Say Anything Blog

I would think that a local television station news director should be held to the same standards as those who he and his employees are tasked with covering.  He is, by any reasonable definition a “public figure” and it is in his professional capacity that his judgment, his integrity, and the objectivity of his reporting are being called into question.

If the man believes you have lied… about him or about the work he has done in his position, he has, at a minimum, an obligation to detail those “lies” of which he accuses you.

Thus far, his behavior his more reminiscent of a pre-pubescent youngster holding her breath because she’s not allowed to wear lipstick, than a responsible adult whose judgment and professional integrity have been, rightly, called into question.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

At the very least, his leading question to the WSI safety director was poor journalism.  His highly defensive replies to you indicate guilty knowledge on his part, along with a lack of courage to own up to his own errors.  Pathetic.  You did a great job there, Rob.
In the classic mode, he had no facts, so went to personal attack, and accused you of what he was doing.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Rob,

Maybe when he said you lied about him, and called him names, perhaps he was talking about this:

The comment about screwing injured workers is unbelievable.  I confirmed with Armstrong himself that this is a direct quote from Shaw.

Frankly, Shaw might as well have asked Armstrong and his colleagues at WSI if they’d stopped beating their wives yet.

Or this:

And I’ll go beyond that and say that I strongly suspect, though I can’t prove it, that this WSI piece was coordinated by shaw with state Democrats.

Or this:

This isn’t journalism.  This is propaganda.  If you want to cover the WSI issue in North Dakota there are more people you can talk to than injured workers, their lawyers, and (with tonight’s segment) disgruntled WSI employees like Jim Long (whose whistle blower case WSI also can’t post on).

Or this:

And if you’re going to interview the relative of a candidate for public office for a story directly related to that candidate’s campaign, you had better disclose that relative’s relation.  Jim Shaw didn’t, and that’s just plain shoddy journalism.

So let’s sum it up.  So far you have claimed he said things through a second party, accused him of coordinating with Democrats and in the process calling his integrity into question, you called him a propagandist and a shoddy journalist.

If it the “screwing injured workers” comment were untrue, that would be a lie.  Why are you so sure your second party is truthful?  Why didn’t you ask Shaw?  Is it perhaps because you are a propagandist, or is it just him?

This is why bloggers get themselves into trouble.  They think they can get away with all the things real journalists cant. Yet they complain about the journalists while they make larger offenses.  Crazy.

Hannitized, everything I said is perfectly accurate.  If you want to say that I’m lying about something, go right ahead and prove it.

Shaw is a propagandist and a shoddy journalist.  He didn’t disclose that the man he interviewed is related to the Democrat candidate who is campaigning on the very issue the story was about.  He said in his report that WSI wouldn’t comment on it, but failed to note that they coudln’t comment, by law, without a release from the injured worker being interviewed.

As for the “scewing injured workers” bit, Shaw certainly isn’t denying it was said.  The communications director of WSI is quoting Shaw directly and putting his name to it.

If Armstrong is lying about it, and that can be proved, I’ll certainly retract.  But at this point, why do I have any reason to disbelieve Armstrong?

I know you’re trying to obfuscate here, but facts are facts.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I know you’re trying to obfuscate here, but facts are facts.

Hannitized is using the classic tactic of, instead of addressing the factual basis of any comment, he draws a handful of the strongest statements and uses them to indict you without revealing the context of those statements.

Gee, that sounds a lot like what the news director did.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

If it the “screwing injured workers” comment were untrue, that would be a lie.  Why are you so sure your second party is truthful?  Why didn’t you ask Shaw?  Is it perhaps because you are a propagandist, or is it just him?

If I tell you that Cindy Sheehan is a prostitute, and you tell others that I told you such...you’re not lying. Even when it comes out that I’m (hopefully) wrong, you didn’t lie. Reporting second hand info isn’t a lie. He can’t even be wrong, as he’s saying someone told him that.

Not that such distinctions matter to you.

Nothing you posted by Rob is a lie.

Wow, North Dakota sure is an exciting place . . . NOT!

I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that Shaw was operating out of bad faith. Sloth and incompetence are far more common than conspiracies.

Think it’s entirely possible that the Democrats—or one person in particular—persuaded Shaw it was a good story, and he didn’t do the necessary work to flesh it out. No excuse, just context.

I don’t recall any indication over the years that Shaw was a partisan Democrat. Mostly just a lesser light. If I remember correctly, he has also filled in on other shows for other hosts over the years. He even filled in for Ed Schultz back when Ed was a conservative, I think. I could be wrong, but then, I’m a lesser light myself.

Hannitized, everything I said is perfectly accurate.  If you want to say that I’m lying about something, go right ahead and prove it.

I didnt say you lied Rob.  You see how that works?  I said “IF” the screwing employees comment was untrue.  I was very clear about the fact that you made a statement based on what you heard from a second hand party.  Right?  How can you sit there and pretend to know what if factual, based on that?  You are taking the side to which you are partisan and you didn’t seem to ask Shaw to verify.  Yes or no?

Shaw is a propagandist and a shoddy journalist.  He didn’t disclose that the man he interviewed is…

Points worth addressing, but you admit that you are calling him names.  This is a stark contrast to your previous statement, that you didnt call him any names.  Is it not?

As for the “scewing injured workers” bit, Shaw certainly isn’t denying it was said.  The communications director of WSI is quoting Shaw directly and putting his name to it.

If Armstrong is lying about it, and that can be proved, I’ll certainly retract.  But at this point, why do I have any reason to disbelieve Armstrong?

I know you’re trying to obfuscate here, but facts are facts.

How am I obfuscating.  I was able to get you to admit you called him names, and that there is a possibility you said something about him that isn’t true.  I don’t get where you are coming from.

If I tell you that Cindy Sheehan is a prostitute, and you tell others that I told you such...you’re not lying.

Reporting second hand info isn’t a lie. He can’t even be wrong, as he’s saying someone told him that.

Hey Kenny,

Care to extend that philosophy of spin over to Dan Rather????  Didn’t think so.

No, no, no.  You are wrong on too many levels.  One, Rob didn’t repeat something about a persons character, he repeated a statement.  A statement that could have been easily verified.  Rob talked to Shaw, why didnt he ask him? 

Give me a break!

You may be fooling yourself, but you aint foolin me.

Hannitized is using the classic tactic of, instead of addressing the factual basis of any comment,

I’m soooo biting my tongue here. 

Steve, that sentence doesn’t even make sense.  “The factual basis of any comment”????  Comments are not factual simply because they are uttered.  What are you talking about?

Why don’t you explain to me why it is factual to quote someone second hand???

he draws a handful of the strongest statements and uses them to indict you without revealing the context of those statements.

Huh???  You aren’t even making sense.  Take your meds.

Rob talked to Shaw, why didnt he ask him? 

I did.  Read the post again.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mr. Shaw has demonstrated with his recent comunication with Rob that he has been “informed” what to say to him.  Again, as in another WSI post, Mr. Shaw has shown his similarity to KSFY Sioux Falls, SD newsdirector John Shelby.  Check this out for clarification.  http://www.redandnater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16306&sid=e58d00f6b24bb0d88320b971cde317e0

Scary!!!

Rob,

Are you lying to me on purpose, or are you merely too dingy to know what you are talking about?

Where do you say that you asked Shaw about his comment on “Screwing Workers”??

I saw this, which is a direct contradiction to that claim.

The comment about screwing injured workers is unbelievable.  I confirmed with Armstrong himself that this is a direct quote from Shaw.

Ok, I’ll go slow since you’ve clearly got the reading comprehension of a 6 year old.

Mark Armstrong, WSI Communications director put out a release quoting Shaw as making the statement about screwing injured workers.  In my last email to Shaw before he said he was going to stop talking to me, I asked this:

Would you care to respond to any of the other points I brought up?  Or the issues that WSI is now raising with your reporting?

I gave him the opportunity to respond to all of the points I was raising.  That he won’t respond is hardly my fault.

But I think the burden of proof is on you here.  You’re insinuating that someone is lying about Shaw’s statement.  The reality, however, is that Armstrong made the accusation publicly and Shaw isn’t denying it.

The comment wasn’t made to me, but since Shaw isn’t denying it why wouldn’t I believe it?

Of course, your point here isn’t really so much the truth as its just to attack anyone you perceive as disagreeing with you.  So carry on, moron.  I’ll still be right.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Give me a break Rob.  If you think your vague question covers that particular question in a way that I was supposed to see your kidding yourself, not me.  Brining up “issues about his reporting” is not the same thing as asking him about a statement.

I gave him the opportunity to respond to all of the points I was raising.  That he won’t respond is hardly my fault.

Thats B.S..  I ask a lot of questions of you and your posters that go unanswered?  Do these questions go unanswered because I am right or for another reason Rob? 

The minute you answer that question honestly will be the minute you realize that you take yourself WAY too seriously.  He looks down his nose on you the same way you and your pack do to others.  He’s not going to respond to you because he thinks your a partisan hack, and he’s right.

If you had even an ounce of objectivity, perhaps he would answer the question?

So you’re defending Shaw and his incompetent, utterly one-sided reporting to me by citing my lack of objectivity?

Shaw is refusing to answer questions.  There’s not a whole heck of a lot I can do about that.  But I notice that instead of wondering why he won’t answer questions, you’re busy attacking me.  Because you don’t like my politics, thus I must be wrong about everything...right?

Who is the partisan hack again?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: