Tuesday, June 29, 2010

David Sirota seeks a journalism tutor (won't you help)

David Sirota's a bully and fool. But we already know that from the way he launched his little attack on Cloy Richards' mother Tina who 'dared' to confront a politician. For shame, Tina! For shame! (That's sarcasm. We applaud Tina now and applauded her in real time.) It was too much for little Davey who thinks he can bully all women and he launched his attack on Tina. David's no use to the peace movement, he's no use on the Hill too -- for reasons I'm sure are obvious to him. It is, after all, why he no longer works for Congress.

So Davey e-mails one of his bully attacks -- convinced that his latest hair nightmare makes him look butch and threatening (it only makes him look like he lost a fight with a lawnmower). And Davey screams and whimpers about yesterday's snapshot which noted that David needed to practice disclosure. Specifically, when writing a column about how groovy David Obey is, he needs to disclose that he worked for David Obey.

Poor little fellow. Screaming "libel" and a hundred other things in his e-mail -- all of which only suggest he's needs therapy -- or else a diaper change. He needs to discover reality. Google "David Obey" and "Iraq" and the first column by Davey that comes up is the Seattle Times reprint.

Click here to read it.

And here are screen snaps.

davidbottoms3

davybottoms2

davybottoms

No where -- except in Davy Bottoms feverish mind -- is there any disclosure that David Sirota worked for David Obey.

Davy wants to insist, "Based on the editors' note and disclosure explicitly sent with the column, every major paper that ran the column included the disclosure."

He provides a list.

Second from the top is the Seattle Times (third from the top if you count non-newspapers). Go ahead and use the previous link, go ahead and check the screen snaps. As you'll see, there is no disclosure that he knows and worked with David Obey which runs with that piece. (And his reliance on Chris and others for comments about Obey mislead the reader into thinking that Sirota himself does not personally know Obey.)

As noted in yesterday's snapshot:

I read this section of David Siorta writing from a few years back to him: "Dave Obey represents a pretty conservative district that is not exactly easy for a Democrat to represent (this is why the NRSC can't wait for him to retire). He originally voted against the war, he has been one of the most outspoken critics of the war, and he has repeatedly used his position as Appropriations Chairman to try to get the situation in Iraq under control. These are the facts, and I witnessed it first hand, having worked for him a few years ago."

That column quoted was from three years ago (as part of his attack on Tina Richards -- David thinks he looks tough going after the moms of Iraq War veterans with PTSD -- he only looks like the class suck up that no one wants to talk to). Years ago, he could do a column bragging about working for David Obey. This week he writes a bad column about how wonderful David Obey is and leaves out that he worked for Obey.

Sirota's never been known as 'smart' so he may think the note that includes the following words I'm bolding counts for disclosure: "David Sirota, a former spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, is the author of [. . .]". It doesn't count as a disclosure.

It doesn't note when he was spokesperson nor does it brag that he worked for David Obey. (In his earlier defense of Obey from 2007, he bragged not once in the column about working for Obey, but twice.) That's not disclosure. It is not the reader's responsibility to do a search to find out when he was the spokesperson, who was on the committee at that time and, if Obey was on the committee then, whether or not he and Sirota ever spoke. He wrote a column about David Obey, he was required to disclose their personal relationship. He failed to do so. He practiced shoddy journalism. End of story.

Davy, don't try to give me a lesson in journalism. You're a hack. One of the revolving door pundits.

There will be no correction, Davey. No correction is needed. You can check the screen snaps for yourself.

And, point of fact, a column end note that mentioned you knew Obey (which yours does not) would not be acceptable as disclosure. Your entire column is about David Obey. As any reputable journalist will tell you, your disclosure belonged in the body of that column, near the top.

He's apparently unaware that most people don't make it to the bottom of his ridiculous writing for obvious reasons -- boredom.

David wants to scream libel and insist that every paper -- he lists five newspapers, he's so popular (that was sarcasm) -- that ran his column ran a disclosure at the bottom. He includes the Seattle Times. I do not have time to school Davey in his ABCs. I don't have time to spoonfeed an angry toddler.

We have again established that David Sirota lives in his own little world where 'facts' are whatever he says they are and attacks on women never end. David, I may be only the latest woman you've tried to bully, but I'm certainly not the first one to refuse to back down in the face of your angry tantrums. I won't put up with your s**t. Go f**k yourself.

I was actually nice in yesterday's snapshot and pulled a statement which noted that I went to school with the person in charge of another paper that ran your column. When I was done dictating the snapshot and learned that it was too long, that statement was the first thing I pulled. And I said, "Oh, it's David Sirota, if people trust him, they get what they deserve. I've got others to concentrate on." And was going to let is slide. I'm not so sure I will now.

You get no correction. You only get exposed as someone who throws a tantrum when you're rightly called out. So sorry the world doesn't bend to your 'awesome' 'talents.' So sorry that in the real world, you can't stomp your feet and pee your pulls-ups and get Mommy to kiss your boo-boos, wipe your little penis and crotch area and put you in a fresh pull up and some big boys pants. You're going to have to do that for yourself, David.

Now that we've established that you're not just a bully, but an uninformed one, I'm sure you'll rush to make your corrections. Right?

Thanks for writing, I love the fan mail. Kisses, David, kisses. Hugs and kisses.

Leaving the crazy and returning to the real world, Spc Jacob Dohrenwend died while serving in Iraq June 21st. Barrett J. Brunsman (Cincinnati Enquirer) reports that his body will arrive at Dover Air Force Base either tomorrow or Thursday, "The route from the airport in Cincinnati to a Milford funeral home will be decorated with yellow ribbons and American flags - as has become the custom to salute returning local soldiers who died while serving in Iraq, [County Commissioner Bob] Proud said Monday." WKRC notes, "Visitation for Specialist Dohrenwend is Friday 5-9 p.m. and a celebration of life will be Saturday at 10 a.m. at Milford First United Methodist Church." WLWT adds, "He is the 11th soldier with ties to Clermont County that has died since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003." And he is one of 4408 US service members to die while serving in Iraq and one of seven to die this month.

The following community sites updated last night:


We'll note this from Revolution magazine via World Can't Wait's "The Firing of a War Criminal.... And the Criminal War in Afghanistan :"

Wednesday, June 23, President Obama held a press conference to announce what he had decided to do about Stanley McChrystal -- the general in charge of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
The day before, an article about McChrystal in Rolling Stone magazine had hit the internet. And by the time the general was on a plane, summoned to Washington, people all over the world were reading how he had mocked and disrespected U.S. officials in charge of foreign policy and made comments challenging the president’s authority. This was a big deal. And airwaves quickly filled with speculation about what would happen next.
In an extraordinary move, Obama promptly fired McChrystal from command of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. But he made two things clear right away. One, that the U.S. appreciated the great service the general had made to America. And two, that this “is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy.”
The president said, “I relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in Afghanistan. So all Americans should be grateful for General McChrystal’s remarkable career in uniform.”


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.













thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends














Posted by at