PolitiCrap
Brought to you by Charlie Sykes. This should be a lot of fun.
From the folks who brought you the “Deep Tunnel Awards,” a new political feature: PolitiCrap. We will evaluate political ads, news stories, politicians’ press releases and spin. And, yes, we will also fact check the fact-checkers.
PolitiCrap is a joint effort of the Charlie Sykes show and the conservative Wisconsin blogosphere. More than a dozen bloggers and pundits have agreed to participate in the state’s first conservative fact check—an alternative and a counterpoint to the MSM.
Our fact check will have four catgeories:
1. True
2. Blended (with apologies to MMSD)
3. Mostly Crap
4. Total Crap
Charlie’s site would generally rate the “mostly crap” rating as he has no objectivity and little consistency over time.
I take that back. By one measure, he is completely consistent: If the story involves a Democrat, the Democrat is a liar, a thief, a reprobate, or a combination of all three.
If the story involves a Republican, he or she is a saint, brilliant, a matryr, a hero, or a combination of the above.
Or, if the Republican is a turd (See Kratz, Kenneth), he ignores the story completely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2010 at 2048 hrs
Are you serious, Ann? Charlie talked about the Kratz thing quite extensively over the past few days. Your comments lately have been rather near “Total Crap” on the PolitiCrap meter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2010 at 2124 hrs
I understand that Sykes has his agenda and will shape his blog around that. And that is fine.
But, to me, this would be great if he would get people from both sides of the political spectrum as the judges, and rate things that are said from both sides. Actually give Wisconsin a great resource that calls all politicians on the crap they spew, R and D alike.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2010 at 2259 hrs
This already exists.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/
Charlie is only doing this so he can put a conservative slant on it. Nothing new really, he isn’t known for his lack of bias.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 0839 hrs
Thats right LSTW… A website using information from the Journal Sentinel is objective and right down the middle….
The goal posts don’t belong at the 10 yard line.
At least Charlie is honest enough to say that this thing is biased. While the JS has the audacity to claim objectivity while explicitly supporting candidates in partisan elections….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 0936 hrs
At least Charlie is honest enough to say that this thing is biased. While the JS has the audacity to claim objectivity while explicitly supporting candidates in partisan elections….
Have you actually looked at the site? Me thinks not, due to the above comment.
The statements that were ranked closest to true belong to Mark Neumann and J.B Van Hollen. If they supported candidates as you say, why would they come out and not rank their statements better? Could it be because there is actually objectivity and you can’t realize it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 1135 hrs
Could it be because there is actually objectivity and you can’t realize it?
Could it be that there is a liberal bias and you can’t see it?
hmmmm…...1.) Neumann was the candidate of the RINO crowd, the progressive infiltrated portion of the Republican party.
2.) JB is a RINO who has done everything he can to not step on the toes of the corrupt dealings of governor Doyle.
I’d be willing to bet that a poll of likely voters in WI would reveal that the average Wisconsinite feels the JS is liberally biased.I looked at the website, and I really don’t have a problem with anything on there. The point is that the illusion of objectivity is patently ridiculous. The JS has endorsed every democratic candidate for governor and president in the past 10 years that I’ve been watching.
There is a liberal bias in the media. It is pretty clear to everyone but the liberals among us. Deny it all you want, that doesn’t change a thing…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 1235 hrs
Liberal bias implies that there would be an attempt to make a certain party of candidates look better than another party. But when I read their articles about democrat ads, they were just as harsh as they were on republicans.
The illusion of the amount of bias you think exists is comical. There has been bias in the media for at least 10 years, and the first taste of it that W got was when Bush 2.0 was in office and it was conservatively slanted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 1331 hrs
The illusion of the amount of bias you think exists is comical. There has been bias in the media for at least 10 years, and the first taste of it that W got was when Bush 2.0 was in office and it was conservatively slanted.
Is this for real? You thought the media was conservatively biased when Bush was in office? Wow.
There has been bias in the media since the beginning of the media. Newspapers were started to persuade the people in particular directions…..
You honestly think that the JS has been just as harsh on Tom Barrett over the past year as it has on Scott Walker? Really?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 1342 hrs
Newspapers are capable of endorsing someone in their editorial dept. and still keeping their news coverage respectably unbiased. No publication is perfect, but understanding the need to present views in as balanced a way as possible and acting on that understanding has been a hallmark of the press for the past fifty years or more. Dj is right about the original bias inherent in the press. But most observers say the push for an unbiased press has raised the level of reporting in the 40s, 50s, and through to the present. The last ten years (corresponding to the rise of talk radio and cable news networks) has seen that attempt at impartiality get splintered.
Charlie’s particular brand of entertainment on the one hand “makes no bones about” his bias. But on the other hand he says things like ‘bringing you the truth’ or whatever it is he says in the lead-ins to his show. That implies fact-based inquiry not opinion-based preaching. He is definitely practicing the latter, but selling the former. That’s why people who agree with him love him and those who disagree with him see nothing but linear thinking.
Posted by Mike on September 23, 2010 at 1715 hrs
The last ten years (corresponding to the rise of talk radio and cable news networks) has seen that attempt at impartiality get splintered.
Talk radio has been big for almost twenty years… But, at any rate what does talk radio have to do with the liberal bias of the media? Everyone knows that talk radio has a conservative bias, they are unabashed in it. If the mainstream media (read: JS) feels it is their responsibility to respond to Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling from the other direction, then they should be honest about it.
To suggest that the editorial board (headed by a VP of the newspaper) is somehow separate from the paper itself is patently ridiculous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 1749 hrs
To suggest that the editorial board (headed by a VP of the newspaper) is somehow separate from the paper itself is patently ridiculous.
No its not. There are established procedures in place to keep just such influences separate from each other. They work.
If the mainstream media (read: JS) feels it is their responsibility to respond to Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling from the other direction, then they should be honest about it.
What? Charlie and the conservative bloggers are responding to MSM by mimicking the JS’s feature…not the other way around.
Posted by Mike on September 23, 2010 at 1757 hrs
No its not. There are established procedures in place to keep just such influences separate from each other. They work.
Riiiiiiiight. Assuming that what you say is true…. Did you go to college in the last 15 years with any journalism students?
What? Charlie and the conservative bloggers are responding to MSM by mimicking the JS’s feature…not the other way around.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2010 at 1823 hrs
sorry, we’re getting turned around. You said
If the mainstream media (read: JS) feels it is their responsibility to respond to Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling from the other direction, then they should be honest about it
I didn’t understand that. I took it to mean that JS was responding in some way to the tactics of talk radio, not really sure how, maybe by being more biased (is that what you meant?). Then I realized that this whole string of comments came in reference to Charlie and the bloggers doing Politicrap, an obvious take-off on (or response to) the JS feature entitled Politifact. Hence, my statement.
I was distracted as I wrote that last post. And I’m tired as I write this one, so I hope it makes sense.
Posted by Mike on September 23, 2010 at 2251 hrs
o publication is perfect, but understanding the need to present views in as balanced a way as possible and acting on that understanding has been a hallmark of the press for the past fifty years or more.
<strong> coach outlet stores<strong>
Posted by coach outlet stores on September 24, 2010 at 0321 hrs
Thanks for shatring with us
Posted by coach outlet online on September 24, 2010 at 0336 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:38 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).