Misreporting a Thompson campaign event, over at the Politico. I'd call it more media malpractice.

Of course, I've had my own run-in with this particular reporter.

[Update a few minutes later]

Roger L. Simon (not the one who is the above journalistic hack) has some further thoughts. And as he says, he knows his hats.

Wow, and when you read the explanation of the stupid hat rule, it makes good sense. I hope Fred avoids visiting the Shuttle as well for the same reason.

However, I do think this is part of Thompson's problem. He isn't doing anything that is of interest to most of the media. Thus, he's not getting positive or negative buzz much of the time. On the contrast, Huck gets coverage for possibly having a cross in a Christmas ad (like that is really bad press with his likely voters).

Speaking of which, have you seen Hillary's ad? I was floored. I kept hearing the song from Evita "and the money kept rolling in". Of course, those who want to take money from others and give it to themselves will be happy with her ad.

not the won?

Sorry, since you missed my joke about the vacuum and the cat; I should at least get one ping against grammar. I'm sure my investment will be paid in full and then some...

This cávil punctures the pretense that Archie Bunkerism (the ritual of razzing the news media) would end with the Internet. The Politico is a for-profit blog site. It's exactly the sort of new media that was supposed to slay the big, bad mainstream media. Well, guess what, "mainstream" does not actually mean traditional in any sense. What it actually means is "that media whose content I can't stand". So therefore on this blog, the Politico is as good as mainstream, while Fox News is as good as alternative.

Meanwhile back in the real world, Fred Thompson's problems are of his own making. They have nothing to do with this insignificant footnote in the Politico.

"Meanwhile back in the real world, Fred Thompson's problems are of his own making. They have nothing to do with this insignificant footnote in the Politico."

Noice how Jim casually dismisses the Politico's intlelectual dishonesty with a bunch of sound and fury that signifies jack shit.

Actually, everyone notices. Jim is the only one who thinks we believe the yellow tinged fluid he is pouring down our backs is really liquid sunshine.

So much wasted effort to sell such stinky urine.

I'll try to ignore the smell of stinky urine, and instead I'll enjoy the heart of Jim's point which was really to ask a question: what is the definition of the MSM? Is the Politico part of the MSM? Do the criticisms that are specifically about the MSM apply to the Politico? How about Slate.com?

Mike, I think you are pointing out that Jim is changing the subject, since Rand didn't complain about the MSM in this blog post - he complained about dishonesty. If that's what you are pointing out, I agree with you - Jim changed the subject.

But I still think Jim has an interesting point about the defintion of the MSM. I don't see why you think his point is drenched in urine.

I also don't think the article was all that dishonest -- Thompson was calling the hat silly even in the complete version. But the article was negatively biased, probably because the author felt his time had been wasted covering a non-story that had been billed as more of a story. In the video you can see that Thompson is being a lot more good natured and friendly than the article made him out to be. But since the story was written in the first person with undisguised frustration, I don't think it is that big a deal - the completely hidden biases are the ones worth worrying about.

"I don't see why you think his point is drenched in urine."

Actually: 'point'=urine.

Thank you. Sometimes I'm not sure whether people here are full of *it or not, but now I know I can count on you for my excretion-based metaphor needs!

I just call them like I see em'. I have a low tolerance thershold for bullshit.

Huh. The word censor for the "post a comment" function won't let "Th-anks!" get thorugh, but allows "bullshit" just fine.

That is because the filter is set to block spam that uses certain words and phrases.

"But since the story was written in the first person with undisguised frustration, I don't think it is that big a deal - the completely hidden biases are the ones worth worrying about."

You mean like hiding the part of Thompson's quote where he says "...silly-hat rule that I'm about to violate"? You mean like characterizing a half-laugh as a "sour expression"?

How about the reporter for the Waverly Democrat (!) who characterized Thompson's reply to her question about farmers in Bremer County as "glittering generalities"? He replied that he would support cutting subsidies for farmers and funding land/soil conservation programs.

Simon's reporting wasn't merely biased. It was dishonest.