Comments on: Kos Counter-Attack on TNR

By: Marisacat » BBB: Gathering links… and whatever else.

Marisacat » BBB: Gathering links… and whatever else. — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:50:46 +0000

[...] Kos Counter-Attack on TNR [...]

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:24:26 +0000

Let's see about TNR - Sullivan championed 'The Bell Curve', and boasted about his courage in doing so. Fred Barnes was a reliable right-winger there, before he went to the Weekly Standard. Kaus was as he is, an unreadable right-wing hack who pretends to be liberal, to give his fantasies cred. The New Republic, IIRC, pursued the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) enthusiastically during the 1990's. Not as enthusiastically as the hard-right media, but that would be hard, for those who didn't actually have rabies. TNR loves Lieberman, otherwise known as the only Democrat who Republicans like. TNR trashed Gore at least once that I can recall in the 2000 election (the vampiric Gore cover). Martin Peretz, the owner who *is* certifiable, would be a Likudnik, except for the fact that the Likud party hasn't yet called for the liquidation (excuse me, 'expulsion') of all Arabs from any land that Israel possesses, will possess or might want to possess.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:34:56 +0000

What I find most amusing about this is the action taken to "starve the issue of political oxygen", aka the email to the liberal bloggers asking them to not talk about the issue, is what is giving the issue the most fuel to burn.

I think Althouse said it best.
Kos: Let me be crystal clear. I deny that charge completely.

Nixon: Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a crook.

By: The Unalienable Right » Kos calling the Kettle Black

The Unalienable Right » Kos calling the Kettle Black — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:18:58 +0000

[...] More: Outside the Beltway posted by: The Editors @ 7:52 pm June 20, 2006 [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:11:15 +0000

I think Kos's implication is that Zengerle has no proof that the stated facts correlate directly to the main accusation (kosola).

Is it unethical to change your publicly stated position on a person or issue for personal profit? Yes, absolutely. However, Zengerle doesn't accuse Markos of this, he accuses Markos of changing position because of Armstrong. He implies that Markos did this for Armstrong's personal profit, and he has no proof for that.

I'm sure that James often has discussions with friends and peers about issues where they bring up new points that can change his opinion on a person or issue. These people may even profit from the person or issue being discussed. Does that make it unethical?

Is keeping your original position constant despite new ideas the only ethical course? I don't think so. Perhaps James should have Markos reference the posts where he changed his opinion, and explain the reasons for the change. I would like to see that response posted here.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:48:33 +0000

"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack."

By: Ugh

Ugh — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:27:42 +0000

I don't disagree with you on that, Kos is having trouble applying the law to the facts in the articles that have been written, I just didn't think he was getting the law wrong. That is, he knows what the elements of libel are, he just doesn't realize, or is too close to the issue that he can't think clearly about it, that he likely has no case.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:19:11 +0000

Ugh: But the "evidence" for the "smears" is clearly outlined in the articles themselves. They lay out a chain of events, with documentation for same hyperlinked. There's no actual charge of money changing hands that I recall, although readers can clearly reach that conclusion.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:12:56 +0000

I don't think Kos got the libel law point wrong, though the paragraph could certainly be written better. He clearly states that if they have evidence for the "smears," i.e., they're true, then they have a defense. He then says if they "recklessly" made it all up, then they might be in trouble. In any event, filing a libel lawsuit would be silly and petty, and, as you say, hard to win given his public figure status.