Skip to main content

If you weren't watching closely, you could miss the WNJ's shot....

... at Delawareliberal in today's paper.

Discussing the rumors about New Castle County Exec Chris Coons' potential appointment to a position in the Obama administration, the story says this of the blog that refers to itself as Ground Zero for all things political in Delaware:

Coons said Thursday the gossip is completely, utterly, totally false.

"I was just dumbfounded," he said about being invited by radio host Allan Loudell to address the idle chatter on the air. "My concern is that if a benign story like this can begin with a groundless, sourceless rumor and run all day, what's that say about the age-old requirement that a news story have a reliable source?"

Apparently, there is no reliable source on this one. Coons said he has no idea who is at "ground zero." The blog, Delaware Liberal, which prides itself on its anonymity, offers no clue, either.


That would be three hits, actually:

1) The accusation that DL ran a groundless, sourceless rumor all day. [is the comment about no reliable source a comment about the anonymous tip that started this all or DL?]

2) Coons said he has no idea who is at 'ground zero," which could refer to either the blog or the story, but does indicate he has more than a passing familiarity with the blog.

3) The WNJ comment that Delawareliberal prides itself on its anonymity is an obvious reference to recent flaps over the potential outing of bloggers [most of whose identities are already well known, anyway].

The good news for the blogosphere is that the largest homegrown blog in Delaware is making the news in the MSM.

The other news is that it is making the news for rampant speculation on unsourced rumors by anonymous posters. This is, in large measure, what the blogosphere is and does, but it leaves me with a question:

Since they are anonymous [at least officially], how do we really know they are natural-born American citizens, and therefore eligible to be political bloggers?

DL's jason has--perhaps unsurprisingly--risen to the challenge by doubling down on the story:

So the News Journal has signed up to play along with someone’s plan to get people talking about Chris Coon’s political future. But who gains from this? Who wants you to be thinking about Coons?


Good luck with that.

Comments

Anonymous said…
That whole frickin blog is groundless sourceless manure. It is funny to watch the credibility they think they have sliced away bit by bit with every day they still exist. Ground zero? Nah. Just zero.
Perry said…
Sounds like anonymous is Hube!
Anonymous said…
"The WNJ comment that Delawareliberal prides itself on its anonymity"

That is the whole problem with that blog in a nut shell. They make ridiculous claims and accusations, as well as hateful comments, with little fear of the repercussions. They pride themselves on anonymity because it allows them to continue to spew their hateful venom under the cloak of anonymity.

I can assure you that many of the “brave” and “courageous” comments and posts found on that blog would never had been posted if they had their real names attached to them.
Hube said…
Sorry, Perry, but I always use "Hube" when I comment. Unlike you, who is known to use an anonymous every now and then. Or did you forget -- like you forget that you post the same thing over and over and over at every blog you click?

And, as IF I am the only one who feels as that anon does about DL. And have you ever spoken out about their language/innuendo/false claims, Perry? Of course you haven't. Your only comments there are supportive of what they write. This is why you are -- and remain -- a pathetic hypocrite of the highest order.
Nancy Willing said…
Shite the bed. How did I miss this post the first time around?????

Dayyum.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...