Fight!

Thomas Roberts and Mediaite’s Noah C. Rothman are having a Twitter spat…

And it’s basically over this article Rothman wrote…

The problem he had with the post was evidently the word “regular” to describe the appearance of the hosts of The Cycle on his program. At first, I will admit that I dismissed his argument because, as a regular viewer, I was fairly certain that it was no stretch to describe The Cycle hosts’ appearances as “regular.” But Roberts continued to protest:

I’m not going to get into a debate about what constitutes “regular”. It’s really pointless. Whether there is or isn’t a Cycle tease on Roberts show or not comes in a very distant second to why was the story written? Just because Toure wasn’t there? I don’t think so. If Toure hadn’t had his incident on Thursday would we be seeing Rothman write up a headline about Toure not appearing for a tease segment the next day? Of course not. Rothman might have made a mental note about Toure’s non-appearance but that’s as far as it would have gone.

Here’s the central point in this bruhaha…

Thus, Mediaite published my piece noting that Touré was conspicuously absent from Roberts’ program without engaging in any speculation as to why that would be.

Hogwash. That piece doesn’t get written had Toure not caused a stir the day before. This is why despite Rothman’s protestations to the contrary that article had everything to do with engaging in speculation about why Toure’s not there without actually engaging in speculation. The engaging was inferred because the article doesn’t get written and posted if nothing had happened the day before. There’s a direct link between the two events. If you run it up the flagpole to see who salutes, you’re engaging in speculation.

It’s a risky move being that provocative, one which I have made myself many times. If it pans out that Toure’s non-appearance was a signal that he wasn’t going to appear on The Cycle or that he was otherwise restrained from appearing on Roberts show, Rothman winds up looking very prescient. But if it doesn’t pan out…well…we’re witnessing right now what happens if it doesn’t pan out.

But was it as misleading as Roberts says it was? Probably not. Regardless of whether it constituted being “regular” or not, a pattern had been established of Roberts show being used to feature Cycle talent. It may or may not have been co-incidental but it’s still a pattern in my book. If I had been in Rothman’s shoes, and had the information at my disposal Rothman did, I would have written a similar blog entry, though I would have framed it a bit differently to mitigate some of the risk that comes with going out on a speculative limb like that. Or, I would have checked with MSNBC and see what they say before “going there”.

But once Roberts comes out with an explanation and says that the speculation is wrong, if Rothman has no evidence to the contrary that Roberts explanation doesn’t hold up, in my view he’s obligated to stand down pending any new information that might come forward to alter the storyline. Simply digging in and doubling down isn’t a strategy that will work in Rothman’s favor.

About these ads

22 Responses to “Fight!”

  1. So this means Touré is a good guy after all. Whew.

  2. “regular” is close to “straight” so I’m thinking Noah was g@y bashing. At least knocking the “a” out with an irregular “@”.

  3. “Hogwash” … Spud nailed it.

  4. Either way, Mediate is disreputable and not very well written.

  5. There’s nothing wrong with Mediaite. Unless you’re a dumbass wingnut who thinks all sites should be dumbass wingnutty.

  6. To me “dumbass wingnut” is pretty much the definition of far left liberal so I’m glad to see you getting on board.

  7. Only a dumbass wingnut would fail to notice that the “disreputable” Noah Rothman is a conservative.

  8. Noah’s a good kid, but a bit off-base on this one.

  9. Not to hijack the thread – okay, who am I kidding? – but if you want to talk about disreputable, try this:

    “First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” [Todd] Akin said about pregnancy from rape. “If it’s a legitimate [!!] rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    He against abortion even in cases of rape. He thinks that woman can “shut that whole thing down” when they’re raped.

    He’s running for the US Senate.

    He should be run out of the country.

    Or dropped from a helicopter into a live volcanoe.

    Perhaps both.

  10. Not to play doctor or anything, but how many men lack the basic understanding that most random unprotected sex-acts won’t result in pregnancy? Meaning that, yes, most rapes won’t result in a pregnancy. That does not imply something unique about rape, as it regards conception. God, what a dunce.

  11. Men are much like women, but not as smart.

  12. G@y men come close.

  13. ^The “shut that whole thing down” claim is, well, it leaves you speechless.

  14. My thing is that rape/incest is a dodge used by liberals, when such cases comprise less than 5% of all abortions. If a conservative just said that he’d allow it, the conversation would be over. If you wouldn’t allow it, you’d damn well better have a humanitarian way of defending it. Denying that it happens, and inferring that women are lying about it, won’t cut it.

  15. A dodge by liberals? That’s offensive. The criticism of the ‘no exceptions’ position is that it’s cruel.

  16. “Offensive” is your choice and not my problem. Liberals throw out rape/incest as though that’s the only reason for abortion. If conservatives said “Fine, go for it”, you’d have to find another basis for a charge of “cruelty”.

  17. Noah is a conservative, much like Joe Scarborough is.

    And it’s good to see Little Joey Remi as foul-mouthed and obnoxious as always. Don’t ever change, loser!

  18. “Choice” may be a liberal political position but “anti-abortion” is not a conservative one. Rather, it is primarily a religious or philosophical conviction shared by many Repubs and Dems alike. The straight-up honest facts about the subject, and specifically those regarding its “rape & incest” component, leave very little room for compromise from either side. Both can rightly make the “cruelty” argument with veracity.

    The strengths of the two arguments are not equal, however, as one side makes a considerably stronger case than does the other. Which side that is depends entirely upon the comparative value that is granted to the unborn. Whichever way the decision is forced, it’s a cruel one.

  19. My problem is with the contention that objecting to the ‘no exceptions’ provision is purely political. It’s not. I support a women’s right to choose in most cases, but especially under terms in which she had no control over getting pregnant. Painting people like myself as simple opportunists in this discussion is offensive to me, and I’m sad I heard it today.

  20. It helps if you read the whole paragraph. I’m done trying to explain it.

  21. You’ve made no effort to explain it. You blew me off with “not my problem”. I can take a hint.

  22. She can explain it you, Joey, but she can’t understand it for you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 222 other followers

%d bloggers like this: