I made me giggle.

When is she coming out in support of the buggy whip industry.

We all know the Republicans are responsible for all the lost jobs in that industry.

I wonder if she has even heard of the internet???

Ignore her.

Focus fire on Obama & The Dems.

People like Parker are irrelevant. Ignore them, and move on.

I believe many of the reporters to whom she refers actually do the “boots-on-the-ground grub work,” but they only do it where it suits their purpose. In the midst of everything going on now, they have been doing the grub work on Michelle Obama’s latest sleveless number. Recall all the “grub work” they were doing in Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced.

She doesn’t think Rush alerts people to stories from people doing “boots-on-the-ground grub work?” Of course not because that is only most of the program. The media will of course do the “grub work” of listening to the whole thing so they can pull out the few words and phrases that suit their purposes and omit the substance of the program that doesn’t.

If she weren’t so out of touch, she would understand that he issue is not so much whether the media is actually reporting facts (though it often is not), but what facts they choose to look at and report.

I’m thinking that KParker and her bosses at the WaPo want conservatives to read her stuff so they can drive up ad revenue.

They don’t mind if we have everything KParker says, and blog incessantly in response to it—as long as we read it and (especially) link to it. In so doing, we give KParker and the WaPo page views….and page views are what advertisers want.

Am I right here?

That’s one of the reasons I refuse to read the woman. She went after Palin to make herself marketable, and appealing to the WaPo. For which she has been well-paid…a ride on Air Force One, a spot in the Washington Post Writers Group, and more time on national TV than she ever, ever enjoyed as a backbencher conservative writer.

I don’t think she’s trying to out-Brock David Brock. There’s a wacky, trashy tone to David’s public image (Media Matters and all that) that bars his inclusion when all the “right sorts” meet in Davos or Georgetown or the Hamptons.

KParker, on the other hand, fits right in now. She got what she wanted.

She may be writing a series of articles with the cure to cancer, for all I know. But I won’t read her. I will not reward her and the WaPo for what they did.

I’m thinking that KParker and her bosses at the WaPo want conservatives to read her stuff so they can drive up ad revenue.

They don’t mind if we have everything KParker says, and blog incessantly in response to it—as long as we read it and (especially) link to it. In so doing, we give KParker and the WaPo page views….and page views are what advertisers want.

Am I right here?

That’s one of the reasons I refuse to read the woman. She went after Palin to make herself marketable, and appealing to the WaPo. For which she has been well-paid…a ride on Air Force One, a spot in the Washington Post Writers Group, and more time on national TV than she ever, ever enjoyed as a backbencher conservative writer.

I don’t think she’s trying to out-Brock David Brock. There’s a wacky, trashy tone to David’s public image (Media Matters and all that) that bars his inclusion when all the “right sorts” meet in Davos or Georgetown or the Hamptons.

KParker, on the other hand, fits right in now. She got what she wanted

I’m going to recommend KParker to a twelve-step program that can give her the help she so badly needs for that severe cognitive dissonance she suffers from.

Isn’t there anyway to excommunicate these two from a party with which they apparently share no real values?

They are truly asses in elephant’s clothing, and it seems they have been deliberately hired under this guise by admittedly left-leaning newspapers in order to further the liberal agenda.

It’s STILL Bushes fault.

Parker’s article is a parody of a joke. I completely agree with this though:

“We might add to that formula the need for a serious populace informed about the fragile thread that connects a free press to a free future.”

We are fully informed about the connection between a free press and a free future, but it is difficult to report the facts when one’s head is lodged up The Ones backside. She is such a nitwit that she actually thinks that the press is holding up their end of the bargain.

(but never quite off the deep end like Parker).

But even back then, when rotting flesh remained on the dinosaurs, everyone knew the internet—we used the terms “computers” then because Gore hadn’t done his good works–would overtake the dead tree industry. Publishers considered several responses, some stupid, some sound, and never really got around to implementing them. So even in Obama’s post-capitalist America, the markets have started to work their magic.

I cannot believe even Parker, who says and writes stupid crap all the time, is unaware of how technology has eaten the lunch of newspapers. Her column is more in line with what she knows must be done for a trained seal-conservative to keep a job at a liberal newspaper, forgive the redundancy. She must trash conservatives rather than delve into what happened.

I don’t know how sound the WaPo is these days, Kathleen, but unless things change–they are coming for you, Kathleen, they are coming for you. And “they” ain’t a bunch of anti-media know-nothings but market forces.

Rush Limbaugh is a talented person but even he couldn’t pull off the demise of the newspaper industry. No, that took a lot of profoundly ignorant and clueless managers, editors, and reporters. No wonder you fit right in, Kathleen, even if as a temp.

Oh, and recommended because it is so fun to watch traitors self-immolate.

I cannot believe even Parker, who says and writes stupid crap all the time, is unaware of how technology has eaten the lunch of newspapers.

That’s the really weird part… The first time I ever heard of Kathleen Parker, it was the 1990′s and she was a fan of one of the most prolific and popular contributors to the anti-feminist mens’ rights web forums I belonged to (that guy is a RedState moderator today). So much so that she took up the cause and published many an article that stuck it to the doctrinaire man-hating feminist education and MSM establishments (including the print media) in some very meaningful and lasting ways. She understood firsthand the political power of the internet and its looming backlash against the MSM very early on, and she actively participated in the action.

That KP would be pushing this bizarre line on “bloggers vs. the print media” is scary given her history. It raises some very troubling questions regarding just how far upstream the killing Obama tide has traveled in the media… I mean, I was such a big Peggy Noonan fan that I’m still harboring suspicions that she was mailed a dead fish, or a child’s ear, or the head of her beloved dog Fluffy or somesuch… rather than admit to myself that the Gipper’s friend, confidente, and best speech writer woke up one day and decided it was time to finally tell everyone what she really thought those lowlife grassroots conservatives… I can’t help believing that there’s been more going on in these defections than has been meeting the eye…

a media who*e who is enamored with my own vanity and lack of knowledge that if I saw myself in a mirror I would think “who is that trash”!

“The biggest challenge facing America’s struggling newspaper industry may not be the high cost of newsprint or lost ad revenue, but ignorance stoked by drive-by punditry.”

Fact is, the general public is to some extent waking up to the fact that the SCUM is an unreliable source for the facts about anything remotely associated with politics, and probably anything else is suspect as well.

But thanks to Parker, I can now add some letters after my name.

Flagstaff, DbP

Cool!

This is really GOOD, Becker — we’ve missed this stuff from you for too long.

She’s sold herself to the Washington Post as a trasher of conservatives. OK—she feeds the liberals’ desire to have their disdain of conservatives validated.

Now, all the right sorts can go to the right cocktail parties, where Kathleen can tell them stories of her time in the wilderness, with those silly sorts that liked the she-ape Palin and slobbered over Rush.

But…we don’t care what those folks think. In fact, many of us would never want to BE one of those folks.

Kathleen Parker wants to be one of those folks. She’s doing what’s necessary to be accepted by the club. But, does she have any influence over conservatism in general.? I doubt it.

The people who listen to her now are liberals.

The conservatives she’s critcizing now have nothing but disdain for her.

When she criticizes, we can simply fire back. We’ve been firing back at anti-conservative pundits for years now…what’s one more to us?

Did the WaPo think that KParker’s haughtiness and Palin-bashing would appeal to the “smart” conservatives? The Frums and Brookses.

IIRC, the WaPo is losing readers and subscriptions. Now, one way for the WaPo to bolster its subscription numbers would be to lure readers who’ve refused to take (or have stopped taking) the paper in recent years. Like, say…conservatives?

Unfortunately, any paper that places Dan Froomkin, Dana Priest, Walter Pincus and William Arkin in positions of high visibility clearly has no interest in cultivating a wide conservative readership.

So, do the next best thing: figure out a way to appeal to those conservatives whom you can most stomach. People like David Frum and Peggy Noonan. Get as many of them to buy the paper as you can, and you’ll stanch the bleeding of subscribers a little bit. Perhaps.

Kathleen Parker speaks to those conservatives whom the WaPo is most likely willing to cultivate.

Realistically, it’s probably the best the WaPo can do. The alternative is to take some meaningful steps to reduce the liberal bias coursing through the veins of their organization. And that’s something they simply won’t do.

But I just don’t know what to do about it. What? Just follow your lead and we’ll all be saved?

Oh thank you thank you thank you thank you. For a minute there, I was actually considering reading and seeing what was out there and then thinking for myself.

But then I might accidentally conclude that the MSM has an agenda like the one Helen Thomas actually says reporters should all have. And if I did that I might be tempted to not pay the papers any more of my money and the “boots on the ground” work wouldn’t get done by folks like you ’cause you won’t get paid if the paper doesn’t have money and has to go out of business, and after all, you have to eat and pay rent and all that kind of stuff.

Thanks again for setting me straight. God I hate being so stupid!!!!

She can look for news as she paddles?

Note to lefties;
“Don’t be afraid to see what you see.” -Ronald Reagan

Activists taking Action

Join the RedState Strike Force

Senate Conservatives Fund	House Conservatives Fund
The Precinct Project	Jeff Gorell for Assembly

Conservatives Victorious in 2010