The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

April 18, 2013
hallowdmachine:

newsweek:

I hope I live to be XXX. [Link, or, a future 404.]

He was only 30 years old? Wow. Such a shame.

I admire the fact that it’s still online like half an hour later.

hallowdmachine:

newsweek:

I hope I live to be XXX. [Link, or, a future 404.]

He was only 30 years old? Wow. Such a shame.

I admire the fact that it’s still online like half an hour later.

18:23 // 12 months ago
October 13, 2011
jayrosen:

Reuters vs. Reuters: News agency makes an ass of itself by trying to connect George Soros to Occupy Wall Street.
But some Reuters people realize it, and call their company out!
Reuters then backs down, changing the story line on its report.  Or does it? [more]

Jay Rosen has really shown his value as a media commentator in the past few weeks, and this piece is another example of that. We didn’t shout loudly about this story earlier, but we were confused as to why Reuters ran it. One person responded to our earlier piece, which asked aloud if it was worth Reuters’ time to report an in-depth investigation on this topic, by suggesting this: "Responsible journalism requires checking of ALL claims, not picking and choosing which to follow up on." Maybe so, but in this case, perhaps there was a point where someone could’ve said after doing due diligence, “this isn’t a story, and it’s not worth our time.” Because, let’s face it, connecting tens of thousands of dollars indirectly donated by a billionaire a couple of years ago seems silly when you consider that two other billionaires notably give millions of dollars each year to a similar movement. It’s a revelation that puts this story in sharp relief — a sharp relief that isn’t even mentioned in the original article.

jayrosen:

Reuters vs. Reuters: News agency makes an ass of itself by trying to connect George Soros to Occupy Wall Street.

But some Reuters people realize it, and call their company out!

Reuters then backs down, changing the story line on its report.  Or does it? [more]

Jay Rosen has really shown his value as a media commentator in the past few weeks, and this piece is another example of that. We didn’t shout loudly about this story earlier, but we were confused as to why Reuters ran it. One person responded to our earlier piece, which asked aloud if it was worth Reuters’ time to report an in-depth investigation on this topic, by suggesting this: "Responsible journalism requires checking of ALL claims, not picking and choosing which to follow up on." Maybe so, but in this case, perhaps there was a point where someone could’ve said after doing due diligence, “this isn’t a story, and it’s not worth our time.” Because, let’s face it, connecting tens of thousands of dollars indirectly donated by a billionaire a couple of years ago seems silly when you consider that two other billionaires notably give millions of dollars each year to a similar movement. It’s a revelation that puts this story in sharp relief — a sharp relief that isn’t even mentioned in the original article.

21:44 // 2 years ago
10:12 // 2 years ago
October 11, 2010
I made an exception getting involved in 2004. And since I didn’t succeed in 2004, I remained engaged in 2006 and 2008. But I’m basically not a party man. I’d just been forced into that situation by what I considered the excesses of the Bush administration.
Democratic party super-donor George Soros • Explaining why he got so involved in those elections – and why he’s sitting this one out. This time, he’s choosing to push groups that support his causes – health care and the environment – and letting the election fall where it may. Isn’t he concerned the GOP might win both Houses? He is, he says, “but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.” Well, that’s promising for November, lefties. It’s OK – we can just complain about the Koch Brotherssource (via)
22:06 // 3 years ago