why im so glad im not a Right Wing Blogger in 2005-2006 or a member of Pajamas Media how to know when you're on to something big How Open Source Media Got Its Name Say Anything - North Dakota's Most Popular Political Blog linked with Bush Paying Off Bloggers? » Pajama's accused of being front for Bush Administration The Blog Herald: more blog news more often linked with » Pajama's accused of being front for Bush Administration The Blog Herald: more blog news more often
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
For once I agree with rob and chad---I doubt very much that this story is true.
Frankly, the Bush regime doesn't NEED to pay off these bloggers. They're all willing to pimp the White House line for free!
Actually, I gave it up---too much time and effort, not enough payoff. Sort of like marriage.
BTW, are you claiming thet the Bush regime doesn't pay off journalists? Because if you are, you're being pretty delusional.
Jay Tea
· 4 years ago
Yeah, that's telling 'em, Don. BTW, what happened to YOUR readers? Hell, what happened to your whole SITE?
Isn't it easier to argue the people and not the issues? or should I bring up Oliver Willis' day job, the one that lets him (or, more likely, "encourages" him) to blog from the office?
J.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Good point, J., and something tells me that O-Dub wouldn't be long for the Media Matters world if he took up a pro-Iraq war, or pro-Bush stance...but I'm pretty sure PJ Media would keep me around if I went pro-Dean.
Brandon
· 4 years ago
Funny thing is I checked out the site yesterday and noticed they had two posts about Howard Dean's comments. Two were from right-leaning blogs while the other two were from decidedly left-leaning blogs.
If PJ Media's goal is to pay bloggers to push right-wing propaganda, then they've got it all wrong by taking a controversial story and presenting both sides of the argument.
They need to model themselves more after Oliver Willis. Somebody who IS being paid to push propaganda.
Chad Evans
· 4 years ago
That guy who wrote that is an idiot. He doesn't connect any dots, he makes accusations, similar to the accusations that fill his entire site. I can make the same type of allegations.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Was there something on Bush's side of the road he didn't like? Was there a tasty morsel of corn on the other side of the road? Is the feed on his original side of the road somehow tainted? Oh, there was a rooster on the other side and its mating season. Well, then disregard my above rant.
tony
· 4 years ago
sadly i only have a quick second to respond but if youre going to challenge my observations we should at least be talking about the same things
1) i never said anyone at PJ was being bribed. Don has it half right... BushCo has a history of *rewarding* loyalists in the media to continue to support his programs (williams et al are conservatives). Pajamas continues to follow that behavior
2) thank you but id rather not be part of the trainwreck, however there were others who did want in and werent allowed to be, ask Dennis the Peasant for a longer list, but i clearly recall a Conservative journalist, one Luke Ford who was hired, had his profile put up on LGF and was then fired after a few days. so no, not "anyone" was/is allowed access to be part of the implosion.
3) the value of the network for those who own/control it, isnt the awardwinning prose, no offense, it's the access to the valueable ad real estate of the top blogs in the cadre. since BushCo had a budget to spend $100 mil to spread propaganda in Iraq, $3.5 to do so on the 70+ blogs is a value. i recommend that you not only read the three posts i wrote but also take a peek at the Science Board report that helped form your name.
4) Your boss Simon admitted on Friday that Pajamas was in the propaganda business and its target is American citizens. im not really saying that much different than whats coming from atop the masthead.
Chad Evans
· 4 years ago
Tony, do you know what propoganda is? Do know its uses and how many companies, governments and even ordinary people are in the propoganda business as you claim?
Is there such thing as good propoganda? Is all propoganda lies or half-truths?
It seems to me you're using the term propoganda when you're wanting to say something more inflamatory, but thus far all you've said is Pajamas Media is in the information spreading business. Well, yeah, but so are you too.
Oliver
· 4 years ago
Nobody at Media Matters vets or controls what I say on my blog. I've supported 1 or 2 things that Bush has done, but the mountain of stuff that I don't support is enormous.
TC@LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
Rob, Love your site and perspective, but I am roughly one inch away from yanking every link to any associated Jammie Asswipes website from my main page. Doesn't mean I won't keep reading; just means I won't point or link.
Simon & Co. are just acting like dingo pups, trying to feed on an MSM carcass that they can't exist without.
God bless if you get ad traffic from the association...since I block every ad that tries coming down my pipe, sorry (SoupNazi voice): no clicks for you!
Trackback - Powered by HaloSca
· 4 years ago
[...] Trackback URL for this entry:http://haloscan.com/tb/tsarfan/113363165181052863Mental illness is never pretty.Excerpt: Screaming yellow zonkers.Weblog: Anechoic RoomTracked: 12.03.05 - 8:07 amPropagandists in Pajamas?Excerpt: Hey, I'm not saying Tony's necessarily completely right about this,now im not saying that Charles Johnson and Roger L. Simon are in bed with the Bush Administration, or the Instapundit. those guys are fair and balanced. any time the Republicans make ...Weblog: UnFairWitnessTracked: 12.03.05 - 12:29 pmThere's A Moonbat In My Pajamas MediaExcerpt: Good heavens. I may have plenty of criticism for Pajamas Media, but leave it to the Left to jump the shark. I've a feeling every time it rains these idiots are conviced Bush has seeded the clouds.now im not sayingWeblog: Riehl World ViewTracked: 12.03.05 - 10:52 pmBack to basics.Excerpt: When almost any political argument becomes acrimonious, an excellent possibility at changing it into a productive discussion is to find out what people are talking about. Get people to state the definitions of the terms they are using, and often...Weblog: StealthBadger.netTracked: 12.04.05 - 2:33 pmHeh. Indeed.Excerpt: They were against information ministering before they were for it.Weblog: newsrackTracked: 12.04.05 - 7:00 pmBirth of a conspiracy theoryExcerpt: I was stopped in my tracks by a post by Stephen Green at VodkaPundit in response to this piece by Tony Pierce. Stephen can get fired up sometimes but I've never read anything quite like this from him: I suspect Tony Pierce got caught in bed...Weblog: The Cranky PCVTracked: 12.05.05 - 12:58 amBush Paying Off Bloggers?Excerpt: What follows is blogging about blogging, and will probably be pretty boring to you non-bloggers. Is Pajamas Media (of which I am a part) nothing but a cover to channel funds down from the White House to the lowly denizens of the blogosphere for favor...Weblog: Say AnythingTracked: 12.07.05 - 2:41 am [...]
TC@LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
hiya, Jeffy! CITIZEN JOURNALISTS=AD BUCKS SLUTS!
Jeff G
· 4 years ago
Don't buy Tony's (tonys?) bullshit. He singled out a few of us as who defended a standard psyops information campaign (paying to place what the LAT called "largely factual" pro-coalition stories in the Iraqi press) and used our posts as implied "evidence" that we were being paid to shill for the GOP.
All the posts he cites take care to make reasoned arguments -- and for what it's worth, I actually had a back and forth with one of my critics, Matt Welch, on Reason's Hit and Run. But Tony (tony) doesn't address the arguments at all. Instead, he uses their very existence to suggest the existence of potential conspiracy, one that calls into question the integrity of all of those participating in Pajamas media.
Given that another blogger had made similar charges previously (only in that instance, it was the Likudniks and the neocons we were working for), I decided to play Tony's game and question HIS motives. Turns out he wasn't happy that he had to defend his motives against charges with no basis in fact and tethered to no evidence whatsoever.
As Rob notes, nobody tells us what to write, and in fact, all I surrendered to PJM was my ad space, while giving them the write to syndicate my posts. In exchange, they pay me (whereas before, Blogads paid me). That folks like Tony and Oliver see yet ADDITIONAL Bush conspiracies behind something so benign as this speaks to their increasingly evident disconnect to reality.
And before Oliver says anything, let me just say that the fact that both he and Tony are black is completely incidental -- not some coded form of conservative racism.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Tony,
First you say this:
1) i never said anyone at PJ was being bribed. Don has it half right... BushCo has a history of *rewarding* loyalists in the media to continue to support his programs (williams et al are conservatives). Pajamas continues to follow that behavior
Then you say this:
since BushCo had a budget to spend $100 mil to spread propaganda in Iraq, $3.5 to do so on the 70+ blogs is a value
I think its pretty clear that you are accusing we PJ bloggers of taking bribes to write "propagands" for the White House. We can argue semantics if you want, I guess, but that seems kidn of pointless.
thank you but id rather not be part of the trainwreck, however there were others who did want in and werent allowed to be, ask Dennis the Peasant for a longer list, but i clearly recall a Conservative journalist, one Luke Ford who was hired, had his profile put up on LGF and was then fired after a few days. so no, not "anyone" was/is allowed access to be part of the implosion.
Was he hired to the staff and fired or is Mr. Ford a blogger? Because hiring and firing employees is a much different thing from bloggers not being allowed to join. And if there are bloggers who weren't allowed to join, I haven't heard of it. Maybe PJ Media had some standards as to traffic/content that they applied, I don't know, but I haven't heard of anyone being excluded. Not specifically invited, yes, but excluded? No.
But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Your boss Simon admitted on Friday that Pajamas was in the propaganda business and its target is American citizens. im not really saying that much different than whats coming from atop the masthead.
Got a link? I'd be interested in reading what he had to say.
Oliver:
Nobody at Media Matters vets or controls what I say on my blog. I've supported 1 or 2 things that Bush has done, but the mountain of stuff that I don't support is enormous.
So if you suddenly had a change of heart and started supporting the war and the President, Media Matters would keep you around? Because I rather doubt that.
On an unrelated note, who is that in your gravatar?
TC@LeatherPenguin
· 4 years ago
Well, Jeff, then we're both wrong: you're "a pack of hooker whore slut prostituted bloggers now clothed in bathrobes."
I've always wondered who the blazes that $3.5 mill came from...considering all the "open and transparent" crap that was flung around. Keeping that VC angel(s)'s identity undser the table makes it pretty damn easy for folks like that Pierce cat to come to his conclusion.
zetetic
· 4 years ago
Wow, I can't believe Ollie the Hutt posts somewhere he can't have the last word and can't ban someone who kicks his obese ass (rhetorically speaking, of course). Almost makes me have some respect for the choad. But not quite.
Jeff G
· 4 years ago
You mean "whores." We're being paid, after all.
MisterPundit
· 4 years ago
Tony, do you know what propoganda is?
Tony wouldn't know a hole in the ground from the hole in his head. This is pure comedy GOLD.
tony
· 4 years ago
Rob,
1) Luke Ford was to be one of the paid bloggers of Pajamas, forgive me, but i dont know if that means staff of what, i assume you'd know those details. link 1, link 2 some speculated that it was because of his association with the adult film industry, but far as i know you guys still have someone who was an executive at penthouse.com there, so... who knows why he was let go.
3. From the quote you're using I can see why you'd think that I am theorizing that it's the writing that is valueable, but if you read my post(s) closer you will see that I believe that although many of you are fine writers, the true value of the 70 blogs is the ad space that you have signed over to Pajamas Media. if there are indeed puppetstrings and/or funders with hidden agendas, that is where the investment of the $3.5 milion is at. they can broadcast whatever swiftboatish ads that they want at any rate they choose, block any anti-bush ads by flat out rejecting them as Sinclair and Viacom often do, or push their own agendas through that space. i believe i called the plan brilliant. in part because it means that none of you have to be privy to their intentions. you take their money, you have guaranteed "ads", and as long as you keep churning out blogposts and attracting eyeballs, alls good in the hood.
but again, if most of the pajamas crew are cool with propaganda, even if it's discovered whats going on, i doubt many will jump ship and i seriously doubt the readers would care since... this is a war and all, and anything goes.
MisterPundit
· 4 years ago
Oh sweet Jesus, the comedy hits keep on comin'...
It's pretty obvious that RLS was referring to the issue of propaganda as a weapon in the war, and using that as an introduction to a post at PJM on the subject of - you guessed it - propaganda in the war.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Tony:
Luke Ford was to be one of the paid bloggers of Pajamas, forgive me, but i dont know if that means staff of what, i assume you'd know those details. link 1, link 2 some speculated that it was because of his association with the adult film industry, but far as i know you guys still have someone who was an executive at penthouse.com there, so... who knows why he was let go.
This is the first time I've ever heard of Mr. Ford, but since he was a journalist I would assume that he was part of the staff. And a staff person being fired is not equivalent to a blogger being denied access because of their ideology. Do you have any evidence that anyone was excluded because they were liberal?
2. Roger Simon: "We are indeed in a propaganda war and our primary target is our fellow citizens." 12/2
Here's the full, non cherry-picked quote:
Some have said the most important battles in the Iraq War are being fought in the news rooms of New York, Washington and Los Angeles. We are indeed in a propaganda war and our primary target is our fellow citizens. This morning's post on Pajamas Media has several reminders of this, most noteworthy of which is a link to an AP story that seems to have slipped completely under the wire: Iraq suicide blasts at lowest level in 7 months. Of course you won't be finding this in the NYT whose lead story at the moment is Profusion of Rebel Groups Helps Them Survive in Iraq (talk about the obvious).
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
That's not nearly as sinister as you let on, Tony.
if there are indeed puppetstrings and/or funders with hidden agendas, that is where the investment of the $3.5 milion is at. they can broadcast whatever swiftboatish ads that they want at any rate they choose, block any anti-bush ads by flat out rejecting them as Sinclair and Viacom often do, or push their own agendas through that space. i believe i called the plan brilliant. in part because it means that none of you have to be privy to their intentions. you take their money, you have guaranteed "ads", and as long as you keep churning out blogposts and attracting eyeballs, alls good in the hood.
From my contract:
c. ... We will develop a procedure that will allow you to report, have us review, and remove individual advertisements from your blog.
This gives me veto power of the ads that appear here on Say Anything. And, if things aren't working out, I can terminate my contract and forfeit and forefeit a certain amount of money. In short, these ads aren't all that much different than the Blog Ads which are so popular on the left and the right.
As for blocking ads, all private media companies have a right to determine which ads they will and will not run. I'm not sure where you'd get the idea that there is supposed to be some sort of balance. Will PJ Media block liberal ads? I have no idea, but I don't really care. There are plenty of outlets for liberal ads on the internet. That PJ Media would limit their income by exercising some political censoring of ads is neither here nor there.
Jay Tea
· 4 years ago
Spirited defense, Ollie... pity you didn't address what I said: that you blog from work, while "on the clock," supposedly doing what you get paid for during the day job, and your employer tolerates or even encourages you to do so. Which makes it, in my eyes, a case of their subsidizing your blogging, and quite possibly considers it a part of what they pay you for.
Do they dictate what you write? I never said so. They don't HAVE to. "Never write when you can speak, never speak when you can nod, never nod when you can wink."
J.
Jeff G
· 4 years ago
Pajamas can hire whomever they wish. If they let Luke go for fear he was getting back into posting porn, that's there decision.
As to the rest of Tony'd ludicrous argument, the fact that a few of the bloggers on PJM defended the use of a standard psyops campaign during war simply cannot be reasonable extrapolated out to suggest that PJM is shilling for Bushco -- particularly when the people writing the posts are autonomous when it comes to content.
It's a stupid argument made stupidly. That Tony is still straining to make it speaks to the depth of his delusions.
In fact, if anyone is engaging in propaganda here, it is Tony -- who in his intellectually dishonest and rhetorically hamfisted attempt to attach suspicion to 70 disparate bloggers (dare I point out Mark Cooper, David Corn, and Max Sawicky are among that group?) is trying to create guilt by association, without even first having the decency to establish the association.
The ability of his readership (and those who linked approvingly to him) to complete suspend their disbelief in order to shower such vacuous twaddle with praise shows just how dangerous to the service of truth such a faux-intellectual wilding can be.
tony
· 4 years ago
Rob,
Luke is a journalist and a blogger with one long-running blog and a newish one. He's an author and an interesting gentleman. You should look into not only why he was let go, as it was fairly controversial, but who the man is. He and I share very few political or religious views, but I consider him to be one of the best bloggers around and a very good man.
As for Simon's statement, if you scroll down just a tad you will see that his assertion that the MSM was killing that story was debunked. Therefore his notion of a propaganda war on, lets call them the Left, is a fantasy.
If what Roger wants to do is deliver the good news of BushCo and the war, he's free to do that, he just needs to be careful about creating propaganda in the USA for American eyeballs, thus the use of foreign "staff" to cover the good news of the Iraq war, for example, raises eyebrows.
And it also doesnt help when the Ed Board Chair defends propaganda on his blog, as do the others who i linked to in my original post.
As for your contract I'm glad that you can have control over your ads. But what's in those ads are "neither here nor there", they are part of your site and you should want to take some responsibility of what they're about, who they came from, and how they got there.
if all you want to do is take the money and look the other way, well, thats your choice.
if you're comfortable with sharing the rest of your contract with us, im sure we'd be glad to be educated further. leaving out the financials, of course as thats none of our business.
MisterPundit
· 4 years ago
Therefore his notion of a propaganda war on, lets call them the Left, is a fantasy.
Fantasy? That's rich coming from someone who just claimed that "Simon admitted on Friday that Pajamas was in the propaganda business and its target is American citizens", when clearly he said nothing of the sort. Jeff is right. This is a spectacular load of vacuous twaddle.
Interestingly, AL notes, as I did, that "charges" like Tony's are so ugly because the force people onto the defensive with nothing more than base innuendo and barely coherent hypotheses. They are meant to chill speech, no more, no less. Just because they're phrased in the form of a question so as to give the interlocutor a rhetorical hedge doesn't make them any less so.
Tony's site has lost its way. Once an interesting place, it's now nothing more than a refuge for wannabe hipsters (sample comment: "The more and more I read your blog, the more I luv ya man! People who speak their minds and stick to their guns are far and few between these days. Keep it up Homes! You be rockin!") and it's author's own unpunctuated mental masturbation.
All Comments
Frankly, the Bush regime doesn't NEED to pay off these bloggers. They're all willing to pimp the White House line for free!
The bush regime would probably save their bribe budget for people like Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Mike McGanus.
Y'know---people with readers.
Actually, I gave it up---too much time and effort, not enough payoff. Sort of like marriage.
BTW, are you claiming thet the Bush regime doesn't pay off journalists? Because if you are, you're being pretty delusional.
Isn't it easier to argue the people and not the issues? or should I bring up Oliver Willis' day job, the one that lets him (or, more likely, "encourages" him) to blog from the office?
J.
If PJ Media's goal is to pay bloggers to push right-wing propaganda, then they've got it all wrong by taking a controversial story and presenting both sides of the argument.
They need to model themselves more after Oliver Willis. Somebody who IS being paid to push propaganda.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Was there something on Bush's side of the road he didn't like? Was there a tasty morsel of corn on the other side of the road? Is the feed on his original side of the road somehow tainted? Oh, there was a rooster on the other side and its mating season. Well, then disregard my above rant.
1) i never said anyone at PJ was being bribed. Don has it half right... BushCo has a history of *rewarding* loyalists in the media to continue to support his programs (williams et al are conservatives). Pajamas continues to follow that behavior
2) thank you but id rather not be part of the trainwreck, however there were others who did want in and werent allowed to be, ask Dennis the Peasant for a longer list, but i clearly recall a Conservative journalist, one Luke Ford who was hired, had his profile put up on LGF and was then fired after a few days. so no, not "anyone" was/is allowed access to be part of the implosion.
3) the value of the network for those who own/control it, isnt the awardwinning prose, no offense, it's the access to the valueable ad real estate of the top blogs in the cadre. since BushCo had a budget to spend $100 mil to spread propaganda in Iraq, $3.5 to do so on the 70+ blogs is a value. i recommend that you not only read the three posts i wrote but also take a peek at the Science Board report that helped form your name.
4) Your boss Simon admitted on Friday that Pajamas was in the propaganda business and its target is American citizens. im not really saying that much different than whats coming from atop the masthead.
Is there such thing as good propoganda? Is all propoganda lies or half-truths?
It seems to me you're using the term propoganda when you're wanting to say something more inflamatory, but thus far all you've said is Pajamas Media is in the information spreading business. Well, yeah, but so are you too.
Love your site and perspective, but I am roughly one inch away from yanking every link to any associated Jammie Asswipes website from my main page. Doesn't mean I won't keep reading; just means I won't point or link.
Simon & Co. are just acting like dingo pups, trying to feed on an MSM carcass that they can't exist without.
God bless if you get ad traffic from the association...since I block every ad that tries coming down my pipe, sorry (SoupNazi voice): no clicks for you!
CITIZEN JOURNALISTS=AD BUCKS SLUTS!
All the posts he cites take care to make reasoned arguments -- and for what it's worth, I actually had a back and forth with one of my critics, Matt Welch, on Reason's Hit and Run. But Tony (tony) doesn't address the arguments at all. Instead, he uses their very existence to suggest the existence of potential conspiracy, one that calls into question the integrity of all of those participating in Pajamas media.
Given that another blogger had made similar charges previously (only in that instance, it was the Likudniks and the neocons we were working for), I decided to play Tony's game and question HIS motives. Turns out he wasn't happy that he had to defend his motives against charges with no basis in fact and tethered to no evidence whatsoever.
As Rob notes, nobody tells us what to write, and in fact, all I surrendered to PJM was my ad space, while giving them the write to syndicate my posts. In exchange, they pay me (whereas before, Blogads paid me). That folks like Tony and Oliver see yet ADDITIONAL Bush conspiracies behind something so benign as this speaks to their increasingly evident disconnect to reality.
And before Oliver says anything, let me just say that the fact that both he and Tony are black is completely incidental -- not some coded form of conservative racism.
First you say this:
Then you say this:
I think its pretty clear that you are accusing we PJ bloggers of taking bribes to write "propagands" for the White House. We can argue semantics if you want, I guess, but that seems kidn of pointless.
Was he hired to the staff and fired or is Mr. Ford a blogger? Because hiring and firing employees is a much different thing from bloggers not being allowed to join. And if there are bloggers who weren't allowed to join, I haven't heard of it. Maybe PJ Media had some standards as to traffic/content that they applied, I don't know, but I haven't heard of anyone being excluded. Not specifically invited, yes, but excluded? No.
But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Got a link? I'd be interested in reading what he had to say.
Oliver:
So if you suddenly had a change of heart and started supporting the war and the President, Media Matters would keep you around? Because I rather doubt that.
On an unrelated note, who is that in your gravatar?
I've always wondered who the blazes that $3.5 mill came from...considering all the "open and transparent" crap that was flung around. Keeping that VC angel(s)'s identity undser the table makes it pretty damn easy for folks like that Pierce cat to come to his conclusion.
Tony wouldn't know a hole in the ground from the hole in his head. This is pure comedy GOLD.
1) Luke Ford was to be one of the paid bloggers of Pajamas, forgive me, but i dont know if that means staff of what, i assume you'd know those details. link 1, link 2 some speculated that it was because of his association with the adult film industry, but far as i know you guys still have someone who was an executive at penthouse.com there, so... who knows why he was let go.
2. Roger Simon: "We are indeed in a propaganda war and our primary target is our fellow citizens." 12/2
3. From the quote you're using I can see why you'd think that I am theorizing that it's the writing that is valueable, but if you read my post(s) closer you will see that I believe that although many of you are fine writers, the true value of the 70 blogs is the ad space that you have signed over to Pajamas Media. if there are indeed puppetstrings and/or funders with hidden agendas, that is where the investment of the $3.5 milion is at. they can broadcast whatever swiftboatish ads that they want at any rate they choose, block any anti-bush ads by flat out rejecting them as Sinclair and Viacom often do, or push their own agendas through that space. i believe i called the plan brilliant. in part because it means that none of you have to be privy to their intentions. you take their money, you have guaranteed "ads", and as long as you keep churning out blogposts and attracting eyeballs, alls good in the hood.
but again, if most of the pajamas crew are cool with propaganda, even if it's discovered whats going on, i doubt many will jump ship and i seriously doubt the readers would care since... this is a war and all, and anything goes.
It's pretty obvious that RLS was referring to the issue of propaganda as a weapon in the war, and using that as an introduction to a post at PJM on the subject of - you guessed it - propaganda in the war.
This is the first time I've ever heard of Mr. Ford, but since he was a journalist I would assume that he was part of the staff. And a staff person being fired is not equivalent to a blogger being denied access because of their ideology. Do you have any evidence that anyone was excluded because they were liberal?
Here's the full, non cherry-picked quote:
Simon was clearly using this definition of propaganda:
That's not nearly as sinister as you let on, Tony.
From my contract:
This gives me veto power of the ads that appear here on Say Anything. And, if things aren't working out, I can terminate my contract and forfeit and forefeit a certain amount of money. In short, these ads aren't all that much different than the Blog Ads which are so popular on the left and the right.
As for blocking ads, all private media companies have a right to determine which ads they will and will not run. I'm not sure where you'd get the idea that there is supposed to be some sort of balance. Will PJ Media block liberal ads? I have no idea, but I don't really care. There are plenty of outlets for liberal ads on the internet. That PJ Media would limit their income by exercising some political censoring of ads is neither here nor there.
Do they dictate what you write? I never said so. They don't HAVE to. "Never write when you can speak, never speak when you can nod, never nod when you can wink."
J.
As to the rest of Tony'd ludicrous argument, the fact that a few of the bloggers on PJM defended the use of a standard psyops campaign during war simply cannot be reasonable extrapolated out to suggest that PJM is shilling for Bushco -- particularly when the people writing the posts are autonomous when it comes to content.
It's a stupid argument made stupidly. That Tony is still straining to make it speaks to the depth of his delusions.
In fact, if anyone is engaging in propaganda here, it is Tony -- who in his intellectually dishonest and rhetorically hamfisted attempt to attach suspicion to 70 disparate bloggers (dare I point out Mark Cooper, David Corn, and Max Sawicky are among that group?) is trying to create guilt by association, without even first having the decency to establish the association.
The ability of his readership (and those who linked approvingly to him) to complete suspend their disbelief in order to shower such vacuous twaddle with praise shows just how dangerous to the service of truth such a faux-intellectual wilding can be.
Luke is a journalist and a blogger with one long-running blog and a newish one. He's an author and an interesting gentleman. You should look into not only why he was let go, as it was fairly controversial, but who the man is. He and I share very few political or religious views, but I consider him to be one of the best bloggers around and a very good man.
As for Simon's statement, if you scroll down just a tad you will see that his assertion that the MSM was killing that story was debunked. Therefore his notion of a propaganda war on, lets call them the Left, is a fantasy.
If what Roger wants to do is deliver the good news of BushCo and the war, he's free to do that, he just needs to be careful about creating propaganda in the USA for American eyeballs, thus the use of foreign "staff" to cover the good news of the Iraq war, for example, raises eyebrows.
And it also doesnt help when the Ed Board Chair defends propaganda on his blog, as do the others who i linked to in my original post.
As for your contract I'm glad that you can have control over your ads. But what's in those ads are "neither here nor there", they are part of your site and you should want to take some responsibility of what they're about, who they came from, and how they got there.
if all you want to do is take the money and look the other way, well, thats your choice.
if you're comfortable with sharing the rest of your contract with us, im sure we'd be glad to be educated further. leaving out the financials, of course as thats none of our business.
Fantasy? That's rich coming from someone who just claimed that "Simon admitted on Friday that Pajamas was in the propaganda business and its target is American citizens", when clearly he said nothing of the sort. Jeff is right. This is a spectacular load of vacuous twaddle.
Interestingly, AL notes, as I did, that "charges" like Tony's are so ugly because the force people onto the defensive with nothing more than base innuendo and barely coherent hypotheses. They are meant to chill speech, no more, no less. Just because they're phrased in the form of a question so as to give the interlocutor a rhetorical hedge doesn't make them any less so.
Tony's site has lost its way. Once an interesting place, it's now nothing more than a refuge for wannabe hipsters (sample comment: "The more and more I read your blog, the more I luv ya man! People who speak their minds and stick to their guns are far and few between these days. Keep it up Homes! You be rockin!") and it's author's own unpunctuated mental masturbation.