Friday, October 15, 2010

Dana Loesch Cheerleads for Post-Dispatch Censorship

Dana Loesch wrote an article today attacking FiredUp Missouri for criticizing the Post-Dispatch's decision to edit out crazy tweets from Lt. Governor Peter Kinder. Loesch, being continually scared to death of someone revealing to her followers how shallow her arguments are, was of course afraid to name FiredUp, but she does amazingly manage to link to this article. Here's what Loesch had to say:
What’s with these reporters? They think their byline is more important than the fact of the story they’re supposed to report. No one cares what Messenger or any other journalist thinks, they want the story. Period. MSM’s inability to give the people what they want has resulted in both citizen journalism (people creating a product they’re unable to find elsewhere) and drop in support for media overall.
Of course, even if you thought Messenger was editorializing when he said that Kinder tweeted "far right Republican conspiracy theories' (which Kinder does), there's no explanation for why the specific content of Kinder's tweets needed to be edited out. Why did the following factual and true sentence need to be edited out:
Kinder has compared liberals to Hitler, politicized a hostage crisis and repeated false claims about “death panels” in the new federal health care law. He even speculated on the worst “tramp stamp” tattoos on women.
As I wrote yesterday, after Loesch attacked the Post-Dispatch with a claim that had no merit, and which Post-Dispatch Political Editor Christopher Ave knew had no merit, Ave nevertheless invited Loesch to a journalism conference to tell reporters how to cover the tea party. I suggested that the Post's decision to censor content critical of the Right shortly after that conference looks pretty bad. The fact that Loesch is now engaged in actively cheerleading for the Post-Dispatch adds credence to that suggestion.


  1. Did anyone phone the Post-Dispatch and ask why a progressive representative was not invited to the same conference to give the counter-arguments about how to cover progressives? I can think of several issues that would repay the effort.

    For instance, if I'm not mistaken, the Oct. 2 rally in Washington wasn't even mentioned in the Post-Dispatch except in a reprinted Daily-Beast OpEd that tried to pull the false-equivalence angle (although the rally was close to if not equal in size to the previous Glenn Beck rally to which the P-D devoted serious space). If nothing else, it could be instructive to have someone discuss the whole "false-equivalence" issue with some of today's right-whipped journos.

  2. "What’s with these reporters? They think their byline is more important than the fact of the story they’re supposed to report."

    At first I thought she was talking about Jim Hoft.