Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Can The Daily Caller survive?

    Can The Daily Caller survive?

    I haven’t posted about the Twitter and blog war which broke out over a clip of Mike Tyson trash talking Sarah Palin in very explicit and violent sexual ways, although I did spotlight Dan Riehl’s post about it as Post of the Day.

    The controversy is not that a convicted rapist would make such statements, but that The Daily Caller would run the clip with a bold traffic-grabbing headline and keep it there without so much as any commentary (which was not added until later).

    I can’t say it was the worst trashing of Palin I’ve ever seen, but it definitely was the worst I’d ever seen at a supposedly conservative website and one which has a high profile.  While the post quoted Tyson, it was pure traffic-baiting using sexual violence against Palin as the tease.

    There is a huge difference between an article discussing despicable comments about conservative women, and quoting the language in the context of analysis, and what The Daily Caller did.

    Dan Riehl drove the issue hard (including one post he has since taken down in which he used some parody to impugn what The Daily Caller had done).  And then Greta Van Susteren got involved with a brutal take down of her “friend” Tucker Carlson, who runs The Daily Caller (bold lettering in original):

    I really don’t understand my friend Tucker Carlson.  He owns the website The Daily Caller and it currently has on its front page the most vile story — referring to a sex act with Governor Sarah Palin as a “womb shifter.”  It is even the headline. Do you know what that means?  Figure it out  It is really vile.  It is not just smut…this is violence against women.

    Once Greta got involved, the controversy went mainstream, with a post at Politico and a long Memeorandum thread.

    Carlson went on Greta’s show last night, and he didn’t do himself any favors:

    Carlson tried to call it mere news reporting, but it was pure traffic baiting.  Greta saw it for what it was, and Carlson just kept digging.

    The damage to The Daily Caller is enormous.  It now is the subject of widespread mockery, such as this “Hitler” video from Three Bears Later blog.

    This is a disaster compounded by the folks at The Daily Caller digging while in a hole, and digging even harder when people called them out on it, and doubling down on the digging as it went viral.

    Can The Daily Caller survive?  Should it?

    Depends on how much money its investors want to throw at it, because at this point it’s a pretty deep hole they’ve dug.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Hurricane | September 20, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    What’s worrisome about about all of the libelous commentary about Palin from 2008 to the present is that no Republicans will stand up for her. Recall the Blood Libel episode?? The silence from the GOP was deafening!! Only Beck, Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh and a few others stood up for her. There is no one on ABC, CBS, CNN, or NBC who will even take a contrary view when derogatory comments are made about Palin. I want Palin to run simply to hear the neo-comm(unist)s have their fits!
    Remember that sneer on Obama’s face in the third debate when McCain ALMOST pointed out those whore and c__t t-shirts the Democrats had made to reference Palin??
    The Republicans need to hammer Obama relentlessly, no quarter.
    Obama is not making mistakes, he is deliberately driving this country into an economic abyss. I want Republicans to say it over and over and over again. It needs to be the first thing out of their mouths every time a microphone gets pushed into their faces. No quarter!!


     
     0 
     
     0
    JimTreacher | September 20, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    Hi, everybody. I won’t take the insults personally, as disappointing as that might be to some of you.

    Quick point of clarification: The Daily Caller ran a news story about an event that happened in real life. The words printed inside quotation marks were uttered by people outside the Daily Caller. I know it’s confusing, but it’s easy to pick up on once you get used to it. Some would say it’s patently ridiculous to accuse a news outlet of being responsible for the words and actions it’s covering, but what do they know?

    Oh, and Dan Riehl’s “parody” involved accusing Jeff Poor of being a pedophile. I’m not sure why he took down the post, since it was so hilarious.

    Hope that helps. Have a great night!

    P.S. Three Beers Later, not Bears.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Weirddave in reply to JimTreacher. | September 21, 2011 at 12:25 am

      Y’know Jim, it’s a mark of maturity to be able to say “I see your point, I (we) were wrong and I (we) apologize”. No fuss, no muss, move along, nothing to see here. Romney on Romneycare and how he’s perceived over it on the right is instructive here. Instead, you spent yesterday responding to every single post over at Stacy McCain’s blog, now you’re over here, and every time you post you simply give the issue legs. Sheesh. Man up, will ya? This constant defensive cringe you guys are in is unbecoming and destructive. It’s not a question of taking your lumps, y’all are getting lumps in spades, now it a question of how many and how serious your lumps will be. So far your answer has been “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

        Exactly. Obtuse.


         
         0 
         
         0
        JimTreacher in reply to Weirddave. | September 21, 2011 at 7:01 am

        It’s also a mark of maturity to accept that people can disagree on an issue without being driven by nefarious motives. Another mark of maturity is being able to state your opinion without saying, “Why don’t you just see it my way and shut up already?”


           
           0 
           
           0
          ThomasD in reply to JimTreacher. | September 21, 2011 at 9:08 am

          Perhaps if you actually admitted that the piece – as it originally appeared – was poorly written, and (unintentionally) offensive you might have a leg to stand on. The evidence for this being Tucker’s lame attempts at amending the post only after being called out on it, and his bogus attempts to spin the timeline of those events.

          But you haven’t even done that. You’ve hewed to the party line that the story – the original story – was straight up new and nothing more. You have adamantly refused to address, much less concede the patently obvious defects, even after Carlson sought to minimize them. It has been nothing but spin, deflection, and passive aggressive denials from you.

          And just so we are clear, I don’t question your motives. Your motives are crystal clear, if not remotely lilly white.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Rosalie in reply to Weirddave. | September 21, 2011 at 8:26 am

        Treacher and the rest of them sound like teenage boys instead of men. Until they stop acting defensive and take responsibility for what they have done, they should stop getting on blogs because they just continue to look like fools. Grow up!


       
       0 
       
       0
      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to JimTreacher. | September 21, 2011 at 2:05 am

      Jim I do not even know who you are but I predicted your visit 6 hours ago. LOL I am on the other side of the world !

      I gotta go get a glass of champagne to celebrate my Prophetic skills .


       
       0 
       
       0
      Viator in reply to JimTreacher. | September 21, 2011 at 7:02 am

      1) It wasn’t newsworthy
      2) It was gratuitous smut
      3) It was misogynistic to the extreme
      4) It was a veiled attack on Governor Palin
      5) It damaged everyone involved


       
       0 
       
       0
      mdw9661 in reply to JimTreacher. | September 21, 2011 at 11:29 am

      Jim, do you normally strike a sanctimonious tone in your writing? If so, then I am glad I am not very familiar with you. Life is too short.

      Moreover, the Daily Caller article in question was in essence lending its credibility and web site to a convicted rapist and wife beater. The Daily Caller simply put up unchecked comments by Mike Tyson sans critique sans criticism. In so doing, they lowered whatever credibility it has to the decency standards of Mike Tyson and put up an inflammatory title to draw attention to their lack of decency.

      Now, as Tucker and his assorted writers put up a defense of indignation, why on earth would any self-respecting writer even attempt to justify it?

      Jim,

      Hope you still come back and read this. Although at first I defended you on twitter for being attacked while all this had nothing to do with you, only your boss and colleagues, your defense of the indefensible has caused me to change my mind.

      Let’s pretend the DC was simply reporting the story to call attention to the vileness of Tyson and lack of rebuke of, say, the New York Times. How can you explain a different article which was on the DC last week which repeated all of McGinniss’s crap as though they are factual? Huh?

      Even the New York Times has slammed the book and pronounced it as contradictory and obviously untrue. How do you justify the DC’s actions on this one?

      Here’s the link: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/report-palin-book-alleges-fetish-for-black-men-extra-marital-affair-and-cocaine-use/


         
         0 
         
         0
        JimTreacher in reply to Abie Rubin. | September 21, 2011 at 12:38 pm

        Do you know what the word “alleges” means?

          So does the usage of the word “alleged” now permit one to put out every type of false slander against any individual, even when it stems from a known liar or lunatic, without a condemnation or explanation simply because the attacks were prefaced with this one word?

          as a by the way, this is what Webster’s online dictionary has to say:

          al·leged adj \ə-ˈlejd, -ˈle-jəd\

          1: asserted to be true or to exist
          2: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called
          3: accused but not proven or convicted

          Read definition number one again: “asserted to be true”

          “alleged” has become an overused word which is used as a safety net so one is protected from potential lawsuits in the slight chance that the facts are discredited. The typical story is loaded with the word even when discussing facts since it agrees with the first definition. Who doesn’t remember e/o referring to the alleged killer at Fort Hood was allegedly a Muslim…

          The DC has used the word “alleged” in describing the individual who killed dozens in Norwegia and not because there were any doubts whether he committed the act for he admitted as much.
          http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/23/police-alleged-norwegian-mass-murderer-faces-just-21-years-in-prison/

          Don’t you understand how wrong it is to state false facts with only the word “alleged” hinting it’s far from true when so many have become accustomed for “alleged” to mean “not 100% verified” and “almost definitely” as in your description of the Norwegian killer?

          Why couldn’t the other side of the picture be presented? Did the DC want people to walk away under the mistaken impression that the “alleged” story is more likely true than not? Why else did the DC refuse to report it in a manner similar to The New York Times?

          Why have you given more credibility to an outright liar than The New York Times? What a disgrace of a site! You’ve truly become a competitor with the Huffington Post for your reports are of an equally low quality.


             
             0 
             
             0
            JimTreacher in reply to Abie Rubin. | September 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm

            We didn’t publish the book. Apparently you want no coverage of the book whatsoever. On a political news site.

            So noted.


             
             0 
             
             0
            PGlenn in reply to Abie Rubin. | September 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm

            Treacher, do you ever stop deflecting?

            You and other DC writers are not misogynistic. I have no reason to think that the DC is anti-Palin. I don’t question your motives, which are probably better than mine. Of course, Carlson and Poor believed that the Tyson quotes were newsworthy. I never want anyone to shut up, unless I’m trying to watch a college football game.

            Just admit it: Poor’s article on Tyson, as it was originally posted, reflected poor editorial judgment.


             
             0 
             
             0
            JimTreacher in reply to Abie Rubin. | September 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm

            I disagree, Glenn. I understand that you don’t like that.

          “Apparently you want no coverage of the book whatsoever”

          Boy! You either didn’t read my comment or have difficulty with reading comprehension.

          How about reporting both sides of the story, and not ignoring that which doesn’t match the meme you’re trying to spread?

          Is a reporter supposed to just repeat what other say/write or do some research?


     
     0 
     
     0
    huskers-for-palin | September 20, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    BREAKING: Palin within 5 points of Obama !!!

    […] good to see another adult perspective on the recent Daily Caller debacle. There have been plenty of them. However, too many on the Right got trapped into seeing this […]


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend