Posted on 10/24/2009 8:33:16 AM PDT by fiscon1
Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine we are about four years ago. The leak that Bush was using warrantless wiretaps had just occurred recently. Now, imagine that a spy begins to leak information but to only two sources for the most part. One source is Markos Malitsos of the Daily Kos. The other is a relatively unknown left wing blogger. Imagine that initially the unknown blogger leaked their name recklessly. Then, despite this initial breach of trust, both Kos and this unknown begin to not only write about the story but begin to write endlessly about this leaker and present them in a glowing manner. They do this only at about the time when this source, who was initially a conservative, suddenly becomes a liberal. Meanwhile, the unknown blogger will often quote Kos when making their case about how great the leaker is. At the same time, while Kos uses this leaker as a source, he also allows him to be a blogger on his own site. Not only do Kos and the other blogger write endlessly about how great this leaker is, they also often attack the leakers enemies, real and perceived. Eventually, it gets so bad that Kos begins to quote the unkown blogger when attacking the leakers' enemies. Worse than all of that, while they always write glowingly about the source, they usually don't disclose a piece of information about them that paints them in a bad light.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Well then, since you're playing the roll of whistle blower on Michelle Malkin, perhaps it would behoove you to be up front with everyone here about yourself. Hold yourself to the same standard you want to hold everyone else to. I think you know what I'm referring to...something you haven't announced as yet in this thread.
I guess he's trying the David Frum/David Brooks path to fawning acceptance by the MSM - bashing conservatives. The only problem is, he forgot to learn how to write and express a coherent thought along the way.
Come on now, when's your statement forthcoming?
Theft and fraud is a mountain out of a mole hole. You certainly don’t need to say it gratuitously. Yet, Moncrief is leveling serious charges against Project Vote, so it’s absolutely relevant that before she figured that out she committed fraud upon them and she stole from them. Of course, that’s a big deal.
She used a company credit card she wasn’t supposed to and she used it for personal items. Then, she was fired, which we can all agree was perfectly appropriate.Then, she became a whistle blower. I am not even talking about how she took a company computer and printed out proprietary information about Project Vote and shared it with the media without authorization.
If you are simply writing about her, you don’t have to mention it. If you are saying Anita Moncrief claims that project vote shared email info with Obama but don’t mention her whole history with Project Vote then of course you are willfully not including pertinent information.
All right, my internet is horrible. I am going to watch my alma mater in football. You all can continue this debate on your own.
He sounds like those liberals in the Clintoon administration who didn’t want to use CIA sources who had questionable backgrounds- only church ladies were allowed to be sources.
So, you want Malkin to find an ACORN informant who didn’t have any criminal issues.. good luck with that.. an ACORN church lady. I wonder if the author has anything he isn’t disclosing?
What, you're going to leave without coming clean yourself? Even though it's patently obvious...
Bawk, bawk, bawk. Still no correction of your statement that Malkin doesn't appear on Fox News recently. No denial that you are pursuing this attack on Hot Air because they won't post your blog junk.
And that depends on the church lady. What he doesn't appreciate is that for corruption to be made public, the people most likely to do so are themselves likely tainted. That's why they know of it in the first place.
Football is more important than coming clean. This by someone upset because someone he has issues with doesn't acknowledge what HE believes to be salient. So, he leaves to watch football, allowing his own disclosure problem to go unanswered.
It’s a little early in the morning to be hitting the sauce, don’t you think?
Absent that, fiscon1 AKA LameRepetitor, here's a reply.
Dear Jackass,
since you seem to think it's OK to keep posting the same thing, I'm reposting my original reply to you as well.
a href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2366374/posts
The Culture of Corruption Between Michelle Malkin, Michael Gaynor, and Anita Moncrief The Provocateur ^ | 10/19/2009 | Mike Volpe
Posted on Tue 20 Oct 2009 03:08:52 AM EDT by fiscon1
OK. I have read your infantile "blog" from start to finish and 1) don't see any corruption 2) don't see anything particularly interesting and 3) now fully understand why MM doesn't feature you in her Green Room.
You have no writing talent to speak of.
Here are some hints: English is a language made up largely of words. Use good, strong, tactile words in ways that make people want to read your column. It really isn't enough that you personally find it remarkably clever -- who do you think you are, Andrew Sullivan? Next, when you tell a story, you must actually make it interesting. If you can't do that, at the very least it should be about something -- and no, writing a teaser headline really doesn't count when there is no there-there in the putative "blog."
Thanks for confirming why your web page belongs in our kerplunk buckets. You will never get another curious hit from us again. Maybe 4chan/b/ can use you. Hey, they have powers; if they can turn Chocolate Rain viral there may be some hope for your rancid little hit piece.
FRegards.
FRed
Kind of reminds me of David Brock who became a born again Liberal after he came out of the closet.
Wow, isn't it bad? I tried to wade through the hypothetical, but it was just too much. I guess in the end he's comparing leaking security secrets to spilling info about ACORN.
Well, there’s something to be said about persistence, I guess. At least, I’ve read that somewhere. Not sure it worked here, though...
There’s more going on here than just that. Follow the thread and you’ll see.
Unfortunately, I know nothing more about this whole situation other than this blogger’s writeup and now, your additional information. The gist of the blogger’s article seems to only pull together what I note in my prior post.
That said, can you please show me where “journalistic ethics” define the need to list when a source did something with a credit card application which allegedly got them fired, therefore potentially discrediting the whistleblowing that source then does?
Personally, I don't think there's ever been a whistleblower that wasn't accused by their former company of being less than perfect on the job in an attempt to discredit the source.
Thanks for that link. Did you notice on the thread that he never admitted he was the author? So he demands full disclosure from Malkin, but not himself. What an ankle-biting hypocrite.
fiscon1, the poster of the thread, is Mike Volpe, the blogger. We've been calling him out, but he has yet to acknowledge himself.
Calling fiscon1, calling Mike Volpe, to the white courtesy phone in the lobby. You're being called out...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.