PDA

View Full Version : Cubs want Chris Sale?


Fastball23
10-26-2013, 10:58 AM
http://www.chicagonow.com/loxas-factor/2013/10/jeff-samardzija-trade-market-heating-up-cubs-interested-in-chris-sale/

I know a Sox/ Cubs deal won't happen but I would take Soler, Baez, Bryant and Edwards in a heartbeat for Sale

DumpJerry
10-26-2013, 11:19 AM
First of all, who is this guy with "sources?" Are these the same sources that said Girardi was 100% interested in being the Cubs skipper next season?

Yes, to answer the question, the Cubs want Chris Sale. You know who else would want him on their roster? These teams:
Tigers
Twins
Royals
Indians
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Rays
Orioles
Athletics
Angels
Mariners
Rangers
Astros
Mets
Braves
Nationals
Phillies
Marlins (maybe)
Cardinals
Brewers
Pirates
Reds
Dodgers
D-Backs
Padres
Giants
Rockies

Brian26
10-26-2013, 11:38 AM
First of all, who is this guy with "sources?" Are these the same sources that said Girardi was 100% interested in being the Cubs skipper next season?



I love his quote "one scout told me ....." LOL

amsteel
10-26-2013, 11:54 AM
Bloggers gonna blog

DumpJerry
10-26-2013, 12:29 PM
If he's quick on his feet and has good hands for catching the ball, I know about 30 or so NFL teams that would want him.

blandman
10-26-2013, 12:55 PM
Ugh...I swear, people use the word blogger just like they used "internet" ten years ago to mean something HAD to be false.

Just because he's a blogger, doesn't mean this is made up. And the guy actually says it's on the Cubs end and to file it under "never gonna happen".

Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.

DumpJerry
10-26-2013, 01:14 PM
Ugh...I swear, people use the word blogger just like they used "internet" ten years ago to mean something HAD to be false.

Just because he's a blogger, doesn't mean this is made up. And the guy actually says it's on the Cubs end and to file it under "never gonna happen".

Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.
I didn't call him a blogger. I compared him to half the idiots on the radio who all had "sources" who already knew when the Girardi press conference was scheduled.

kittle42
10-26-2013, 01:16 PM
I post plenty of Sox-related status updates on my Facebook page. I think they should start being reported as "a source."

spawn
10-26-2013, 01:39 PM
Ugh...I swear, people use the word blogger just like they used "internet" ten years ago to mean something HAD to be false.

Just because he's a blogger, doesn't mean this is made up. And the guy actually says it's on the Cubs end and to file it under "never gonna happen".

Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.

When has he been correct? Just curious. Can you back this up?

asindc
10-26-2013, 04:45 PM
First of all, who is this guy with "sources?" Are these the same sources that said Girardi was 100% interested in being the Cubs skipper next season?

Yes, to answer the question, the Cubs want Chris Sale. You know who else would want him on their roster? These teams:
Tigers
Twins
Royals
Indians
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Rays
Orioles
Athletics
Angels
Mariners
Rangers
Astros
Mets
Braves
Nationals
Phillies
Marlins (maybe)
Cardinals
Brewers
Pirates
Reds
Dodgers
D-Backs
Padres
Giants
Rockies

Beat me to it. In a related development, "sources" say the Sox are interested in Mike Trout.

Rocky Soprano
10-26-2013, 06:16 PM
When has he been correct? Just curious. Can you back this up?

Has he ever backed anything up?

sullythered
10-26-2013, 07:33 PM
Ugh...I swear, people use the word blogger just like they used "internet" ten years ago to mean something HAD to be false.

Just because he's a blogger, doesn't mean this is made up. And the guy actually says it's on the Cubs end and to file it under "never gonna happen".

Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.

You're right, I don't think "blogger" should be a dirty word anymore. I totally trust this dude when he says that a scout he talked to says Sale's "arm action is surprisingly clean for his arm slot." Don't you agree?

DumpJerry
10-26-2013, 10:02 PM
Breaking news.....breaking news....my sources (who are never wrong) tell me that all 29 MLB teams are interested in Adam Dunn................remaining with the White Sox. Surprisingly, the strongest interest for this development comes from the teams in the AL Central.


You take it to the bank. My sources scout the scouts.

Brian26
10-27-2013, 12:22 AM
Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.

Newsflash, it is easier to get a Blog on ChicagoNow than it is to sign up for a Costco membership. He doesn't have any real sources.

TDog
10-27-2013, 02:31 AM
Ugh...I swear, people use the word blogger just like they used "internet" ten years ago to mean something HAD to be false.

Just because he's a blogger, doesn't mean this is made up. And the guy actually says it's on the Cubs end and to file it under "never gonna happen".

Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.

I doubt that any sports blogger is generally correct. Even credible sports sources are incorrect more times than not. Many people who get paid good salaries to be be reliable sports columnists are wrong to some degree more times than not, but no one holds them accountable for their mistakes.

There are reliable bloggers. There are reliable sources on the Internet. But there is no reason to believe that anything you read from a blogger or on the Internet is reliable.

Of course, suggesting that the Cubs would like to have Chris Sale in their starting roations is like suggesting that on a clear day the sky is blue.

cards press box
10-27-2013, 03:42 AM
On several levels,

:threadsucks

And the Chicago Now article sucks, too. Of course the Cubs would like to have Chris Sale. As Dump Jerry rightly points out, so would every other major league club.

More pernicious, I think, is the assumption in the article that the Cubs have enough quality minor leaguers to obtain a pitcher like Sale. The Cubs have no legitimate prospects at AAA and the one legitimate prospect they have at AA, Javier Baez, didn't get there until he played 76 games at Daytona (high A level). Baez played 54 games at AA and, even though he had excellent power numbers (37 HR and 111 RBI at A and AA in 2013), he only hit .282 last year and struck out 147 times. I don't know what to make of all that.

Anyway, it bugs me when a Cub fan writes a blog in the Sun-Times saying how great it would be if the Cubs could somehow pry Chris Sale away from the White Sox.

Give me a break.

doublem23
10-28-2013, 10:06 AM
Loxas has been a "blogger" on Chicago Now for a while, and his "sources" have generally been correct. I'm tired of hearing people rag on bloggers because they somehow have less credibility than a newspaper, despite a wealth of evidence that it's just as much a pile of **** thrown at a wall.

Chicago Now is a joke network of "bloggers" which is basically anyone willing to sign up. Zero credibility there.

blandman
10-28-2013, 12:13 PM
When has he been correct? Just curious. Can you back this up?

Well, for one, he posted a while back that Sveum would be fired regardless of the Girardi situation, which wasn't a certainty. Either he's been guessing right a lot, or he has a credible source within the Cubs organization.

blandman
10-28-2013, 12:17 PM
Chicago Now is a joke network of "bloggers" which is basically anyone willing to sign up. Zero credibility there.

What they do, turn you down?

You know what differentiates a blogger from a columnist? Physical print. That's it. Yeah, some sites you simply sign up for. But this isn't tumblr. There's a screening process, they don't overlap blog topics, they pay the writers, and they fire people. The only difference between that site and anywhere else is your attitude.

kittle42
10-28-2013, 12:26 PM
Well, for one, he posted a while back that Sveum would be fired regardless of the Girardi situation, which wasn't a certainty. Either he's been guessing right a lot, or he has a credible source within the Cubs organization.

To play devil's advocate, that's only one example, which was reported as rumor by several reporters, and which was a pretty easy scenario to guess correctly anyway. Hell, *I* thought it would easily happen.

doublem23
10-28-2013, 12:28 PM
What they do, turn you down?

You know what differentiates a blogger from a columnist? Physical print. That's it. Yeah, some sites you simply sign up for. But this isn't tumblr. There's a screening process, they don't overlap blog topics, they pay the writers, and they fire people. The only difference between that site and anywhere else is your attitude.

Uh, yeah, no, I can read and have critical thinking skills. Chicago Now is quite usually terrible, awful garbage.

I'm not saying all blogs are, some are very good, but that's a rare find.

blandman
10-28-2013, 12:35 PM
Uh, yeah, no, I can read and have critical thinking skills. Chicago Now is quite usually terrible, awful garbage.

I'm not saying all blogs are, some are very good, but that's a rare find.

Well, finding it terrible is personal preference. I honestly don't see how it's any better or worse than what else is out there.

It should be noted that Future Sox, which is a great resource on our minor league system, has joined Chicago Now.

kittle42
10-28-2013, 12:49 PM
It should be noted that Future Sox, which is a great resource on our minor league system, has joined Chicago Now.

Now *that* must be a depressing blog.

blandman
10-28-2013, 01:14 PM
Now *that* must be a depressing blog.

:rolling:

russ99
10-28-2013, 03:58 PM
Breaking news.....breaking news....my sources (who are never wrong) tell me that all 29 MLB teams are interested in Adam Dunn................remaining with the White Sox. Surprisingly, the strongest interest for this development comes from the teams in the AL Central.

You take it to the bank. My sources scout the scouts.

:roflmao:

:gulp:

spawn
10-28-2013, 04:24 PM
Well, for one, he posted a while back that Sveum would be fired regardless of the Girardi situation, which wasn't a certainty. Either he's been guessing right a lot, or he has a credible source within the Cubs organization.
Well, quite a few people were predicting THAT one. Hell, I'm sure there were people on other fan forums saying that would happen. Maybe a poster at one of those sites is his "source".
To play devil's advocate, that's only one example, which was reported as rumor by several reporters, and which was a pretty easy scenario to guess correctly anyway. Hell, *I* thought it would easily happen.
I rest my case. kittle42 is the source! :rolling:

Got anything else?

TDog
10-28-2013, 05:30 PM
What they do, turn you down?

You know what differentiates a blogger from a columnist? Physical print. That's it. Yeah, some sites you simply sign up for. But this isn't tumblr. There's a screening process, they don't overlap blog topics, they pay the writers, and they fire people. The only difference between that site and anywhere else is your attitude.

Don't take it as a personal insult when I write that you aren't simply wrong, but you have no idea what you are talking about, because it isn't meant to be one.

Columnists are generally professionally trained. Even the ones who haven't been trained have gained skills through professional experience that bloggers do not have, although there is an overlap because many columnists now are required to blog. It isn't just a matter of being a member of some sort of a club or fraternity to work for a print publication. If a newspaper pays someone a living wage to write, the person it hires in turn must be responsible because the publication is obligated to defend itself against any legal action that could arise from the course of employment.

This has become fuzzy in people's minds because the Internet has destroyed the concept of news for many. When you get to sports, people have an even harder time dealing with the difference between professionalism and bloggers because professional standards in sports coverage has become lax. Responsible journalists don't use unnamed sources except in extreme circumstances with extreme stakes. For one thing, they don't have credibility. For another, they are notoriously unreliable because sources aren't as meticulous about the truth when they are talking with people as unnamed sources. If you are a blogger with no professional training and limited experience in dealing with sourcing information for public consumption, you are more likely to screw up information from anonymous sources. There have been professionals caught simply making things up from unnamed sources, and non-professional are more likely to be unprofessional in this regard. Unfortunately, professional sports journalists are permitted to use unnamed sources frequently, apparently because news organizations don't hold sports departments to news standards. Professional ethics and standards require that if a news story has an unnamed source, that the source has to be identified to editors and cleared, which probably doesn't happen with sports stories and certainly isn't happening with sites with blogs, even with sites that pay bloggers for their contributions.

In sports coverage, most things you read, regardless of the source, that don't have attributed sources are not 100 percent true. Most things you read in blogs are not true, and the things you read in blogs that are true are more likely to be repeated from professional journalists.

I would be inclined to regard what I read in a blog anymore than I would believe someone sitting at a Denny's counter who talks like he seems to know what's going on.

DumpJerry
10-28-2013, 05:31 PM
Well, for one, he posted a while back that Sveum would be fired regardless of the Girardi situation, which wasn't a certainty. Either he's been guessing right a lot, or he has a credible source within the Cubs organization.
Since late August there was rampant speculation all over the local media that Sveum was toast after this season.

kittle42
10-28-2013, 05:47 PM
Don't take it as a personal insult when I write that you aren't simply wrong, but you have no idea what you are talking about, because it isn't meant to be one.

Columnists are generally professionally trained. Even the ones who haven't been trained have gained skills through professional experience that bloggers do not have, although there is an overlap because many columnists now are required to blog. It isn't just a matter of being a member of some sort of a club or fraternity to work for a print publication. If a newspaper pays someone a living wage to write, the person it hires in turn must be responsible because the publication is obligated to defend itself against any legal action that could arise from the course of employment.

This has become fuzzy in people's minds because the Internet has destroyed the concept of news for many. When you get to sports, people have an even harder time dealing with the difference between professionalism and bloggers because professional standards in sports coverage has become lax. Responsible journalists don't use unnamed sources except in extreme circumstances with extreme stakes. For one thing, they don't have credibility. For another, they are notoriously unreliable because sources aren't as meticulous about the truth when they are talking with people as unnamed sources. If you are a blogger with no professional training and limited experience in dealing with sourcing information for public consumption, you are more likely to screw up information from anonymous sources. There have been professionals caught simply making things up from unnamed sources, and non-professional are more likely to be unprofessional in this regard. Unfortunately, professional sports journalists are permitted to use unnamed sources frequently, apparently because news organizations don't hold sports departments to news standards. Professional ethics and standards require that if a news story has an unnamed source, that the source has to be identified to editors and cleared, which probably doesn't happen with sports stories and certainly isn't happening with sites with blogs, even with sites that pay bloggers for their contributions.

In sports coverage, most things you read, regardless of the source, that don't have attributed sources are not 100 percent true. Most things you read in blogs are not true, and the things you read in blogs that are true are more likely to be repeated from professional journalists.

I would be inclined to regard what I read in a blog anymore than I would believe someone sitting at a Denny's counter who talks like he seems to know what's going on.

First, munch tends to think all disagreement with him is a personal attack.

Second, good post.

blandman
10-28-2013, 06:09 PM
Don't take it as a personal insult when I write that you aren't simply wrong, but you have no idea what you are talking about, because it isn't meant to be one.

Columnists are generally professionally trained. Even the ones who haven't been trained have gained skills through professional experience that bloggers do not have, although there is an overlap because many columnists now are required to blog. It isn't just a matter of being a member of some sort of a club or fraternity to work for a print publication. If a newspaper pays someone a living wage to write, the person it hires in turn must be responsible because the publication is obligated to defend itself against any legal action that could arise from the course of employment.

This has become fuzzy in people's minds because the Internet has destroyed the concept of news for many. When you get to sports, people have an even harder time dealing with the difference between professionalism and bloggers because professional standards in sports coverage has become lax. Responsible journalists don't use unnamed sources except in extreme circumstances with extreme stakes. For one thing, they don't have credibility. For another, they are notoriously unreliable because sources aren't as meticulous about the truth when they are talking with people as unnamed sources. If you are a blogger with no professional training and limited experience in dealing with sourcing information for public consumption, you are more likely to screw up information from anonymous sources. There have been professionals caught simply making things up from unnamed sources, and non-professional are more likely to be unprofessional in this regard. Unfortunately, professional sports journalists are permitted to use unnamed sources frequently, apparently because news organizations don't hold sports departments to news standards. Professional ethics and standards require that if a news story has an unnamed source, that the source has to be identified to editors and cleared, which probably doesn't happen with sports stories and certainly isn't happening with sites with blogs, even with sites that pay bloggers for their contributions.

In sports coverage, most things you read, regardless of the source, that don't have attributed sources are not 100 percent true. Most things you read in blogs are not true, and the things you read in blogs that are true are more likely to be repeated from professional journalists.

I would be inclined to regard what I read in a blog anymore than I would believe someone sitting at a Denny's counter who talks like he seems to know what's going on.

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. I also don't mean to be insulting, but it's attitude's like yours that are perpetrated by the print media to discredit the internet.

Whether or not someone has been trained has no bearing on their status as a columnist. A columnist is someone who writes in print media. Someone who writes for a website is only also a columnist if they contribute to a print media. Those that write strictly on the internet are bloggers. Those are solid definitions with no bearing on training. Now, most blogs write like op ed pieces sure, but do you call into question sports editorials in print media simply because they're such?

The majority of what you find on the internet off of pages like tumblr and other post your own blog sites are of course not what we're talking about. Yes, they come with the name "blogger", but any joe with a zine is also a "columnist" in exactly the same why. To criticize a web only writer because they're a "blogger" show little understanding of how the term differs from other terms used to carry some sort of imaginary credentials.

kittle42
10-28-2013, 06:22 PM
The majority of what you find on the internet off of pages like tumblr and other post your own blog sites are of course not what we're talking about. Yes, they come with the name "blogger", but any joe with a zine is also a "columnist" in exactly the same why. To criticize a web only writer because they're a "blogger" show little understanding of how the term differs from other terms used to carry some sort of imaginary credentials.

But *I* could make a blog and opine on baseball. Does that make me a credible journalist?

TDog
10-28-2013, 06:51 PM
No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. I also don't mean to be insulting, but it's attitude's like yours that are perpetrated by the print media to discredit the internet.

Whether or not someone has been trained has no bearing on their status as a columnist. A columnist is someone who writes in print media. Someone who writes for a website is only also a columnist if they contribute to a print media. Those that write strictly on the internet are bloggers. Those are solid definitions with no bearing on training. Now, most blogs write like op ed pieces sure, but do you call into question sports editorials in print media simply because they're such?

The majority of what you find on the internet off of pages like tumblr and other post your own blog sites are of course not what we're talking about. Yes, they come with the name "blogger", but any joe with a zine is also a "columnist" in exactly the same why. To criticize a web only writer because they're a "blogger" show little understanding of how the term differs from other terms used to carry some sort of imaginary credentials.

Credentials are not imaginary. And what is required to earn those credentials provides the holders with greater access and understanding of the truth.

I question any sports story that does not name sources, whether it is in print or online. Years ago, I would have questioned it if it were in your newsletter. Look at the Frontline story linking brain injuries and football and the book that preceded it. The stakes are much more important than the trivial stuff you're talking about, and there wasn't a single anonymous source or even a source quoted off camera. I do tend to give professional journalists a bit more wiggle room in this area because they should have the training and experience to know when they are being played, but precious little. If I read a blogger with an unnamed source, I might trust him if he e-mailed me enough information about his source on request, but I'm not sure I would give Ray Ratto much more slack just because he's an experienced professional.

I can't imagine there are any reliable bloggers who wouldn't rather be making a good living with an "credentials institution."

The man sitting at the Denny's counter may be the greatest source who ever lived, but I have no reason to believe him just because he's holding court at a Denny's counter.

blandman
10-28-2013, 07:19 PM
But *I* could make a blog and opine on baseball. Does that make me a credible journalist?

No. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Credentials are not imaginary. And what is required to earn those credentials provides the holders with greater access and understanding of the truth.

I question any sports story that does not name sources, whether it is in print or online. Years ago, I would have questioned it if it were in your newsletter. Look at the Frontline story linking brain injuries and football and the book that preceded it. The stakes are much more important than the trivial stuff you're talking about, and there wasn't a single anonymous source or even a source quoted off camera. I do tend to give professional journalists a bit more wiggle room in this area because they should have the training and experience to know when they are being played, but precious little. If I read a blogger with an unnamed source, I might trust him if he e-mailed me enough information about his source on request, but I'm not sure I would give Ray Ratto much more slack just because he's an experienced professional.

I can't imagine there are any reliable bloggers who wouldn't rather be making a good living with an "credentials institution."

The man sitting at the Denny's counter may be the greatest source who ever lived, but I have no reason to believe him just because he's holding court at a Denny's counter.

Credentials come in many forms, and being completely honest, have lost a lot of their meaning in recent years. I'm not going to completely get into it (because it's very political, especially with recent revelations), but print publications now almost exclusively have an agenda, whether in the political sector or in the sports world (see ESPN). Really, the ONLY place to be free from that is the internet.

Tell me, what passes for better credentials? A degree in journalism, or writing the truth? Because the two are slowly becoming mutually exclusive. To claim that someone is more trust-worthy simply because they work for a print publication isn't just a false statement, it leans more towards the opposite of the truth.

DSpivack
10-28-2013, 07:24 PM
No. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Credentials come in many forms, and being completely honest, have lost a lot of their meaning in recent years. I'm not going to completely get into it (because it's very political, especially with recent revelations), but print publications now almost exclusively have an agenda, whether in the political sector or in the sports world (see ESPN). Really, the ONLY place to be free from that is the internet.

Tell me, what passes for better credentials? A degree in journalism, or writing the truth? Because the two are slowly becoming mutually exclusive. To claim that someone is more trust-worthy simply because they work for a print publication isn't just a false statement, it leans more towards the opposite of the truth.

The best bloggers (and I'm thinking of three examples in my head; Rich Miller of Cap Fax reporting on Springfield and Illinois politics; Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism reporting on finance the economy; and Jim Margalus of Southside Sox) all either tend to follow journalistic ethics, and/or are analyzing news and not reporting on it themselves. Many of the bloggers are either content aggregrators or analysts, there aren't all that many who report on news themselves.

blandman
10-28-2013, 07:25 PM
The best bloggers (and I'm thinking of three examples in my head; Rich Miller of Cap Fax reporting on Springfield and Illinois politics; Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism reporting on finance the economy; and Jim Margalus of Southside Sox) all either tend to follow journalistic ethics, and/or are analyzing news and not reporting on it themselves. Many of the bloggers are either content aggregrators or analysts, there aren't all that many who report on news themselves.

It just depends on where you're looking. Even big sites have their own "bloggers". ESPN included. It's a crapshoot, but everything is a crapshoot.

Brian26
10-28-2013, 07:41 PM
What they do, turn you down?

You know what differentiates a blogger from a columnist? Physical print. That's it. Yeah, some sites you simply sign up for. But this isn't tumblr. There's a screening process, they don't overlap blog topics, they pay the writers, and they fire people. The only difference between that site and anywhere else is your attitude.

Watch where you're going with this, because that's misleading. They pay a small group of the close to 400 bloggers based on their traffic, which is a huge conflict of interest with most of these hacks when you consider they are not held to the journalistic standards TDog pointed out. Not every Chicago Now blogger gets paid. Not even close. Not even remotely close.... Even if they have "sources" and "scout friends" who teach them about arm slot and inside administrative moves at Clark and Addison.

TDog
10-28-2013, 08:18 PM
Tell me, what passes for better credentials? A degree in journalism, or writing the truth? Because the two are slowly becoming mutually exclusive. To claim that someone is more trust-worthy simply because they work for a print publication isn't just a false statement, it leans more towards the opposite of the truth.

If it's the truth, give me the source.

There is a lot of bad journalism, and I have called journalists on it and have been criticized for calling journ. Some of it's sloppy. Some of it's irresponsible. And the reputations of the journalistic institutions suffer for it, so much so that the institutions have an obligation to hire the best people that they can.

Your overall point, though, is wildly ridiculous. If you self-publish a book on economics theory, it isn't going to have the same credibility as a book published by a university press that passes peer review, no matter how much you complain about the evils of the institutions keeping your theories down.

This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.

kittle42
10-28-2013, 08:25 PM
It just depends on where you're looking. Even big sites have their own "bloggers". ESPN included. It's a crapshoot, but everything is a crapshoot.

And they generally have journalism degrees or are seasoned vets.

blandman
10-28-2013, 08:31 PM
Watch where you're going with this, because that's misleading. They pay a small group of the close to 400 bloggers based on their traffic, which is a huge conflict of interest with most of these hacks when you consider they are not held to the journalistic standards TDog pointed out. Not every Chicago Now blogger gets paid. Not even close. Not even remotely close.... Even if they have "sources" and "scout friends" who teach them about arm slot and inside administrative moves at Clark and Addison.

I was unaware that some were unpaid. But that "conflict of interest" is exactly what the problem with print media is. This notion that it's not all for sales simply because there's an imagined line journalists of print won't cross is completely without merit. Sure, some might operate that way, or at least intend to, but the editorial process completely removes that. There's very few publications, maybe the guardian (and that's a big maybe), where other interests haven't completely removed any semblance of legitimacy. There's zero reason to not trust a "blogger" any more than any print journalist.

If it's the truth, give me the source.

There is a lot of bad journalism, and I have called journalists on it and have been criticized for calling journ. Some of it's sloppy. Some of it's irresponsible. And the reputations of the journalistic institutions suffer for it, so much so that the institutions have an obligation to hire the best people that they can.

Your overall point, though, is wildly ridiculous. If you self-publish a book on economics theory, it isn't going to have the same credibility as a book published by a university press that passes peer review, no matter how much you complain about the evils of the institutions keeping your theories down.

This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.

The university press peer review process won't stifle a study simply because it causes a conflict of interest with it's ownership group, so that example is wildly off base.

Tragg
10-28-2013, 08:54 PM
Back to the substance, the question isn't whether he actually has sources that suggest that the Cubs would like to have Sale...who wouldn't? It would be meaningful if he had sources in the Sox organization that said the Sox want to deal him.

blandman
10-28-2013, 09:31 PM
Back to the substance, the question isn't whether he actually has sources that suggest that the Cubs would like to have Sale...who wouldn't? It would be meaningful if he had sources in the Sox organization that said the Sox want to deal him.

Indeed, but he went out of his way to say that wasn't the case.

FWIW, the Cubs are probably one of three teams that could actually put together a prospect package worthy of a player like Sale.

asindc
10-28-2013, 09:42 PM
Back to the substance, the question isn't whether he actually has sources that suggest that the Cubs would like to have Sale...who wouldn't? It would be meaningful if he had sources in the Sox organization that said the Sox want to deal him.

Exactly. "Reporting" that a dog bit a man is not newsworthy. Reporting that the man bit the dog back in retaliation is.

doublem23
10-28-2013, 10:50 PM
The best bloggers (and I'm thinking of three examples in my head; Rich Miller of Cap Fax reporting on Springfield and Illinois politics; Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism reporting on finance the economy; and Jim Margalus of Southside Sox) all either tend to follow journalistic ethics, and/or are analyzing news and not reporting on it themselves. Many of the bloggers are either content aggregrators or analysts, there aren't all that many who report on news themselves.

Not sure about the first two, but Margalus is (was?) an actual journalist who just wrote about the Sox on the side because that's his passion, but it's not like he's some guy who just decided to write clear out of the blue.

His blog is not attached to any usual, traditional print outfit, but the level of writing at SSS is on par with, if not better, than any print source on the Sox, so I consider him a very credible source about Sox news. I have yet to see anyone at Chicago Now even approach his level of talent and professionalism.

slavko
10-29-2013, 12:38 AM
Hot Stove League blather. Beats bad football. Keeps the jaw muscles loose. Means nothing.

DSpivack
10-29-2013, 01:58 AM
Not sure about the first two, but Margalus is (was?) an actual journalist who just wrote about the Sox on the side because that's his passion, but it's not like he's some guy who just decided to write clear out of the blue.

His blog is not attached to any usual, traditional print outfit, but the level of writing at SSS is on par with, if not better, than any print source on the Sox, so I consider him a very credible source about Sox news. I have yet to see anyone at Chicago Now even approach his level of talent and professionalism.
SSS is hosted at SB Nation, not sure if that's still affiliated with SI, but even if so, it's a loose one.

Miller has subscribers (one or two posts a day of the usual six or seven is behind a paywall) and has a journalism background, as well.

I'm not sure if there are similar bloggers who don't have some type of professional or journalistic experience.

TheVulture
10-29-2013, 12:42 PM
Credentials are not imaginary. And what is required to earn those credentials provides the holders with greater access and understanding of the truth.


"Credentials" are simply provided by those who have the means of production of media, doesn't mean anything. If I had the resources to establish a news agency I could give you credentials but it wouldn't give you or me any greater understanding of anything.

TheVulture
10-29-2013, 12:49 PM
This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.

The problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.

The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.

blandman
10-29-2013, 01:37 PM
"Credentials" are simply provided by those who have the means of production of media, doesn't mean anything. If I had the resources to establish a news agency I could give you credentials but it wouldn't give you or me any greater understanding of anything.

The problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.

The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.

Spot on.

TDog
10-29-2013, 06:03 PM
The problem with your argument is that there is no standard for credentialing, it is simply a matter of belonging to an organization with the means to publish and distribute material.

The counter argument is the non-traditional journalism is more credible for the fact that it is not controlled by those who simply have the means to control it. The editorial control is instead exerted via crowd-sourcing which results in a more truthful content since it is uncontrolled, not directed from the top down, with all the interests that corporate leadership is interested in protecting. Instead, those who have the most convincing argument are the ones who direct the nature of the discourse of information.

This argument is the same one offered by the author of self-published books that offer the "real story" of the secret world government, among others who line their hats with foil.

Yours is a distorted, inaccurate view of how journalists work. I'm not going to defend bad journalism, and there are plenty of examples of bad journalism in sports, maybe because it is, as David Letterman put it long ago, journalism's toy department. But reporters do what they do, getting paid whether people read their stories or not, because they want to tell the truth. Getting paid by how many people read your story would be a HUGE conflict of interest.

Obviously, there are people who prefer to believe the fallacies that you use in your argument. And many don't understand the difference between opinion columns and reporting fact. I will try to put my point as simply as I can.

You don't know me. You don't know who I am. If I offer a fact in this forum that I insist is true because I know it is true or because I heard it somewhere, but I won't tell you specifically, you have no reason to believe me. If I read in a newspaper a reporting of fact that has only the reporter/newspaper backing it up to be true, the only reason I have to believe that fact is my trust in the reporter/newspaper. I can consider the training that the reporter received to know when an anonymous source is supplying accurate information and that the newspaper, which couldn't exist without the public trust, has an obligation to report it accurately. But I am inclined to be skeptical because I know that information from anonymous sources is usually, overwhelmingly usually not 100 percent accurate if it cannot be backed up by sources that are identifiable.

If I read an internet blog reporting a fact, I have no reason to trust that fact if there is no source specifically identified unless I know and implicitly trust the specific blogger. Internet bloggers who benefit financially from the views to their sites have more incentive to sensationalize stories than newspapers do because people will click on the sensational, even if they don't believe it to be true because people will share links to such things. Often there is a financial incentive for bloggers to distort the truth or outright make things up that does not exist in newspapers because if they lose credibility there is no great financial sacrifice in shutting down and resurfacing under a different identity.

There is a lot of bad traditional journalism out there. There is more worse Internet journalism.

If you want credibility, back up your fact with a specific source. That applies to newspapers. That applies doubly to Internet sources that have nothing to lose by not reporting the truth.

kittle42
10-29-2013, 06:17 PM
There is a lot of bad traditional journalism out there. There is more worse Internet journalism.

Aaaaaaaand, scene.

blandman
10-29-2013, 06:18 PM
This argument is the same one offered by the author of self-published books that offer the "real story" of the secret world government, among others who line their hats with foil.

Yours is a distorted, inaccurate view of how journalists work. I'm not going to defend bad journalism, and there are plenty of examples of bad journalism in sports, maybe because it is, as David Letterman put it long ago, journalism's toy department. But reporters do what they do, getting paid whether people read their stories or not, because they want to tell the truth. Getting paid by how many people read your story would be a HUGE conflict of interest.

Obviously, there are people who prefer to believe the fallacies that you use in your argument. And many don't understand the difference between opinion columns and reporting fact. I will try to put my point as simply as I can.

You don't know me. You don't know who I am. If I offer a fact in this forum that I insist is true because I know it is true or because I heard it somewhere, but I won't tell you specifically, you have no reason to believe me. If I read in a newspaper a reporting of fact that has only the reporter/newspaper backing it up to be true, the only reason I have to believe that fact is my trust in the reporter/newspaper. I can consider the training that the reporter received to know when an anonymous source is supplying accurate information and that the newspaper, which couldn't exist without the public trust, has an obligation to report it accurately. But I am inclined to be skeptical because I know that information from anonymous sources is usually, overwhelmingly usually not 100 percent accurate if it cannot be backed up by sources that are identifiable.

If I read an internet blog reporting a fact, I have no reason to trust that fact if there is no source specifically identified unless I know and implicitly trust the specific blogger. Internet bloggers who benefit financially from the views to their sites have more incentive to sensationalize stories than newspapers do because people will click on the sensational, even if they don't believe it to be true because people will share links to such things. Often there is a financial incentive for bloggers to distort the truth or outright make things up that does not exist in newspapers because if they lose credibility there is no great financial sacrifice in shutting down and resurfacing under a different identity.

There is a lot of bad traditional journalism out there. There is more worse Internet journalism.

If you want credibility, back up your fact with a specific source. That applies to newspapers. That applies doubly to Internet sources that have nothing to lose by not reporting the truth.

Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!

There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that your impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.

TDog
10-29-2013, 07:03 PM
Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!

There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that you're impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.

You obviously don't want to engage in a serious discussion. I know precisely what I'm talking about because I was part of the industry. Most of my examples would be considered political in nature because I covered hard news, but I could point out that I was given -- earned -- a raise and a promotion to a bigger newspaper in my chain after I wrote stories about corruption and financial problems in a Nevada casino that subsequently ceased being a major advertiser.

I know what I am talking about. I worked in newspapers for decades working in a number of chains, in part because of the way chains were buying and selling newspapers. I guessing you were doing other things at the time.

I don't know if any of that is relevant to my point that if an Internet blogger has a financial incentive to get as many hits as he can to a posting, that he does not have an obligation to the truth, especially since people will click on outrageous things they know not to be the truth.

And it has nothing to do with my point that an Internet blog that does not specify a source for a fact is not a credible source, especially when I hold newspapers to the same standard.

blandman
10-29-2013, 07:07 PM
You obviously don't want to engage in a serious discussion. I know precisely what I'm talking about because I was part of the industry. Most of my examples would be considered political in nature because I covered hard news, but I could point out that I was given -- earned -- a raise and a promotion to a bigger newspaper in my chain after I wrote stories about corruption and financial problems in a Nevada casino that subsequently ceased being a major advertiser.

I know what I am talking about. I worked in newspapers for decades working in a number of chains, in part because of the way chains were buying and selling newspapers. I guessing you were doing other things at the time.

I don't know if any of that is relevant to my point that if an Internet blogger has a financial incentive to get as many hits as he can to a posting, that he does not have an obligation to the truth, especially since people will click on outrageous things they know not to be the truth.

And it has nothing to do with my point that an Internet blog that does not specify a source for a fact is not a credible source, especially when I hold newspapers to the same standard.

Oh I see. Because I don't submit to your demand that I listen to the power$ that be, I don't want to have a serious conversation.

It's nice that you were able break a story like that. But a single advertiser versus policy that affects conglomerates and media moguls are not the same thing. I mean...hell, today's reality has PBS not showing documentaries because they make the Koch Brothers look bad. There's a serious lack of any sort of credibility to the media today, even in places where you'd never expect it.

kittle42
10-29-2013, 09:01 PM
Isn't the point that if a newspaper printed a report/article (not an opinion piece) that was factually inaccurate, it's unprofessional, embarrassing, and often forces a retraction, while the great majority of bloggers are not held to really any standards?

blandman
10-29-2013, 09:11 PM
Isn't the point that if a newspaper printed a report/article (not an opinion piece) that was factually inaccurate, it's unprofessional, embarrassing, and often forces a retraction, while the great majority of bloggers are not held to really any standards?

But things are spun nowadays (Snowden, Egypt, Occupy, Iran, Syria, etc.) or even just plain ignored. Really, the only place to find the other side of issues, and in many cases simply just the truth, is through crowd-sourced news. You can find it through media networks, but there's plenty of examples of why that isn't even as trustworthy source as, say, a video blog like the young turks.

kittle42
10-29-2013, 09:15 PM
But things are spun nowadays (Snowden, Egypt, Occupy, Iran, Syria, etc.) or even just plain ignored. Really, the only place to find the other side of issues, and in many cases simply just the truth, is through crowd-sourced news. You can find it through media networks, but there's plenty of examples of why that isn't even as trustworthy source as, say, a video blog like the young turks.

Not every newspaper is the New York Post. I haven't noticed a ton of spin in the Chicago newspapers on pure news stories. Meanwhile, a majority of bloggers have "agendas," for lack of a better word. Maybe this is part of the reason print media is dying - they have to abide by journalistic standards set a hundred years ago, and people would rather have spin and opinion.

blandman
10-29-2013, 09:17 PM
Not every newspaper is the New York Post. I haven't noticed a ton of spin in the Chicago newspapers on pure news stories. Meanwhile, a majority of bloggers have "agendas," for lack of a better word. Maybe this is part of the reason print media is dying - they have to abide by journalistic standards set a hundred years ago, and people would rather have spin and opinion.

Do you read the Tribune? It's probably the most anti-Union paper in the entire nation. Unabashedly. It's pretty embarrassing, IMO.

I think the biggest issue is the "impressions" most people have about the internet sources are a result of what people have been lead to believe by major media sources, when in actuality it's exactly what the major media has been doing for years.

kittle42
10-29-2013, 09:21 PM
I think the biggest issue is the "impressions" most people have about the internet sources are a result of what people have been lead to believe by major media sources, when in actuality it's exactly what the major media has been doing for years.

Maybe. If so, it's usually more subtle, I guess.

blandman
10-29-2013, 09:23 PM
Maybe. If so, it's usually more subtle, I guess.

Well, when you've been taught it's the truth because it's the news, that probably plays a lot into it. And when you've been taught the internet is untrustworthy from the same people, it's hard to actually take the time to realize what the truth is.

There's a lot of bad internet, yeah. But MOST of what's major media is now corrupt in some fashion. Don't get your news from them, or at least find another view point from somewhere outside that bubble and make an educated decision on the truth for yourself.

Hell, if we all listened to ESPN we'd all be Yank and Saux fans.

DSpivack
10-29-2013, 09:29 PM
Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!

There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that your impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.

You mean the Greenwald who is employed by the Guardian and who usually cites his sources

And Greenwald, for other reasons in his background, is as flawed and biased as they come.

blandman
10-29-2013, 09:37 PM
You mean the Greenwald who is employed by the Guardian and who usually cites his sources

And Greenwald, for other reasons in his background, is as flawed and biased as they come.

The evidence speaks to the contrary. I don't want to get in a political debate, but it's pretty obvious what's going on when every mogul owned publication in the country loses it's mind to call Greenwald a terrorist for revealing a spying program targeting all Americans, hidden from all Americans, and lied about by the director of the NSA to Congress. The major media is a tool of the government, not nearly as obvious as China, but still pretty damn obvious. You want to defend that by calling Greenwald "flawed" and "biased", that's fine. I feel that speaks more to a pretty obvious bias towards either controlling information or simply repeating what you've been told to believe.

blandman
10-29-2013, 09:49 PM
I feel like I'm crossing that political line in order to continue my point, so I'm going to cease from responding further.

DSpivack
10-29-2013, 09:52 PM
I feel like I'm crossing that political line in order to continue my point, so I'm going to cease from responding further.

I agree that the discussion has gotten too political, so I PMed you.

TDog
10-29-2013, 11:04 PM
Oh I see. Because I don't submit to your demand that I listen to the power$ that be, I don't want to have a serious conversation.

It's nice that you were able break a story like that. But a single advertiser versus policy that affects conglomerates and media moguls are not the same thing. I mean...hell, today's reality has PBS not showing documentaries because they make the Koch Brothers look bad. There's a serious lack of any sort of credibility to the media today, even in places where you'd never expect it.

No. You don't want to have a serious conversation because you insist on holding on to your opinion in spite of the fact that people are making arguments based on superior experience because you prefer to believe that a source that does not attribute its sources for news, that for all practical purposes doesn't even physically exist is a superior source.

It is irrelevant if publicly funded PBS doesn't air a documentary. Really, that has nothing to do with the eight newspaper chains that employed me (and I didn't break just one story) never forbidding reporters from pursuing stories that cost those newspapers advertisers or were not politically aligned with the moguls who owned them. And, really, it isn't even relevant if the mainstream media has a credibility problem, although much of that is manufactured by the interests who are threatened by responsible journalism.

People don't go into reporting because they want to toe the company line. You don't win state press club awards by toeing the company or political line. But there are plenty of bloggers who do nothing but toe the company or party line. That is a foundation of blogging. Now it is news because people have come to believe news is what they want it to be.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't problems in the mainstream media. No conscientious reporter or editor would. One of the reasons the mainstream media is such an easy target is that it is so pervasive and universal and are not under common control.

But you insist on continuing to take the leap that because there are problems in the mainstream media, the blogger who doesn't quote a source has to be more reliable. For all you know, he may have been the same blogger who exposed Helen Keller as a Satanist a couple of years ago.

doublem23
10-30-2013, 12:01 AM
Well, when you've been taught it's the truth because it's the news, that probably plays a lot into it. And when you've been taught the internet is untrustworthy from the same people, it's hard to actually take the time to realize what the truth is.

There's a lot of bad internet, yeah. But MOST of what's major media is now corrupt in some fashion. Don't get your news from them, or at least find another view point from somewhere outside that bubble and make an educated decision on the truth for yourself.


Oh my ****ing god, dude, we're talking about baseball

kittle42
10-30-2013, 10:49 AM
No. You don't want to have a serious conversation because you insist on holding on to your opinion in spite of the fact that people are making arguments based on superior experience because you prefer to believe that a source that does not attribute its sources for news, that for all practical purposes doesn't even physically exist is a superior source.

You're not used to it by now? As soon as one point is pretty much shot down, the landscape changes so that his posts are always "right." You know, it doesn't take away from any credibility one has to admit that some arguments are flawed or just plain incorrect, but it does take away from credibility to persist despite it.

blandman
10-30-2013, 11:23 AM
No. You don't want to have a serious conversation because you insist on holding on to your opinion in spite of the fact that people are making arguments based on superior experience

Now, you're using your limited experience as a crutch, your experience is so much smaller than the picture I'm talking about it's like we're talking about different things.

I'm not arguing about this anymore. We're talking about two different things, and, as Doublem said, this is WAY off the topic of baseball.

kittle42
10-30-2013, 11:26 AM
Now, you're using your limited experience as a crutch, your experience is so much smaller than the picture I'm talking about it's like we're talking about different things.

I'm not arguing about this anymore. We're talking about two different things, and, as Doublem said, this is WAY off the topic of baseball.

YES! The classic, "I am done arguing about this" when things start getting picked apart - an internet fave of mine.

blandman
10-30-2013, 11:27 AM
YES! The classic, "I am done arguing about this" when things start getting picked apart - an internet fave of mine.

Quit trolling. He hasn't touched on a single aspect of my point, and all you're doing is trying to get me mad.

spawn
10-30-2013, 11:36 AM
Quit trolling. He hasn't touched on a single aspect of my point, and all you're doing is trying to get me mad.

This is hilarious. You basically instigated this entire thing, and now that you've lost the argument(you're the only person that thinks otherwise btw), you want to take your ball and go home. And then you insinuate people are trying to make you mad and/or are trolling, or personally attacking you. ***** :rolleyes:

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2013, 12:22 PM
It's kind of hard to imagine somebody arguing with Tdog about his field of expertise and claiming experience as an important factor when Tdog has been giving eyeball accounts of witnessing Mordecai Three Finger Brown pitching to Ed Walsh in the Aught 6 series for years now.

I feel like it would be like me arguing with Stephen Hawking about physics or something.

spawn
10-30-2013, 12:34 PM
It's kind of hard to imagine somebody arguing with Tdog about his field of expertise and claiming experience as an important factor when Tdog has been giving eyeball accounts of witnessing Mordecai Three Finger Brown pitching to Ed Walsh in the Aught 6 series for years now.

I feel like it would be like me arguing with Stephen Hawking about physics or something.

Stephen Hawking has no clue what he's talking about!!! :redneck

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2013, 12:38 PM
Stephen Hawking has no clue what he's talking about!!! :redneck

He uses his limited experience as a crutch!

Oh wait, was that in poor taste?

blandman
10-30-2013, 12:49 PM
This is hilarious. You basically instigated this entire thing, and now that you've lost the argument(you're the only person that thinks otherwise btw), you want to take your ball and go home. And then you insinuate people are trying to make you mad and/or are trolling, or personally attacking you. ***** :rolleyes:

Give me the go ahead to be political, big man.

blandman
10-30-2013, 12:50 PM
It's kind of hard to imagine somebody arguing with Tdog about his field of expertise and claiming experience as an important factor when Tdog has been giving eyeball accounts of witnessing Mordecai Three Finger Brown pitching to Ed Walsh in the Aught 6 series for years now.

I feel like it would be like me arguing with Stephen Hawking about physics or something.

That's exactly why he's the worst possible person to debate this. He's from a different time, the media has not only evolved, it creates the news. What's news, and how to view it.

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2013, 01:00 PM
That's exactly why he's the worst possible person to debate this. He's from a different time, the media has not only evolved, it creates the news. What's news, and how to view it.

What is your experience?

blandman
10-30-2013, 01:11 PM
What is your experience?

You don't have to be in the media to understand media bias. You just have to educate yourself on all sides of issues.

Frater Perdurabo
10-30-2013, 01:51 PM
Traditional news media has always had flaws. We just know about them more now.

Just because we know about the flaws in journalism, it does not follow that blogs are superior sources of news.

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2013, 01:56 PM
You don't have to be in the media to understand media bias. You just have to educate yourself on all sides of issues.

So ... none.

blandman
10-30-2013, 02:05 PM
Traditional news media has always had flaws. We just know about them more now.

Just because we know about the flaws in journalism, it does not follow that blogs are superior sources of news.

It's always had flaws, yes, but the flaws are more visible because they're growing exponentially.

So ... none.

Have some more kool-aid, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers.

spawn
10-30-2013, 02:35 PM
Give me the go ahead to be political, big man.

Um...you do know there is a forum if you want to go political? It's called Politically Incorrect. There's even a link to it on the front page of this forum. So you go there if you want to delve into politics. :cool:

spawn
10-30-2013, 02:39 PM
It's always had flaws, yes, but the flaws are more visible because they're growing exponentially.



Have some more kool-aid, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers.

And you just couldn't resist making this political, could you. Congrats on getting this thread shut down.

5hfYJsQAhl0