A Little Advice from John Aravosis:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

"Which brings me to another point. We ought to be nicer to some of the journalists. Nicer doesn't mean letting them get away with shit. It means not responding to them like Freepers every time we get ticked at something they write our don't write. I recently traded emails with one well-known journalist who has gotten a lot of emails from lefties criticizing him. Not that the criticism wasn't deserved - I think some of it was, in terms of how he handled the issue in question - but the criticism, and he sent me copies of the emails, were pure freeper. They were nasty, they were vulgar, they were uncalled for. Especially with this journalist. I'd rather not name names, but he wasn't exactly Ann Coulter."


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/nation-on-gannonguckert.html

I agree with him. Potty mouth and insults will not win the day.

99 times out of 100. But I reserve the right. ;-)

Edited to satisfy those for whom clicking on a link is taxing. ;-)

[EST]

1. Huh?

Whad' I miss?

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. How about a snippet or summary? n/t

[Selatius]

4. What, too lazy to click the link and read? ;)

Snippet:

Which brings me to another point. We ought to be nicer to some of the journalists. Nicer doesn't mean letting them get away with shit. It means not responding to them like Freepers every time we get ticked at something they write our don't write. I recently traded emails with one well-known journalist who has gotten a lot of emails from lefties criticizing him. Not that the criticism wasn't deserved - I think some of it was, in terms of how he handled the issue in question - but the criticism, and he sent me copies of the emails, were pure freeper. They were nasty, they were vulgar, they were uncalled for. Especially with this journalist. I'd rather not name names, but he wasn't exactly Ann Coulter.

All I'm saying is that, oddly enough, a lot of these journalists do actually read their email. They get your messages. I get your messages. Don't assume that just because you email someone "famous" or whatever that he or she isn't reading what you write. A lot of times they are. And at least in the case of journalists who tick us off, short of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, the soft touch can still win the day with these guys. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly likes me, and I like him too (don't get on my case), and as a result, there have been times when he was downright good on gay issues (he said he wouldn't object if gay marriage were legalized, he supports non-discrimination laws including gays, etc.)

[Bluebear]

3. Wanna bet it was Aaron Brown?

[Hatalles]

5. My money's on Wolf Blitzer.

[SoCalDem]

11. Take it to the bank.. It was Aaron

:)

[ohio_liberal]

13. I bet it was

He was uncomfortable with the word "whores" when referring to Media Whores Online. I bet nasty emails with profanity make him cry.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Heh.

Yeah, Ol' Aaron is more than a little...sensitive.

I don't have TV here and have not had it for 4 years or so. The clip of John on Brown's show was the first time I ever saw Brown. My first impression of him was "pompous". Really pompous. Like he forms every word, phrase and question thinking that he is a god, breathing life into inanimate clay. ;-)

[LibertyorDeath]

9. Bingo

"Yeah, Ol' Aaron is more than a little...sensitive."

[oasis]

18. "Sensitive" Aaron jumped all over Will Pitt a couple of years ago

when mischievous freepers e-mailed Aaron and said that Pitt had harshly criticized him. Aaron cancelled his scheduled interview with Pitt.

[Straight Shooter]

7. I write no messages that I would not want made public under my name.

IOW, if I'm willing to say it to somebody in an email, I should be willing to stand up in public and own it.

I'm no stranger to the use of profanity, far from it, but I keep it out of emails and other forms of messages. It isn't necessary and it distracts from the message.

As far as slamming someone in an email, I'll do it if I know they are consistently rabid right wing; otherwise, I just tell them how I feel about such-and-such and let it go at that.

You're right. People do respond. OTOH, I would not waste my time crafting a letter to that pervert Bill O'Reilly. He's a sham, a phony, and he never did apologize to the American public for believing the bush administration, so AFAIC, his word is manure. No, wait a minute. It's worse than manure. At least manure helps crops to grow. O'Reilly stunts the mental growth of his audiences.

[mattclearing]

8. This is good advice.

It's not very persuasive to insult your audience.

I recently was pretty rude to one of the senior editors of the Washington Post in an SOTU chat, challenging the Post's coverage of the Social Security Swindle, which he answered pretty defensively.

The Post has printed some critical editorials since the one that sent me into a rage, but there's still no excuse for being rude to people if we truly want their help.

I'm making an effort to be more diplomatic now.

[moggie12]

10. Great post - it's good to know they read e-mail

I think it's as important to compliment the media on a good story as it is to citicize them when they mess up. Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

And foul language and insults gets you nowhere.....

[justiceischeap]

12. On a side note

How do blogger's, who are breaking the stories these days, get rid of the title "liberal blogger?" That, in my mind, indicates a sort of bias on the part of the MSM when reporting it that way. I wonder if when talking about right-wing blogs they indicate they are such...

Just a thought, sorry.

[slor]

14. I bet it was David Corn...

I have seen some of the threads here, and they can be quite harsh. And while even I feel some of the same sentiment at what he writes, I believe there are better ways to convince him of our points. That being said, I do want to reiterate how it can be difficult to allow anyone that is "on our side", to mitigate the crimes of this administration. We have witnessed bush take the country into a foolish, catastrophic, and illegal war, and suffered under his robber-baron approach to American workers and the economy in general. We are horrified by his full frontal assault on the environment, and his school-yard bully tactics with other countries. And, as if this were not enough, we are forced to watch and hear a significant number of our fellow citizens hail this mental midget, as a great leader, well... suffice it to say, it can get overwhelming at times. So I do not fault those in my DU family that do get passionate and angry, and lash out, for we all know, the stakes are high. But it is my deepest hope, whomever the reporter is, that he at least takes these words into consideration, as we are asked to consider our words to him.

[BurtWorm]

15. Aaron Brown.

Who else?

[TNMOM]

16. As a journalist, he should just get used to it.

I know a lot of reporters professionally and they tell me getting "fan mail" is just of the hazards of being a reporter. If he covers politics, or basically any controversial subject, on a regular basis, he should know this.

If he can't stand disagreement, he should look into a different line of work. On the other hand, I draw the line at threats -- if he's getting threats of physical harm, he's got my sympathy. Otherwise, he's just acting like a big baby.

[crispini]

17. Yes, it's common, but that doesn't mean that we as liberals

should perpetuate the rudeness, IMO.

Nominated for greatest -- everyone needs to read this.

[SpiralHawk]

19. BushCo Agents Provocateurs ? Hmmm...May well be

What the hell, BushCo is paying journalists to parrot Administration claptrap. They might well be paying radical RW nerds to fire off foul "lefty" letters and emails to journalists.

Doublespeak. Doublethink. Doubleplusungood.