DumpBachmann = Journalistic Abomination
What are we to make of the DumpBachmann blog? On the surface, they seem to have a noble purpose: to hold Michele Bachmann accountable for everything she says and does.
But, who holds DumpBachmann accountable? Answer: nobody. And that's the problem. DumpBachmann would have you believe they are fools for the truth, but in reality, they are as fast and loose with the facts as any politician.
My evidence? Take a look at this inflammatory post by Ken Avidor. He writes:
Anti-transit scam? Bogus PRT Safety Certification & Training Facility? Where is the proof for these allegations? Answer: there is no proof.
Nope, DumpBachmann doesn't need to provide proof. But hey, forget about proof - I'd settle for a single piece of evidence - a single nugget of real verifiable information supporting these loaded charges!
Nope, nothing.
And don't think I didn't try. I engaged in an excruciatingly long comment thread in which I repeatedly asked for anything substantitive to support these claims. Nothing. All I got was criticism for "picking on poor Ken".
Ken's contribution to this debate? Well, practically nothing, except for this: "I just want to point out that I have offered to debate PRT with local PRT proponents for years and they have declined every time." So, naturally, I accepted his apparent offer! I would love to see exactly what "evidence" he has that PRT is a "scam", and what better forum than an online debate?
But, alas, Ken has no intention in debating me, probably because he can't launch ad hominem attacks on an anonymous online contributor. So when Ken didn't respond to my acceptance of the debate challenge, his co-contributor Bill Prendergast came up with an excuse: "Ken may not want to debate you here or elsewhere. I don't know if he does or not; he may not want to talk to you."
Well, thank goodness he didn't cop out of that, huh?
So, when it became perfectly clear that DumpBachmann had no intention of providing a shred of evidence to support their inflammatory and unsupportable claims, I asked for a retraction. Alas, no, DumpBachmann doesn't retract "opinions" like "PRT is an anti-transit scam".
OK, here's an "opinion" from me: DumpBachmann is a journalistic abomination, little more than an attack site that is willing to post inflammatory accusations without a shred of evidence to support them.
Prove me wrong.
But, who holds DumpBachmann accountable? Answer: nobody. And that's the problem. DumpBachmann would have you believe they are fools for the truth, but in reality, they are as fast and loose with the facts as any politician.
My evidence? Take a look at this inflammatory post by Ken Avidor. He writes:
Michele Bachmann conspired to defraud taxpayers with this Nixon-era, anti-transit scam. Michele Bachmann has yet to explain why she wrote legislation to fund a bogus PRT "Safety Certification & Training Facility". (emphasis mine)
Anti-transit scam? Bogus PRT Safety Certification & Training Facility? Where is the proof for these allegations? Answer: there is no proof.
Nope, DumpBachmann doesn't need to provide proof. But hey, forget about proof - I'd settle for a single piece of evidence - a single nugget of real verifiable information supporting these loaded charges!
Nope, nothing.
And don't think I didn't try. I engaged in an excruciatingly long comment thread in which I repeatedly asked for anything substantitive to support these claims. Nothing. All I got was criticism for "picking on poor Ken".
Ken's contribution to this debate? Well, practically nothing, except for this: "I just want to point out that I have offered to debate PRT with local PRT proponents for years and they have declined every time." So, naturally, I accepted his apparent offer! I would love to see exactly what "evidence" he has that PRT is a "scam", and what better forum than an online debate?
But, alas, Ken has no intention in debating me, probably because he can't launch ad hominem attacks on an anonymous online contributor. So when Ken didn't respond to my acceptance of the debate challenge, his co-contributor Bill Prendergast came up with an excuse: "Ken may not want to debate you here or elsewhere. I don't know if he does or not; he may not want to talk to you."
Well, thank goodness he didn't cop out of that, huh?
So, when it became perfectly clear that DumpBachmann had no intention of providing a shred of evidence to support their inflammatory and unsupportable claims, I asked for a retraction. Alas, no, DumpBachmann doesn't retract "opinions" like "PRT is an anti-transit scam".
OK, here's an "opinion" from me: DumpBachmann is a journalistic abomination, little more than an attack site that is willing to post inflammatory accusations without a shred of evidence to support them.
Prove me wrong.
Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about Michele Bachmann, her politics, her religious beliefs, or her voting record. This has nothing to do with Michele Bachmann, and everything to do with the DumpBachmann blog posting unfounded accusations about PRT and its supporters.
posted by A Transportation Enthusiast at 7/21/2007 08:39:00 PM
2 Comments:
I'm confused, maybe you can clear something up.
If KINDA OVER doesn't need to retract things if he is convinced (Chertoffian gut feeling?) he is right, then what about the 'Recently a snowstorm shut down the [Morgantown] PRT and buses has [sic] to shuttle the students around' boo-boo?
Even if we stipulate that he is convinced snow was responsible, IT IS A FACT that a car hit a utility pole, and THAT knocked out the power to the PRT.
I'm not even saying this claim is insidious or evil. Maybe AVID KRONE was in a hurry and didn't read the whole article. I can understand that. VODKA REIN is a busy busy guy.
In other words, it was sloppy. Sloppy like the Google Maps/"bulldozed" claim. So why can't RANK VIDEO even retract something that was merely sloppy???
Rank video?! Wow, that's a good one!
I found some more:
Kinda Rove
Naive dork
(for those who don't "get it" and want to make this more than it is, check out this... :-))
Post a Comment
<< Home