MyDD :: Newsweek on bloggers and United Seniors

Newsweek on bloggers and United Seniors

by blogswarm, Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:15:17 AM EST

Here I thought 'the stodgy-looking and overweight' Jarvis was trying to test whether he could get away in using the images of a gay couple without legal permission! Jerome

Tomorrow's Howard Fineman Newsweek article is already getting a lot of attention. In fact, MSNBC sent out a press release that included this:

But a well-funded conservative group called USA Next posted a Web page with two pictures: a camouflage-clad American GI with an X painted on him; two men in tuxedos kissing, with a checkmark on them. The caption: "The REAL AARP Agenda." The ad was justified, the group argued, because the Ohio branch of AARP had opposed an anti-gay-marriage referendum in the state. But the real reason, said USA Next's CEO Charlie Jarvis, was pure political provocation. The ad was a "test," Jarvis said, to see whether "left-wing bloggers" would "focus entirely on one image and explode about it. My guess was right."

(emphasis mine)

A couple of points:

Next time Mr. Finneman writes about an action designed to cause a reaction, he might try contacting the reaction for a quote. Maybe an Editor could make such a suggestion. He said/she said is bad enough, but this is comical.
Sorry Mr. Jarvis. Yup, we kicked around the picture, but then we escalated. With Jeff Gannon, once we knocked him down we started kicking and stomping...same with United Seniors, we'll have a full report to fact check your ass coming out in the morning.

For everyone else reading this, get ready to pile on. If you're looking for inspiration, talk to Bateman.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

L.A. Times editorial comics (none / 0)

The news division is ignoring the Gannon/Guckert story, but the editorial cartoonists are piling on. Check out the White House Press Corp by Bob Rogers. I'm sure that's Chris Matthews and Tim Russert sitting in the front row.

I think there is no longer any doubt that bloggers need to have their own Pulitzer Prize for investigative jounalism. Maybe Wampum could add a new category for serious investigative blogging.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 11:20:35 PM EST

beautiful (none / 0)

Bloggers expose the Bush White House as being "balls deep" in a scandal involving a gay hooker and the GOP attack dogs say they were just probing us when it comes to Social Security?

by blogswarm on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:07:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Feinman is lame! (none / 0)

Even by Howard's low standards, his story on USA Next is as milquetoast as the RWCM gets. Why bother Howard? AARP sent oppo research last week that Howard is saving for what, posterity?

The NoCrisis oppo research was great. I'm sure Gary Aldrich's expertise on Social Security will be a true benefit to USA Next. All of the FBI agents I know have made Social Security a special area of expertise.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 11:45:18 PM EST

Re: Fineman is lame! (none / 0)

Fineman is the main reason I canceled my Newsweek subscription after 12 years, and the only thing I really hate about Olbermann's Countdown!

He'll get plenty of face time on tomorrow's broadcast, but now he's gonna get lumped together with Keith and draw the ire of the Right.

by thatcoloredfella on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry but I never saw the image and I don't care.. (none / 0)

Actually the one that wakes me up at night
isn't some AARP image of two fags sucking face..

No. Its GANNON in that stupid homo black
leather underpants. I am so ashamed for
our country, that a man like that gets
preferential selection over all kinds of
hard nosed reporters, screened and passed
by the secret service and into the white
house.

God, its like saying George W. Bush wears
black leather underpants.

AARP isn't even on my radar screen right
now, but this Gannon joker.... welll..

lets put it this way. "Dirty War" just
aired tonight, I watched it.. it closed
with the statement... "we should not
be so focussed on making the american
people feel safe that we endanger them,
and thats a good lesson for our media
as well."

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:47:21 AM EST

Interesting piece at TNR on Social Security (none / 0)

Morally Bankrupt by the editors.

We are beginning to wonder if the debate over Social Security privatization is a mere GOP diversionary tactic: Get Democrats to commit all their resources to a knockdown drag-out over retirement benefits, then quickly ram through a host of items off the business lobby's wish list. Exhibit A is the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act--the latest name for a bill that Congress has been rejecting since the late '90s--which the Judiciary Committee approved last week and looks set for passage in the coming weeks.

This is the part that really troubled me:

Which is why it's frustrating to see so many Democrats willing to accept its passage. To be sure, there are a few, such as Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, who have promised to fight the bill on the Senate floor. But three Democrats--Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and Herb Kohl--helped vote the bill out of committee last week, and the upcoming floor debate is looking more and more like a pro forma engagement, with Democrats conceding the battle in order to save their strength for later fights.

Aren't these the usual suspects? Biden was making sounds about running for President in 2008 on MTP. Maybe we need to send him a message along with Lieberman and Caper. Are these three going to sell out on Medical Malpractice as well? Bush/Rove could be rolling the Dems on a whole host of issues, by throwing them a privatization bone he never really expected to pass anyway.

I'm going to take a harder look at Feinstein's district one of these days. She's supposedly safe from a Republican challenge and I can see why. We may need to throw some fear of a little thunder on the left into her political calculus.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:38:56 AM EST

keep your eye on the ball (none / 0)

Not only can we win on Social Security, but we can win BIG. Bush is a lame duck as soon as privatization dies. We can win on this in 2006 -- and win BIG.

Yes, we need to fight everywhere, on everything. But Social Security is the vehicle to end Bush's power.

Now is the time to escalate.

by blogswarm on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:05:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden's time to stand up was 2004 (none / 0)

Instead, he played it safe--- willing to indict the Bush Administration but not willing to really do anything to make a difference.

Sure, it's a multi-front war. The Dems have to pick their battles, though. The SS battle is an important one that Bush has invested a lot of capital into. If we can tear the "compassionate" mask off of the RW class bitzkrieg then we can change the momentum.

Seniors vote. Seniors won't forget those that vote against them. If the Dems play their cards right then the mid-term elections could be significant.

by Southern Patriot on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden's time to stand up was 2004 (none / 0)

No . . . Biden's time to stand up was 2002, during the Iraq War Resolution.

by jcjcjc on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:38:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden's time to stand up was 2004 (none / 0)

As was Kerry's.

It was a gut check that both failed. Only Biden at least recognized how his 2002 failure would have crippled him 2004.

Nevertheless, Biden is still trying to have it both ways. He's like an armchair quarterback who consistently declines to really assume team leadership in the senate while he's got plenty of(accurate)criticism and opinions for the talk shows.

Biden's performance during the Rice hearings disgusted me.

by Southern Patriot on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden's time to stand up was 2004 (none / 0)

Kerry was running out of time. He got lucky. The ABD movement didn't really have beter options.

Edwards would have been Quayle all over again -- the experience issue amplified by the fact he was running for Prez and not Veep.

Lieberman was dreadfully boring. Sharpton is corrupt (great speaker, though). The rest weren't even worth camera time.

In fact, it's quite possible that Biden made the wrong move, since who would have been a better ABD candidate. Aside from the fact that John Kerry has face you could use for a cutting board, Biden speaks better and projects better.

The only difference is that with Kerry you get the sense his failed compromises were an effort to make good of past failures.

With Biden, there's no question: opportunism.

Joe Biden will never find his way to the White House. I'll eat my hat if it happens, especially with Dean running the DNC.

by jcjcjc on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting piece at TNR on Social Security (none / 0)

We should defenitely let Biden know that he'll have a snowball's chance in hell at getting the Dem. nomination if he sells working class Americans to his Delaware banking buddies.

I know that those Credit Card companies finance his campaigns, but they can't vote and his ass will be left high and dry. I also think that any Dem that supports this unbelievably cruel piece of legislation against the the middle class should be threatened with losing any and all committee appointments.

If Dems. won't stand up for and defend the working men and women of this country, who will?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 11:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I sure hope (none / 0)

that couple goes through with the lawsuit for using the picture without permission. Discovery will be a bitch on that one.

We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. T. S. Eliot

by Incertus on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 02:51:23 AM EST

actually (3.00 / 1)

Discovery will be a bitch on that one.

I believe that the actual legal term for such a situation is 'shitburger' -- but I'm no big city lawyer so don't take this as clarification from counsel.

The question I want answered is whether Jarvis will jump off a bridge to test gravity.

DavidNCY jokes:

Charlie Jarvis on history:

"Yes, Hitler invaded the USSR to see if the Soviets would fight back and kick his ass. He was right."

Charlie Jarvis on basketball:

"Yes, the Bucks traded Kareem away to the Lakers to see if L.A. would experience a golden age while Milwaukee would spiral into mediocrity. They were right."

and:

Or, Shorter Jeff Jarvis (channeling Ralph Wiggum): "We threw rocks at a hornets' nest and hornets flew out!"

by blogswarm on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

come on (none / 0)

Jarvis hated the Golden Age of the Lakers. That is an ad I want to see!

by blogswarm on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nevertheless we are being used (none / 0)

Every time this happems the right wing activists are getting millions in free media replicating the image. This photo made its way around the world in days. MSM flashed it on the screen. We helped make it news. Jarvis intended it to happen that way.

I don't give a shit about AARP-their support of the medicare legislation demonstrated what whores they really were.

I am trying to decide if the blogoshere will succed in moving from outrage to destruction of wingnuts. Will a media blockade be constructed that prevents the bullshit from getting through?Right now we are being used by the right to get to MSM.

Our message to MSN should be don't replicate image--no free pass.

by aiko on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:06:57 AM EST

Re: Nevertheless we are being used (none / 0)

AARP blew it on prescription drug policy/ Medicare last cycle, and now they seem to know it; they're pretty clearly with us this time around. Let's not knock 'em because they're not identical to us.

Not sure about the "replication of image" stuff: AARP has quite a lot of members who trust it. Will those members, seeing the ad replicated on cable news, (a) decide that AARP must be full of gay soldier-haters and cancel their memberships, or (b) conclude that the organization to which they remain loyal, and which represents their interests, is under attack from nutballs?

I don't know.

by accommodatingly on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:44:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nevertheless we are being used (none / 0)

neither a or b. its more insidious. it diminishes the integrity of the organization among all age groups.

think swift boat--all lies I think--but made believable by these guys. its a communications strategy that works for them. the goal is to create the possibility of truth even when none exists...to leave doubt or suspicions... to use free media to spread a lie that if repeated enough becomes truth in the mind of millions. it works.

by aiko on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe it's their turn (none / 0)

Maybe we should start psuhing ads that show what dicks they are.

Maybe we should call the GOP out for crypto-racism and hating the American worker.

Maybe we should run an ad with a greasy-faced man in a hard hat with a big red X through him, and a big check mark over a man in KKK regalia.

They have it coming.

by jcjcjc on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:41:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

swift boat liars (none / 0)

"think swift boat--all lies I think"
Aiko, right on. Wouldn't it make sense to go after these scumbags now. Exposing them would go a long way toward xposing Jarvis & co.on all issues forever.

by viking on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:58:39 AM EST

LA Times Opinion Section, Editorial Cartoons (none / 0)

Here's a post on some political cartoons that were in this weekend's Opinion section:

http://bloogeyman.blogspot.com/2005/02/sire-bloggers-are-storming-gannongates.html

and, another part of the Gannongate series:

http://bloogeyman.blogspot.com/2005/02/gannongate-part-4-who-got-gannons.html