcastic, caustic or snide towards you and your work. i believe quite strongly that i was polite, professional and adult in my approach in asking my question. not only did you completely fail to address my question in your response, i certainly don't feel you returned the respect i showed to you.

i may not have the readership that you do with my blog. but even if i was just one reader without a blog and with a question for you, does that give you the right to be snide in your response to me? seriously? is that the professionalism you wish to show to the world?

i think such attitude reflects poorly on you as a journalist and as an adult doing business in the world, and i would respectfully suggest you try to be more polite in future dialogues with your readers, lest they think you are an asshole.

s.

ps. i'm not sure if you realize it, but "humorize" means "to humor," as in, to placate, to appease. it does not mean "to make fun of." so basically what you are saying is that the next time you see mccain make a goof, you'll placate him. a slip rather freudian, i would posit.
if anybody wants to respond to mr. malcolm's missive to skippy, his email is andrew.malcolm@latimes.com

Labels: , , , ,

posted by skippy at 1:40 AM |

17 Comments:

Is this a good time to point out that I adore you? There's no time like the present!
commented by Anonymous tata, 6:09 AM PDT  
our global ranking has surged to #133 in one year out of 100+ million. what’s yours, skippy?

I can't believe how obnoxious this is. Maybe one day Mr. 133 (with backing from the LA Times) will get as many hits as Kos. Until then, he shouldn't mock anyone based on traffic.
commented by Blogger The Kenosha Kid, 9:20 AM PDT  
Well done, skippy. Very disappointing but unsurprising from Malcolm - I guess no one can raise legitimate issues with him?
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 9:54 AM PDT  
I suspect, skippy, that what you've come across here is a bit of snide boilerplate; this seems to be how nearly all professional journalists address those who question them these days. A more arrogant bunch of elitist pikers I have never seen -- and I work in academia.
commented by Blogger Chet Scoville, 3:00 PM PDT  
You're a hero, skippy. 133 -- ::fanning self:: lawsy! from such a height he no doubt has the right to evade and worm just like the politicians he favors!
commented by Blogger Scorpio, 4:45 PM PDT  
Wow!!! 133rd..!
Ummmm... who is 132nd??
Some hard core quilting site???
Skippy, I think your question was fair and the return response more than a little "dismissive"... (sigh)
I am an Obama supporter and an avid one at that...but that seal was a mystery to me ...what could they have been thinking???
And yes it is a bit odd that he left out all of senator Johnny McC@#%'s various shortcomings...
Seriously tho, did you see that green wall ???? Just make Mc C@#$ stand in front of that from now on and I'll consider it all square... :))
And Blogger wont let me log on as my usual "Prior" name, so I'm stuck with A-nonny-moose....
Wasnt that a song in a Shakespear Play??? sum,pin 'bout "A-nonny,nonny-moose and a ho,ho,ho"?????
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 7:57 AM PDT  
Watch him go ballistic on the "asshole" description. He will divert any further discussion to that one word, wven though he thoroughly deserves the title.
commented by Blogger Che's Lounge, 8:27 AM PDT  
SING OUT LOUISE!!!!

(Major Props, Skippy. The arrogant bastards are running scared.)
commented by Blogger DavidEhrenstein, 8:40 AM PDT  
I think you owe Macolm a debt of gratitude. Because of him you have gained a new reader. Me.

I know Greenwalds work and Malcom is no Greenwald.
" our global ranking has surged to #133 in one year out of 100+ million. what’s yours, skippy?"

What a schmuck.
commented by Anonymous scottmatheson58, 9:14 AM PDT  
This is why Democat and I love you Skippy!
commented by Blogger Ellen Beth, 9:47 AM PDT  
I think I see the problem: You referred to them as journalists, and they are not. They are commentators. TO that end, they do not have to hold journalism credentials and ethics, and by the reply and lack thereof, they betrayed themselves. You ascribed them legitimacy and credit, where they have none and deserve even less.
commented by Anonymous Annie, 10:39 AM PDT  
When you're #133, you try harder.
commented by Anonymous jitter, 10:41 AM PDT  
One day the concern trolls might admits that McCain is a shitty candidate. He looks like death warmed over, and he can barely string a sentence together.

Still, this might not be enough to kill him off. Who would you rather have a beer with, you rednecks?

I truly despair.
commented by Blogger blogenfreude, 11:29 AM PDT  
Well, the response from Mr. Malcolm leaves a lot to be desired, it's true. But at least he -did- respond, however dismissively, and now you're making him the focal point of your, and your commenter's reaction, and he's probably feeling the heat.

What I find myself wondering though, is why you aren't applying the same level of rhetoric and response to the two individuals who didn't bother to respond at all? Why aren't you pointing fingers and commenters at THEM to inquire why they choose to ignore a simple question to a painfully obvious issue of MSM unequal treatment?

It just seems to me that the only thing that's -more- dismissive and condescending than Malcolm's reply to you is not deigning to reply to you AT ALL. I would be shining some spotlights in those folks direction as well.
commented by Blogger Malixe, 11:34 AM PDT  
malixe, i only just sent them emails on thursday nite, and, especially in the case of jake tapper, i'm guessing the emails are taking time to get thru the corporate system.

the email to tapper was actually sent on a general feedback form to abcnews.com.
commented by Blogger skippy, 8:59 PM PDT  
"A hundred thirty two had a few readers more;
Malcolm was sneering at One Thirty Four.
He stomped through the blogosophere, -- (yes!) -- like a nut,
Loosened his beltway and wrote with his butt..."

(with apologies to The Ballad of Irving)
commented by Blogger Kip W, 10:17 PM PDT  

Add a comment