Anthony343 wrote:
a non-story? Are you high?
The West Point scholarship story is a non-story. The stuff you're talking about IS a story.
I know the difference. I also know when somebody is more invested in the narrative than in the facts. That's you--and it's what you and Carson's defenders have in common.
Just offer the facts, without the attitudinizing, teleology, and insults.
Robert Johnson can go to hell for his un-American behavior against the DoD.
What I don't understand is why embellish and fabricate when your story is incredible as is? Is it to make yourself more interesting?
And yes I agree with the general sentiment. Because someone is reputedly an excellent neurosurgeon doesn't make them qualified to be a mechanic, plumber or President of a country.
Carson doesn't want to be president, he is on a promotional tour for past and future books, and a gig on fox news. Those who think otherwise are the same unfortunate souls who fell for that dingbat from Alaska 8 years ago.
we r living in a material wrld wrote:
Hey Brojos,
Would you ever put something out on your website that said this:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down American hero Alberto Salazar?"
How about this:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down hero African hero Lamine Diack?"
Nope, because
a) you know enough not to believe those scumbags and their powerful employers.
b) Because you're not wedded to those people like sycophants.
c) You would lose the respect of the actual athletes and coaches who know the truth, and you would hate yourself for that betrayal of your professional ethics and the people you supposedly care about
But you would put up this:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down an American hero Ben Carson?"
backed up with
Rush Limbaugh quote
Rojo saying it's his job to entertain and inform
Wejo side-stepping the issue and doing damage control
ridiculing your customers who take exception to this writing and message
This statement is a betrayal of a large portion of your readership, and is a massive social, journalistic and business mistake (many of the people who most appreciate the quality of your best work on stuff like the UVA coach will be deeply offended by what you've written in this thread). I feel for you and deeply hope you make an about-face and offer a sincere apology, given that you've put this headline on your front page.
Given that this type of thing is happening frequently via Rojo/LRC (Houston, Sally Jenkins, etc), and Rojo is publicly congratulating himself for "informing" and "entertaining" with Rush Limbaugh quotes, and Wejo defends him, this is a very sad day for Brojos and the LetsRun brand. I guess it could be an opportunity for change, but I'll believe it when I see it. I hope to see it. Please change this behavior.
I commit to personally boycotting and socially ridiculing LRC editorializing of this ilk until I see significant change, and I hope other readers join me in that. That will include:
*seeking out running news via search engines rather than LRC,
*cutting down my clicks and visits to the site and actively encouraging my social network to do the same,
*promoting other sites and methods for getting news with my friends and associates
*seeking out better websites through which to read about running, and
*actively seeking to support alternative methods of presenting the sport.
Thanks, in advance, for those who say traditional heartless things such as: "Go back to your own country, traitor," "good riddance," "bleeding heart" and the like.
I like LetsRun.com's contributions in many ways. I like tough thought, I like the exuberance for the sport. But I will not stand for what we're seeing in threads like this.
Thanks Brojos, for your insight and your significant contributions to the sport over the years. But these mistakes are ethically inexcusable to me.
-- The basic LRC message, re: GOP candidates?
"Carson says pyramids made to store grains, Jews with guns could have stopped holocaust, earth created several thousand years ago, and he received a scholarship to West Point because of his greatness. Liberal media completely to blame for these outrageous attacks on a hero. Hillary sucks and lies, so Carson lying and generally being a nutbag is totally acceptable for a president. Any media that questions this is liberal rag."
--The basic LRC message, re: Sports coaches?
"Salazar says he's never doped an athlete, that his athletes don't take anything fancy, that he tests testo on his sons to reduce risk of sabotage, that he doesn't abuse TUE's with his top athlete, and that dozens of reports of misbehavior spanning many years from many sources are complete fabrications. Liberal media Epstein and BBC to blame for these outrageous attacks on a hero. Russia cheats, so Salazar and Nike cheating is no big deal. Any media that questions this is liberal rag."
You guys are liberal when it comes to reporting on track. Maybe you're having inner conflict about the fact that you actually appreciate the value of digging deep and thinking deeply, while your political orientations are hell-bent on destroying and degrading deep thought with fear-mongering and race-baiting. You are fully capable of deep investigation with regards to some doping issues, but completely incompetent when it comes to Rush LImbaugh's hot-button topics. This would be fine, if you didn't put it all over your website.
You can make a good contribution to the world while being almost any political orientation. The Ikea leader guy is a neo-Nazi, but he doesn't insist on advertising that in his stores. They don't let him write Heil Hitler on the walls of the damn retail stores. Maybe you guys could figure out how to STFU about anything you hear on Rush Limbaugh, until it's gone through a significant vetting process. For example, you could call a liberal or even moderate friend and discuss the topic before promoting an outrageous thread to the most prominent portion of your otherwise acceptable website.
I feel for you guys trashing your brand by doing things like this. I'm going to break down just one sentence you've written, which happens to be the thread title, which happened to be placed, by you, on your homepage, with your writing in it:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down an American hero Ben Carson"
1. "Media." Nope. One outlet did one project with portions of the project potentially overblown. Many other outlets have praised Carson, given him a free ride, or criticized him very appropriately for lies and idiocy.
2. "makes up complete lie" Nope. Ben Carson made and is making his bed with these embellishments and stupid statements, of which the West Point story is just one of many. People are looking into them and reporting on them, with occasional missteps but by-and-large accurate reports. If anything, Carson, who has no political history, has gotten a relatively free ride until now. He frightens the GOP because a) he's by far the most popular candidate in terms of approval among voters (74%) and b) he's a complete fanatical fundamentalist nut who may make their party look even worse than its already clown-like state of affairs. This man publicly states that the pyramids were built to house grain, and evolution is not real. He's also a freakin brilliant surgeon.
3. "to take down" I mean, sure, if you want to call "investigating and reflecting on what you find" a "take down". Considering you guys frequently engage in take downs that you call journalism (often, rightly), this language comes off as pretty confused as to what a "take down" is. It's not like Carson is going to prison or losing his career. He simply has to answer some questions. Hillary, an amazing liar in her own right, nonetheless withstood 11 hours of questioning by GOP members whose own leader admitted that the committee was partisan and attempting to "take down" Hillary's political momentum.
4. "American hero Ben Carson". So you're a Carson believer, and a believer in the story that the left is always trying to attack the right. Personally, I see the people reporting on Carson to be American heroes, just like I see the people outing Salazar as American heroes. I try to see heroism in everyone, at some level, but I know the gravity of defending a person in power by invoking the term "hero". I know what it would mean to write, publicly, on my own website: "Media makes up complete lie to take down German hero Hitler" vs. something more neutral. One implies some pretty significant and shocking bias toward disturbing propaganda, the other does not. But whatev. I'm sure you can continue to make these kinds of comments without blowback in the long run.
Good luck recruiting new employees and investors to your brand. If I'm one of your rivals, I'm taking screenshots of these writings of yours and leveraging them against you with businesses and contacts within the sport. If I'm one of your employees, I'm looking for better work. If I'm one of your readers, I'm finding someone else to do the same thing you do, without the f****** verbatim Limbaugh propaganda. Sad.
This is far too logical to be taken seriously here.
The hypocrisy of the right has reached new levels. Complaining about people fact-checking Carson's background is nothing compared to the crap the right put Obama through for years about his birth certificate, he's a Muslim, all that crap. Good grief.
Hi, mom...HardLoper...TAA!
+1
I'm done with LRC including editorials, until something changes.
Pollly P wrote:
agip wrote:BHO's records aren't sealed - where'd you get that?
None of his records are sealed.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/where do you get this stuff?
Maybe 5 minutes of research would lower your blood pressure and make you a better citizen.
Great! so his college records are not sealed. What grades did he get? We know what Bush Jr. and Gore got. What did Obama get? Can I read what he published as editor of the Harvard paper? Can I read Michelle's thesis? Oh - those are not available? Why not?
You're a straight-up idiot.
We know Bush and Gore's grades because someone leaked them.
You clearly don't know how law reviews work. Editors don't write pieces with bylines. They edit and review articles, and they sometimes write unsigned articles, as Obama did. You can read one of them here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_case_comment.pdfAnd yes, you can read Michelle's thesis:
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/michelle-obama-thesis-was-on-racial-divide-008642we r living in a material wrld wrote:
Hey Brojos,
Would you ever put something out on your website that said this:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down American hero Alberto Salazar?"
How about this:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down hero African hero Lamine Diack?"
Nope, because
a) you know enough not to believe those scumbags and their powerful employers.
b) Because you're not wedded to those people like sycophants.
c) You would lose the respect of the actual athletes and coaches who know the truth, and you would hate yourself for that betrayal of your professional ethics and the people you supposedly care about
But you would put up this:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down an American hero Ben Carson?"
backed up with
Rush Limbaugh quote
Rojo saying it's his job to entertain and inform
Wejo side-stepping the issue and doing damage control
ridiculing your customers who take exception to this writing and message
This statement is a betrayal of a large portion of your readership, and is a massive social, journalistic and business mistake (many of the people who most appreciate the quality of your best work on stuff like the UVA coach will be deeply offended by what you've written in this thread). I feel for you and deeply hope you make an about-face and offer a sincere apology, given that you've put this headline on your front page.
Given that this type of thing is happening frequently via Rojo/LRC (Houston, Sally Jenkins, etc), and Rojo is publicly congratulating himself for "informing" and "entertaining" with Rush Limbaugh quotes, and Wejo defends him, this is a very sad day for Brojos and the LetsRun brand. I guess it could be an opportunity for change, but I'll believe it when I see it. I hope to see it. Please change this behavior.
I commit to personally boycotting and socially ridiculing LRC editorializing of this ilk until I see significant change, and I hope other readers join me in that. That will include:
*seeking out running news via search engines rather than LRC,
*cutting down my clicks and visits to the site and actively encouraging my social network to do the same,
*promoting other sites and methods for getting news with my friends and associates
*seeking out better websites through which to read about running, and
*actively seeking to support alternative methods of presenting the sport.
Thanks, in advance, for those who say traditional heartless things such as: "Go back to your own country, traitor," "good riddance," "bleeding heart" and the like.
I like LetsRun.com's contributions in many ways. I like tough thought, I like the exuberance for the sport. But I will not stand for what we're seeing in threads like this.
Thanks Brojos, for your insight and your significant contributions to the sport over the years. But these mistakes are ethically inexcusable to me.
-- The basic LRC message, re: GOP candidates?
"Carson says pyramids made to store grains, Jews with guns could have stopped holocaust, earth created several thousand years ago, and he received a scholarship to West Point because of his greatness. Liberal media completely to blame for these outrageous attacks on a hero. Hillary sucks and lies, so Carson lying and generally being a nutbag is totally acceptable for a president. Any media that questions this is liberal rag."
--The basic LRC message, re: Sports coaches?
"Salazar says he's never doped an athlete, that his athletes don't take anything fancy, that he tests testo on his sons to reduce risk of sabotage, that he doesn't abuse TUE's with his top athlete, and that dozens of reports of misbehavior spanning many years from many sources are complete fabrications. Liberal media Epstein and BBC to blame for these outrageous attacks on a hero. Russia cheats, so Salazar and Nike cheating is no big deal. Any media that questions this is liberal rag."
You guys are liberal when it comes to reporting on track. Maybe you're having inner conflict about the fact that you actually appreciate the value of digging deep and thinking deeply, while your political orientations are hell-bent on destroying and degrading deep thought with fear-mongering and race-baiting. You are fully capable of deep investigation with regards to some doping issues, but completely incompetent when it comes to Rush LImbaugh's hot-button topics. This would be fine, if you didn't put it all over your website.
You can make a good contribution to the world while being almost any political orientation. The Ikea leader guy is a neo-Nazi, but he doesn't insist on advertising that in his stores. They don't let him write Heil Hitler on the walls of the damn retail stores. Maybe you guys could figure out how to STFU about anything you hear on Rush Limbaugh, until it's gone through a significant vetting process. For example, you could call a liberal or even moderate friend and discuss the topic before promoting an outrageous thread to the most prominent portion of your otherwise acceptable website.
I feel for you guys trashing your brand by doing things like this. I'm going to break down just one sentence you've written, which happens to be the thread title, which happened to be placed, by you, on your homepage, with your writing in it:
"Media makes up complete lie to take down an American hero Ben Carson"
1. "Media." Nope. One outlet did one project with portions of the project potentially overblown. Many other outlets have praised Carson, given him a free ride, or criticized him very appropriately for lies and idiocy.
2. "makes up complete lie" Nope. Ben Carson made and is making his bed with these embellishments and stupid statements, of which the West Point story is just one of many. People are looking into them and reporting on them, with occasional missteps but by-and-large accurate reports. If anything, Carson, who has no political history, has gotten a relatively free ride until now. He frightens the GOP because a) he's by far the most popular candidate in terms of approval among voters (74%) and b) he's a complete fanatical fundamentalist nut who may make their party look even worse than its already clown-like state of affairs. This man publicly states that the pyramids were built to house grain, and evolution is not real. He's also a freakin brilliant surgeon.
3. "to take down" I mean, sure, if you want to call "investigating and reflecting on what you find" a "take down". Considering you guys frequently engage in take downs that you call journalism (often, rightly), this language comes off as pretty confused as to what a "take down" is. It's not like Carson is going to prison or losing his career. He simply has to answer some questions. Hillary, an amazing liar in her own right, nonetheless withstood 11 hours of questioning by GOP members whose own leader admitted that the committee was partisan and attempting to "take down" Hillary's political momentum.
4. "American hero Ben Carson". So you're a Carson believer, and a believer in the story that the left is always trying to attack the right. Personally, I see the people reporting on Carson to be American heroes, just like I see the people outing Salazar as American heroes. I try to see heroism in everyone, at some level, but I know the gravity of defending a person in power by invoking the term "hero". I know what it would mean to write, publicly, on my own website: "Media makes up complete lie to take down German hero Hitler" vs. something more neutral. One implies some pretty significant and shocking bias toward disturbing propaganda, the other does not. But whatev. I'm sure you can continue to make these kinds of comments without blowback in the long run.
Good luck recruiting new employees and investors to your brand. If I'm one of your rivals, I'm taking screenshots of these writings of yours and leveraging them against you with businesses and contacts within the sport. If I'm one of your employees, I'm looking for better work. If I'm one of your readers, I'm finding someone else to do the same thing you do, without the f****** verbatim Limbaugh propaganda. Sad.
Great post. But it really ought to be directed to Rojo. He's the one trotting out the most hackneyed right wing talking points on thread after thread. Wejo has been consistently thoughtful and measured on political matters.
we r living in a material wrld wrote:
Hey Brojos,
Wejo side-stepping the issue and doing damage control
this is a very sad day for Brojos and the LetsRun brand. .
1) First of all, Rojo posted this. I did not.
As a moderator of the forum I could step in and delete it, but I didn't. I think the use of the words "hero" and "media" were designed to get a response but it's the forum and I'm not here to censor what he says on it. He also ended the entire thing with a question mark? That means he's saying it's up for debate. Considering he really had problems with the Politico's headline, Robert probably should have used another one but he at least used a ?
I'd probably prefer it wasn't on the homepage but we also have up the thread saying he's toast for lieing.
2) I didn't attempt to side-step the issue. I think Ben Carson has much bigger problems than whether if someone told him he could get into West Point with a fullride if he applied whether he should have written he was offered a full-scholarship to West Point. That actually doesn't bug me. The way the Politico initially reported the story bugs me. Related to that. You said I did damage control what I tried to do was:
3) I tried in my post in this thread to agree with the poster who said the Yale story is WAY WORSE and TOTALLY ridiculous.
You act like I'm a big Ben Carson supporter and you know all my political leanings yet all I did was post that he has bigger fish to worry about.
4) A funny anecdote is before I posted on this thread today my dad had emailed me the WSJ article that had the Yale story in it. I had to laugh when I came on here and saw this thread and Robert defending him. The Yale story was way worse, but the WSJ didn't give it an inflammatory headline like Politico or Rojo.
5) You're saying we're very supportive of Nike and Salazar especially in regards to the David Epstein investigation? Clearly you don't come here very much:)
You can make a good contribution to the world while being almost any political orientation
I agree with that one for sure. I wish you however were a little bit more openminded and didn't lump everyone together. Look at this sentence:
while your political orientations are hell-bent on destroying and degrading deep thought with fear-mongering and race-baiting.
Are you trying to say anyone who admitted to voting for George W Bush which I did on here (I think that is the only election I have said which way I have voted on on here) supports fear mongering and race-baiting? Want to take it a step farther and say all people who have voted for X (I'm not sure how you classify me) in their life are homophobic, racists? Talk about fear mongering.
Wtfunny wrote:
Have not acknowledged the changes? Wtf is wrong with you?
"POLITICO stands by its reporting on this story, which has been updated to reflect Ben Carson’s on the record response. The original story and headline said that Carson’s campaign had admitted he "fabricated" a "full scholarship" from West Point, but now Carson denies that his campaign’s statement constituted such an admission, and story and headline were changed to reflect that."
Originally they didn't have the editor's note. I guess so many people complained they added it.
See this: "Politico stealthily edited the inflammatory headline and lede, after the damage was done. They made changes without adding a note about what was corrected. They didn’t update the piece or add an editor’s note. "
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/06/politico-admits-fabricating-a-hit-piece-on-ben-carson/wejo
this is no better .. they DID add an editor's note, and it's been online most of the day. It was online well before rojo posted above. In case you guys missed it, it's the piece that starts out
"Editor's note: ..."
So the guy who wrote the article in your link is lying.
I think a key point here is that the left is. Absolutely. Scared. To. Death. of Ben Carson, a successful African American who is conservative. We saw a similar reaction to Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas. Without the Black vote, Obama would have lost the 2012 election by 10 MILLION VOTES. Now that Carson is #1 in some polls, the liberal media has to destroy him. It's what they do.
Meanwhile, Hillary gets a pass on a history of serial lies, including lying in criminal investigations in which she profited. The two I can think of off the top of my head are Cattlegate and Casa Grande. In both cases, others were eventually criminally prosecuted.
If you're a millennial and thinking of voting for Hillary, do a search for Hillary Clinton and lying. Here's a great read: Hillary and Cattlegate.
In 1978-1979, novice investor Hillary Clinton turned $1,000 into $100,000. She claimed she made the trades herself using only the Wall Street Journal, but the WSJ at the time didn't cover cattle futures trading. The odds of doing this were estimated at 31 trillion to 1... millions of times greater than winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning. The broker/dealer was later fined heavily for "block trading." That's doing a bunch of trades in different directions and then at the end of the day, assigning winning and losing trades arbitrarily to individual accounts.
Or, search for Hillary and Casa Grande. Hillary claims to have never heard of Casa Grande, but Rose law firm records showed she had billed 30 hours for working on this case. She claimed it was under another name and she didn't know it was also known as Casa Grande. In Arkansas, Susan McDougal famously appeared on TV ads riding a white horse promoting the parent company's real estate deals. So the idea that attorney Hillary Clinton wouldn't know the names of these properties being touted on television at the time was pretty unrealistic. An indictment was drafted, but never filed, for Hillary at the time.
Susan McDougal, her husband, and another guy were convicted of various criminal charges in that one. Susan McDougal (alledged to have had an affair with Bill Clinton), went to jail rather than testify and was later pardoned by Bill. You can't make this stuff up!
fisky wrote:
I think a key point here is that the left is. Absolutely. Scared. To. Death. of Ben Carson, a successful African American who is conservative. We saw a similar reaction to Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas. Without the Black vote, Obama would have lost the 2012 election by 10 MILLION VOTES. Now that Carson is #1 in some polls, the liberal media has to destroy him. It's what they do.
!
Yup. The left is absolutely scared to death, and the Kenyans are quaking in their boots because they know the emergence of Luke Puskedra will usher in a new period of US dominance in the marathon.
fisky wrote:
Or, search for Hillary and Casa Grande. Hillary claims to have never heard of Casa Grande, but Rose law firm records showed she had billed 30 hours for working on this case. She claimed it was under another name and she didn't know it was also known as Casa Grande. In Arkansas, Susan McDougal famously appeared on TV ads riding a white horse promoting the parent company's real estate deals. So the idea that attorney Hillary Clinton wouldn't know the names of these properties being touted on television at the time was pretty unrealistic. An indictment was drafted, but never filed, for Hillary at the time.
I did this search myself and I'd forgotten a key point. The Clintons and the McDougals were PARTNERS IN WHITEWATER. The McDougal's company owned both Whitewater and Casa Grande. Yet Hillary claims under oath to a grand jury that she didn't know the name of the McDougal property she billed 30 hours of her Rose Law Firm time to? Of course, how can you disprove a claim by Hillary that she was ignorant without a written document or a witness Remember, Susan McDougal went to jail for refusing to testify and was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
I saw a report where some group is trying to get the Hillary Clinton draft indictment unsealed. Would it matter to voters if they learned that Hillary had most likely...
1. Lied under oath to a grand jury
2. About a person the Clintons had entered into a real estate development venture with and
3. That Hillary had billed legal hours to this partner for her Rose Law Firm, yet feigned ignorance of the name of the real estate development she was billing to represent!
4. The same partner who had been active in fund raising for Bill Clinton's campaign for governor of Arkansas?
5. The same partner who went to jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify about the Clintons?
Doesn't this speak to the character and truthfulness of Hillary Clinton?
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4064[quote]fisky wrote:
I think a key point here is that the left is. Absolutely. Scared. To. Death. of Ben Carson, a successful African American who is conservative. We saw a similar reaction to Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas. Without the Black vote, Obama would have lost the 2012 election by 10 MILLION VOTES. Now that Carson is #1 in some polls, the liberal media has to destroy him. It's what they do.
Your key point is wildly inaccurate. Ben Carson is woefully unprepared for elected office... and it it's showing. He is cracking under the slightest pressure - the entirely routine media scrutiny of his basic biography. Please, please, please let him be the nominee. He's even more entertaining than Trump.
Also, African American voting patterns are well established. They vote overwhelmingly for Democrats regardless of whether there is an AA on the top of either ticket.
No one is afraid of Ben Carson on the left. The only candidates the left are afraid of are Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Ben Carson is in the same league as Palin and Bachmann. Now that he has been revealed as a pathological liar he can safely withdraw, blame the "liberal media", and go back to selling books, hawking snake oil supplements, and getting paid to give speeches to midwestern white women who deep down want the purple crayon.
Valhalla Shiny and Chrome wrote:
No one is afraid of Ben Carson on the left. The only candidates the left are afraid of are Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Ben Carson is in the same league as Palin and Bachmann. Now that he has been revealed as a pathological liar he can safely withdraw, blame the "liberal media", and go back to selling books, hawking snake oil supplements, and getting paid to give speeches to midwestern white women who deep down want the purple crayon.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
You sound like the captain of the Titanic.
drunk runner. wrote:
Valhalla Shiny and Chrome wrote:No one is afraid of Ben Carson on the left. The only candidates the left are afraid of are Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Ben Carson is in the same league as Palin and Bachmann. Now that he has been revealed as a pathological liar he can safely withdraw, blame the "liberal media", and go back to selling books, hawking snake oil supplements, and getting paid to give speeches to midwestern white women who deep down want the purple crayon.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
You sound like the captain of the Titanic.
Check back with us in a month captain?