Blogcritics Comments on Paul Hackett and The Daily Show Take the Democrats to the Satirical Woodshed

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:34:11 EST

Thanks, Joanie. Been quite a while since one of my articles got on Advance. Dave

Comment by Scott Butki

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:03:57 EST

Congrats, Dave.

Comment by Joanie

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:34:26 EST

Congrats! This article has been placed on Advance.net

Comment by Scott Butki

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:25:02 EST

I think this is my way of dealing with missing - sometimes - journalism, such as it is.

Comment by Scott Butki

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:11:37 EST

That's my plan. I'll get back to you on the time question.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:30:33 EST

Thanks, Scott. Are you really reviewing it every day? That's a hell of a lot of work. How do you find the time? Dave

Comment by Scott Butki

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:11:43 EST

Good piece, Dave. I linked to your piece with my report on the show

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:21:39 EST

I actually don't own a horse. They're too expensive to maintain. Dave

Comment by Mark Saleski

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:02:03 EST

an anti-Nalle bukkake session now THAT is clever. gross, but clever.

Comment by MCH

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:37:05 EST

Sussman, Please, spare us with the "Nalle's not perfect" sermon...he put himself up that high horse all by his lonesome.

Comment by Brian Sorrell

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:49:12 EST

Dave I think that it's really important to focus on issues of speling. What kind of right-wing horse crap is this trying to distract regular people's commentary of the state of American education (and dictionaries) with your elitist demands to discuss your own article. Quit trying to stir up trouble by going back to the sources and pushing people around. ... Wait, what I meant to say was: You make a good point that is not to be missed: Stewart's biggest asset is his iconoclastic stance toward over-labeled positions. And his sharp wit. Ok, Stewart's two chief weapons are his iconoclasm, his sharp wit, and his self effacing willingness to put himself in the midst of.... His THREE chief weapons are iconclasm, sharp wit, his self-effacing nautre, and ridiculous impersonations. Damn. Ahem. Seriously: when everyone's a target, you start getting real information. That's a very big deal, and you don't find this sort of thing in mealy-mouthed mainstream coverage. The Daily Show is just about the only valuable news available, besides blogcritics.org (speling, grammers, and punctuat!on notwithstanding.) Brian.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:18:11 EST

I just wish people were discussing the actual article rather than my habitual misspelling of John...er...Jon Stewart's name. Focusing on trivia rather than content seems to benefit no one. As for the 'coost' error - why not mention it at the time so that I or another editor could correct it? Why let it sit for months unnoticed and uncorrected. That suggests very little real concern for editorial quality. The way I see it, getting things right is more important than the process, though doing it as efficiently as possible is desirable. And bringing all of this up just to derail a discussion thread seems inherently sort of malicious when an email suggesting a correction could do the job in a much more positive way. Anyone want to actually discuss the article now? Dave

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:27:47 EST

Well Gonzo, I was part turned off by the "it's things like that that steer away good writers from BC" -- I don't know what or who he means by that. Plus I just didn't want the thread to devolve into an anti-Nalle bukkake session. I mean heck, I don't even have my videocamera on.

Comment by gonzo marx

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:19:26 EST

now now, uss and Bennett...don't let this individual get yer panties in a twist with each other... IMO, Bennett is just having a bit of Fun with the self-righteous....the whole feet of clay thing your mileage may vary Excelsior!

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:57:15 EST

When us editors self-publish, it's a mistake, OK? And Dave's admitted to that. And yes, we all know you disagree with him on a multitude of topics. My assumption is if it was an editor you agreed with, odds are you wouldn't be holding this or typos like "coost" over his head. And he's not the only editor in the history of Blogcritics to make a typo or self-publish by accident. I've done it myself. Sheesh.

Comment by Bennett

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:51:51 EST

Just noting, once again, how what you write tends to be a bit off from reality. You self-publish without running your stuff through a spell checker, thereby making a mockery of the editorial review process of Blogcritics. You don't take the time to get the correct spelling of the main characters in your post, yet that's one of the most important things in a post - according to the BC Writing Guidelines. When I saw the "coost" typo, back in January, I had just read a comment (of yours) where you let the community know you were allowed to self-publish - and all the while EO was telling the rest of the contributors to BC that NO ONE was given the right to self-publish... There are a lot of great writers that don't contribute to BC anymore. And that kinda crap one of the reasons. Carry on.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:42:52 EST

I'm supposed to 'research' typos now? Come again? Dave

Comment by RogerMDillon

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:40:11 EST

You should place "well researched" ahead of "timely manner" on your list of priorities.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:35:38 EST

Ah, I just searched for the phrase you quoted. By god, you caught me making a typo. Congratulations. Do you consider this a personal milestone as well as a positive contribution to this discussion? Dave

Comment by Bennett

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:25:50 EST

Blogcritics.org: New Reasons I'm Glad I Don't Live in Britain "... put an end to that era of horrors, but the coost of her pro-business and entrepreneurial reforms was the high ..." http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/27/034503

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:48:44 EST

Ed Helms was hilarious - the one quote that stayed with me was when the hack explained how the 'strategy' was to sit back and wait for the Republicans to hurt themselves and Helms shot back, "Yes, last night I got mugged and as he was beating me over the head with a bottle, I stood still and waited for him to accidentally hit himself on the head and knock himself out." I've got to agree that Helms did a great job. I was a bit concerned at first when he took over these interviews from Stephen Colbert who was so good at it, but he's stepping up well. That bit about the bum actually went on even longer. I liked the final line - "he did knock himself out eventually, but I didn't notice because I was unconscious". Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:37:40 EST

It was a mistake, Natalie. I've already acknowledged it. And I agree that we all benefit from peer review and will avoid self-publishing in the future. My spelling is still pretty good, but anyone can make a typo or have a key stick. And BTW, according to the editorial search function I have never used the phrase 'high cost of goods' OR 'high coost of goods' in an article on BC. And WTF is my 'slippery game', anyway? My 'game' here is merely to get interesting material published in the Politics section in a timely manner and keep people involved and participating. Do you have a problem with that? Dave

Comment by Bennett

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:12:49 EST

"when I run a document through word to check spellings it doesn't actually CATCH any misspellings." Other than one of your recent posts that had "high coost of goods" in the second or third paragraph. Even MS word recognizes "coost" as a misspelling. But hey, you're an editor, so you can self publish. Despite EO stating that "We ALL benefit from peer review." You, apparently, do not. Really sad, Dave. Like Roger said, step up to your (slippery) game.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:23:49 EST

Sometimes you've gotta take a stand, and I think the big reason GWB has been so popular is because ordinary US citizens thought that he was one guy willing to fight against enemies, fairly or unfairly, no holds barred. Absolutely true, I think. And not just in the war on terror, but on other issues as well. And the dems fail it everyday with their entrenched unwillingness to fight. Who wants a dem CinC? A waffler? In a hostile world we need a fighter. Oh, and a clever resourceful strategist (better luck next time). This is what makes this Hackett business so incredibly stupid. The Democrats have leaders who fit the description you're giving, but they abuse, betray and deride them and drive them away from the party or from politics alltogether. Half the democrats hated Hackett for being a former soldier and the other half hated him for not being willing to play along with the entrenched power structure. That's a formula for failure. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:20:51 EST

Roger, when I run a document through word to check spellings it doesn't actually CATCH any misspellings. I rely primarily on my own ability to spell, which is pretty damned good. Can't hurt to double-check, though. I admit that I do have a problem with names, though. I can barely remember the names of my own relatives. Dave