The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 a
 >
>>
I'm flattered

I meant to write about this earlier, but didn't get a chance.

When browsing through my referrer list the other day, I noticed that I merited an honorable mention at the notorious net-stalker blog LGFWatch. Hooray! Maybe one day, I'll be big and important enough to merit my own -watch site.

Of course, since LGFWatch is obsessed with rebutting everything that Charles Johnson writes, and since they dinged me by proxy, I'll take a moment to defend my original story.

First and foremost, the information presented at The Brussels Journal, the site that kicked this story off, was very factual. It's curious to see that the only smear LGFWatch could use against their sourcing was that they were, by nature of their support of Euro-centric political parties, somehow tainted with fascism. Isn't that coming awfully close to invoking Godwin's Law there, good sirs? I guess this means that invocation of said law still counts as "debate" on your side of the aisle.

He then proceeds to smear Charles for claiming that the story was unreported in the media, whilst citing a Reuters report in doing so. Well, if you'll recall, I mentioned that there was only one wire report of the incident. Considering how much the media loves riot coverage, you'd think they would have the gumption to send more photographers, wouldn't you? I certainly would.

Here comes my brief moment of fame in the Rebut-o-sphere: LGFWatch proceeds to briefly cites my original article, which as those who've read it know, was pieced together from a few disjoint foreign-language sources. In fact, he even goes so far to note that my assertion that it is odd that only one report of the incident went across the wires was, well, odd, but, harumph, that in and of itself didn't imply "conspiracy."

Uh. Duh?

I couldn't have said it better myself. You'll find no such implication anywhere in the original article, and I don't see any such implication in Charles' story.

Finally, LGFWatch dismisses the entire controversy, as the Muslims are clearly within their rights while they burn down hospitals, because the evil Police injected the Moroccan prisoner with some evil, murderous drugs. (In my best hippie voice, "Yeah, maaaaan!")

Is every leftist still born with such an innate distrust of all police forces? And if that's the case, why is it that they're so supportive of the dictatorial regimes that generate the worst police states?

As I noted in my original story, the cause of death is hardly known at this point, but the coroner was very clear so far that nothing was externally wrong with the prisoner.

Why should anyone be bothered that the press is more interested in covering 19 useful idiots at the Hart Congressional office building (THREE photographers!) than they are in covering rioting Muslims (ZERO photographers)? In LGFWatch-World, there's obviously no need to mention the latter at all, which says all I need to know about them.

Now that I think about it, maybe I'm better off without my own net stalker...

  #QuietRiots


Comments:

#1 LGFWatch 03-Oct-2006
I meant to write about this earlier, but didn't get a chance.

When browsing through my referrer list the other day, I noticed that I merited an honorable mention at the notorious net-stalker blog LGFWatch. Hooray! Maybe one day, I'll be big and important enough to merit my own -watch site.

*Not likely*

Of course, since LGFWatch is obsessed with rebutting everything that Charles Johnson writes, and since they dinged me by proxy, I'll take a moment to defend my original story.

*Defend away, I did not attack your story, I attacked Charles Johnson's coverage of it*

First and foremost, the information presented at The Brussels Journal, the site that kicked this story off, was very factual. It's curious to see that the only smear LGFWatch could use against their sourcing was that they were, by nature of their support of Euro-centric political parties, somehow tainted with fascism. Isn't that coming awfully close to invoking Godwin's Law there, good sirs? I guess this means that invocation of said law still counts as "debate" on your side of the aisle.

*Godwins Law is the preserve of internet nerds. Calling The Brussels Journal fascist is hardly a slur, considering it's close links to Vlaams Belang. Paul Belien is closely linked to fascists. That is fact.*

He then proceeds to smear Charles for claiming that the story was unreported in the media, whilst citing a Reuters report in doing so. Well, if you'll recall, I mentioned that there was only one wire report of the incident.

*You did. But Charles didn't, he said there was no coverage*

Considering how much the media loves riot coverage, you'd think they would have the gumption to send more photographers, wouldn't you? I certainly would.

*You would, but this hardly constitutes no-coverage or a conspiracy not to cover riots which involve North Africans.*

Here comes my brief moment of fame in the Rebut-o-sphere: LGFWatch proceeds to briefly cites my original article, which as those who've read it know, was pieced together from a few disjoint foreign-language sources. In fact, he even goes so far to note that my assertion that it is odd that only one report of the incident went across the wires was, well, odd, but, harumph, that in and of itself didn't imply "conspiracy."

Uh. Duh?

I couldn't have said it better myself. You'll find no such implication anywhere in the original article, and I don't see any such implication in Charles' story.

*Charles stated "the mainstream wire services have utterly ignored the story." That implies explicitly that the wire services ignored the story. Reuters (a wire service) did cover it, hence Charles' implication is false.*

Finally, LGFWatch dismisses the entire controversy, as the Muslims are clearly within their rights while they burn down hospitals, because the evil Police injected the Moroccan prisoner with some evil, murderous drugs. (In my best hippie voice, "Yeah, maaaaan!")

*I actually said. "So it's back to the Qana situation for these idiots, the fact that a North African man died whilst in Police custody (after being given unnamed drug by Police) is of no consequence, the fact that North African youths who are "Shock, Horror!....Muslims" would feel aggrieved by this is outrageous to them." In no way did I justify their violence, I was merely commenting on how certain people wouldn't understand why they may be aggrieved.*

Is every leftist still born with such an innate distrust of all police forces? And if that's the case, why is it that they're so supportive of the dictatorial regimes that generate the worst police states?

*Nice strawman*

As I noted in my original story, the cause of death is hardly known at this point, but the coroner was very clear so far that nothing was externally wrong with the prisoner.

*Externally? He died after being given an unnamed drug...I think a comment about how he was internally would be more important*

Why should anyone be bothered that the press is more interested in covering 19 useful idiots at the Hart Congressional office building (THREE photographers!) than they are in covering rioting Muslims (ZERO photographers)? In LGFWatch-World, there's obviously no need to mention the latter at all, which says all I need to know about them.

*Mention it, but put it into context and shy away from the obvious Charles Johnson-esque bigotry. These were North African youths rioting because one of their 'friends'/'aquaintances' died in Police custody. To lay the blame at the door of their alleged faith or strength of faith is engaging in the usual Muslim-bashing chic which has engulfed the right-side of politics.*

Now that I think about it, maybe I'm better off without my own net stalker...

*Maybe you'd be better off making better friends than The Brussels Journal and Little Green Footballs, just a thought*
#2 Brian 03-Oct-2006
*Wow! I even get a response from you! Thanks for taking the time to write back—it's nice to see that LGFWatch isn't some collection of robots or something.*

"Godwins Law is the preserve of internet nerds. Calling The Brussels Journal fascist is hardly a slur, considering it's close links to Vlaams Belang. Paul Belien is closely linked to fascists. That is fact."

*_Is_ it a fact? Even Wikipedia, which can in no way be referred to as a _conservative_ source, doesn't go so far as to refer to Paul as being "linked" to fascists. He _does_ seem to hold quite a few conservative beliefs, but the last time I checked, that didn't _equate_ to fascism. For someone who seems obsessed with Charles Johnson's "misuse" of facts, I find your reference to this as _fact_ to be quite curious.*

"You would, but this hardly constitutes no-coverage or a conspiracy not to cover riots which involve North Africans."

*I'm glad you at least admit that it's odd, and I do understand your point about it not constituting a conspiracy.*

"Charles stated "the mainstream wire services have utterly ignored the story." That implies explicitly that the wire services ignored the story. Reuters (a wire service) did cover it, hence Charles' implication is false."

*Not to defend him either way (I respect Charles' work, and I also respect your role as a "Charles Watchdog"), but it could also be that he was using hyperbole and exaggeration to make a point. One wire report _is_ awfully close to "ignoring" a story, even if it's not _exactly_ ignoring it. I can understand his use of exaggeration, _and_ I can understand your dispute of the statement as fact. I just don't think it rises to the level of being a "false" statement.*

"In no way did I justify their violence, I was merely commenting on how certain people wouldn't understand why they *may be aggrieved."*

*Sure. Note that I won't infer that your asking why they "may be aggrieved" implies that you are _justifying_ their violence. It is interesting to note that inferences _almost identical to that that_ seem to be driving some of your arguments against Charles... such as the one I pointed out above.*

:)

"Nice strawman."

*Sure, and I hope it was clear enough from the original statement that it was intended as a tongue-in-cheek question, not as a factual point of debate.*

"Externally? He died after being given an unnamed drug...I think a comment about how he was internally would be more important."

*As the articles I quoted previously are foreign-language, and Babelfish handled the translation, I have no way of knowing _exactly_ what the coroner said. The _effect_ of his statements was that there was no reason to suspect foul play _on the part of the police_. The lack of _wire_ coverage of this story didn't help enhance our _understanding_ of these events, now did it?*

"Mention it, but put it into context and shy away from the obvious Charles Johnson-esque bigotry. These were North African youths rioting because one of their 'friends'/'aquaintances' died in Police custody. To lay the blame at the door of their alleged faith or strength of faith is engaging in the usual Muslim-bashing chic which has engulfed the right-side of politics."

*You'll find no such "bigotry" in the original story. If you hadn't dinged me by proxy ("it's back to the Qana situation for these idiots"), we wouldn't even be _having_ this discussion!*

*(and again, I understand that as the internet's official LGF-stalker, you are duty-bound to refer to Charles as expressing bigoted views, but I'd offer that he's merely using exaggeration and hyperbole to _vent_...)*

*I think you'll find that my coverage of this _riot_ was handled as even-handedly as possible, and with as much _surrounding context_ as possible from the other side of the Atlantic. I'll sum up by saying that it's merely _curious_ to observe the violence espoused by a self-proclaimed "religion of peace," whenever it flares up. Everyone has their grievances, but some groups seem to have a propensity to express said grievances _violently_ (I'm not singling out Muslims in saying so) which is what makes this _newsworthy_ to me.*

"Maybe you'd be better off making better friends than The Brussels Journal and Little Green Footballs, just a thought"

*As a conservative, you won't find me hanging out with Kos' Kids anytime soon. When the Brussels Journal raises a story that's being practically blacked-out by the press, it's a story _no matter_ the source. To attack the story due to the _sourcing_ alone seems somewhat disingenuous to me—but maybe that's because I'm still fairly new to all of this. I will also say that I find myself in agreement with Charles _most_ of the time, and the differences in opinion I have are generally due to _hyperbolic_ statements like the above.*

*I'll still do my best to cover things fairly—even while openly acknowledging my lack of impartiality. Everything out in the open, so to speak. Hopefully, by doing so, both sides will get a fair shake, and the overall debate surrounding daily events will be _enhanced_.*

*Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. Hopefully I've made some sort of sense here. (Need coffee.)*

*Regards,
Brian*
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us