Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Andrew Sullivan Splits With Daily Beast, Will Charge For Content

Andrew Sullivan is parting ways with the "Daily Beast" and forming an independent company that will charge for content.

He made the announcement in a post on Wednesday. "...we felt more and more that getting readers to pay a small amount for content was the only truly solid future for online journalism."

by Anonymousreply 6201/11/2013

OMG, David Ehrenstein will be having major hissy-fits over this news.

by Anonymousreply 101/02/2013

Greedy queen.

by Anonymousreply 201/02/2013

Long as he's not on Bill Maher's show again ... good luck to Andrew Sullivan.

by Anonymousreply 301/02/2013

What is he going to charge for, his milky loads?

by Anonymousreply 401/02/2013

In his new venue, he's promised to cut back on political comments and social commentary, and to post lots and lots of poems.

$19.99

by Anonymousreply 501/02/2013

If he's gonna charge, he needs to offer some "extra services," if you catch my drift.

by Anonymousreply 601/02/2013

I don't read him for free. Good luck with that, Andrew.

by Anonymousreply 701/02/2013

Yeah, what's he thinking? It's hard enough getting people to read for free.

by Anonymousreply 801/02/2013

[quote]What is he going to charge for, his milky loads?

What does that mean, r4? Is he going to be sponsored by a dairy?

by Anonymousreply 901/02/2013

$20 a month.

For someone else's opinion.

by Anonymousreply 1001/02/2013

Ok, they changed it. Huffpo originally had it at $20 a month, not $20 a year.

by Anonymousreply 1101/02/2013

I'm not so sure he's wrong. I pay for a newspaper and have for decades. Given that online news is the future of journalism, they should be paid.

As for editorial content and columns, they are part of why I buy a newspaper. They'll be part of why people subscribe to online sources as well.

Sully can be a douche, no question, but this may not be an instance of it.

by Anonymousreply 1201/02/2013

LMAO...good luck with that, Milky Loads. I guess the rumors about his financial situation are true. Poor--literally--Andy!

by Anonymousreply 1301/02/2013

Where did the milky loads nickname come from?

by Anonymousreply 1401/03/2013

...and his demise comes in 5...4...3...2...1.

by Anonymousreply 1501/03/2013

R9 and R14, it's from a personal ad he placed years ago seeking bareback sex, something about wanting his ass to take "milky loads." Of course he didn't put his name on the ad, but people worked out fairly quickly that it was him. He's been known around here as "Milky Loads" ever since.

by Anonymousreply 1601/03/2013

It would be a surprise if he can make do with income from just his blog. Though I have read his work on the Daily Beast, like many others, I'm not ready to pay to read it.

by Anonymousreply 1701/03/2013

[R17] - he has speaking fees, book royalties, etc. for himself as well. How he's going to pay his staff is another matter.

by Anonymousreply 1801/03/2013

From Tech Crunch:

"Andrew Sullivan’s Ad-Free Publishing Experiment Sees Six-Figure Revenue In First Six Hours"

[quote] “It’s been a pretty amazing day,” Sullivan told me. Six hours after he first made his announcement and put out his call for sign ups, he said. “We’re well into the six figures.” He described the system as a “leaky meter,” where readers can hit the “read on” button a limited number of times per month before they have to pay; it’s leaky in that readers can follow links from other sites without adding to the meter. A subscription costs at least $19.99 per year, but readers can pay as much as they want, and Sullivan estimated that about a third of the initial subscribers are paying more than the minimum.

by Anonymousreply 1901/03/2013

Six figures = $1000.00 - tops. And, I bet he's inflating the numbers so that people will think they're missing something if they don't jump on the bandwagon.

by Anonymousreply 2001/03/2013

I for one am willing to pay quite a bit just to read his semiannual rhapsodic musings over the change of seasons in Provincetown ("The magic hour starts a little earlier each day in this quiet beach town as the leaves slowly reveal their russet glories..."), and I assume everyone else is too.

by Anonymousreply 2101/03/2013

He also writes for the UK Sunday Times

by Anonymousreply 2201/03/2013

I have never been to Provincetown, and have little desire to see the place.

Our Sully can be very very good on some things, but has a real "I've got mine Jack!" attitude about helping others.

by Anonymousreply 2301/03/2013

That cash'll buy him a lot of bong hits.

by Anonymousreply 2401/03/2013

Any newspaper or magazine that is popular can do very nicely on ads alone. Charging the readers is just plain out of greed. They do it because they can.

by Anonymousreply 2501/03/2013

Don't say his name r1. He's like the Candy Man...

by Anonymousreply 2601/04/2013

I read he brought in 33k on his first day. Not sure I believe it though.

by Anonymousreply 2701/04/2013

So Sullivan is now going to charge for his Milky Loads? Fuggedaboutit.

by Anonymousreply 2801/04/2013

He brought in 333k the first day. A third of a million bucks.

by Anonymousreply 2901/04/2013

During the 2012 election, he was the most hysterical concern troll in the mainstream media. How many people are going to pay to read his drivel?

by Anonymousreply 3001/04/2013

Between his staff, tech requirements, living in NYC, medical treatments, and supporting a lazy ass husband, Andy will need to take in some serious $$$$$.

by Anonymousreply 3101/04/2013

Didn't read him when he was free, except through links from other blogs. Now that he is safely secured behind a pay wall I will never have to encounter him again.

by Anonymousreply 3201/04/2013

He won't have a paywall, says what you'll be paying for is the ability to access the "read more" parts of long posts.

by Anonymousreply 3301/04/2013

He has a "lazy ass husband" [R31]? I thought the whole point of moving to NYC was Aaron's job (work)?

by Anonymousreply 3401/04/2013

Yeah, they moved to NYC for Mrs Tone-Sullivan's work. Because hustlers aren't a dime a dozen in NYC.

by Anonymousreply 3501/04/2013

He posted over and over on Twitter "IT'S NOT A PAY-WALL!!"

I didn't really pay much attention.

by Anonymousreply 3601/04/2013

R35 - what does he theoretically do for work?

by Anonymousreply 3701/04/2013

R37: Hubby is an "actor"

by Anonymousreply 3801/04/2013

OH ..... I had thought he was a corporate executive or something who was transferred involuntarily. From the photos I've seen, he's not such a sizzling hottie that Andy would "keep" him - bearded or not.

by Anonymousreply 3901/04/2013

This dispatch was unlocked by NSFWCORP subscriber Doug Henwood. It will be available for the next 46 hours.

TO: The Journalistic Ethics Desk Date: Jan 7th, 2013

If Andrew Sullivan Is The Future of Journalism Then Journalism Is Fucked

Las Vegas, NV: Andrew Sullivan is all over the news after announcing he’s going solo, parting ways with Tina Brown shortly after she put a pillow over Newsweek’s face.

But in all the media excitement over Sullivan’s decision to rely on the much-maligned subscription model for his revenues ("bold experiment!"... "A thrill!"... "a flag of hope for every writer!"... "a dramatic stand!"...) no one raised the most obvious question of all: Why would subscribers pay to support one of the most colossal serial-failures in American journalism of the past two decades?

Reports claim that Sullivan has already raised $400,000 from his readers. If Sullivan really has raised this much money, and if his subscription model genuinely succeeds thanks to tens of thousands of subscribers supporting his work, it means we’re witnessing something new and deeply disturbing: "mutualised" unaccountability (to use one of their idiotic neologisms); the democratization of rewarding media failure and fraud.

Sullivan is getting away with it and profiting from failure thanks to two key elements to his media business model: Blogger cronyism, providing a network of media suckups all too eager to offer free PR to Sullivan’s business in the hope that "Sully" will logroll back at them some day; and the American public’s amnesia.

I happen to know just how rotten Sullivan is because over at the S.H.A.M.E. Project, we just published a profile on one of the most rancid political figures of our time, Charles Murray — a vicious right-wing sociopath and racial eugenicist who got his start as a counter-insurgency expert during the Vietnam War, using starvation and crop destruction as a means of "behavior control" on restive Thai villages.

Murray’s fraudulent racial eugenics theories "proving" that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior gained a foothold in mainstream discourse, thanks to Andrew Sullivan. What’s more disturbing is that even as Sullivan has disavowed some of his far-right causes of the past — like smearing critics of America’s wars as traitors, denouncing "decadent" coastal America, denouncing what he called the "libidinal pathology" of gay sexual culture, smearing anyone not with the Likkud program as anti-Semitic, and so on — the one far-right belief he won’t let go of is racial intelligence, "human biodiversity" and the whole range of rancid Nazi eugenics revived in 1994 by Charles Murray’s discredited book, The Bell Curve.

The horrible irony is that thanks to our collective amnesia, most people today mistakenly identify Andrew Sullivan’s punditry with intellectual courage — that he turned against Bush’s war earlier than most of his fellow neocon pundits, supposedly at great risk to his reputation and "brand" because he turned on the very same bloodthirsty war mob he'd been organizing and firing up for years — lending him contrarian credibility... despite his record of viciously attacking critics of Bush’s war as traitors, collaborators with terrorism and evil, at a time when being targeted as a national traitor by a major media figure like Sullivan was genuinely dangerous to a critic’s career.

People are already forgetting the ugly explosion of McCarthyism in this country around the invasion of Iraq and the months afterwards, just as they’ve forgotten the attack dog role that Andrew Sullivan played in all of that, before his allegedly "brave" turn away from Bush and towards a safer weathervane politics of libertarianism and Obama-boosterism.

* * * *

by Anonymousreply 4001/10/2013

By any standard involving "merit" Andrew Sullivan should have been driven out of the journalism world decades ago, almost as soon as his "meteoric rise" began. In 1991, Marty Peretz apparently grew frustrated with his editors — Hendrik Hertzberg, Michael Kinsley, Morton Kondracke, all Beltway fixtures in the 80s liberal establishment — so he hired an outsider with almost no experience, a 28-year-old Thatcherite named Andrew Sullivan, to run the New Republic and take the nearly century-old liberal institution hard-rightward, and downward.

Almost immediately, Sullivan proudly took credit for running one of the most damaging right-wing hit jobs against genuine investigative journalism of the past few decades: A New Republic cover story fraudulently "debunking" the October Surprise story. Briefly: In 1991, PBS’ Frontline ran an investigation making a strong case that top Reagan officials cut a secret deal with Ayatollah Khomeini’s agents during the 1980 election campaign, in which the Iranians promised to help Reagan defeat Carter by holding on to the American hostages until after the elections, and in return, the Reagan Administration would arrange secret arms shipments to Khomeini for his war with Iraq. Carter was unable to work out a deal with Iran; Reagan won the election; and the hostages were freed during his inauguration ceremony; and the secret arms shipments to Khomeini became the Iran-Contra Scandal.

By late 1991, the evidence of an October Surprise was so great that a Congressional committee was formed to investigate. That’s when 28-year-old Andrew Sullivan hired Steve Emerson — recently named one of America's five most influential promoters of Islamophobic hate propaganda, cited twice by Anders Breivak in his manifesto — to "debunk" the reporting on the October Surprise with a cover story headlined "What October Surprise?" that relied on invented evidence later exposed as fake and disowned even by Emerson.

Despite the fact that Emerson’s hit piece was later exposed as based on fraud — or, as Emerson claimed, a mistake he blamed on his research assistant — nevertheless, Emerson's hit-piece remained out on the market long enough to succeed in its goal of smearing one of the great journalism scoops of the past few decades, scaring away everyone from Congressmen to journalists from seriously pursuing it any further. As media watchdog FAIR wrote back in 1993:

Sadly, such tactics have had their intended effect on the conventional wisdom. The October Surprise is now a laughable non-story, and a deep chill blows over any press investigation of recent covert history. Washington Monthly editor Jon Meacham summed it up in a recent unrelated story (7-8/93), when he dismissed a persistent media factoid as "like the October Surprise: enduring yet wrong." Ironically, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring--even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.

The result, as Frontline investigative journalist Bob Parry wrote, "scared the Senate into backing away from a full-scale October Surprise investigation and the House acted as if it would only go through the motions before clearing Reagan and Bush."

And Sullivan was just getting started. In 1992, he blamed the Los Angeles riots on social welfare programs and African-Americans’ "culture of idleness"— parroting the far-right racial eugenics theories Charles Murray:

"If we are to break through this culture of idleness, poverty, illegitimacy, and crime, we have to cut off its lifeline" — welfare, replacing "all payments to the able-bodied poor" with "a government-provided job."

by Anonymousreply 4101/10/2013

But it was in 1994 that Andrew Sullivan’s recklessness and media fraud went berserk. First, he published a devastating three-part series destroying President Clinton’s universal health care legislation, articles that are generally considered the reason why "Hillarycare" failed to pass. The author, a Republican operative from the rightwing Manhattan Institute named Betsy McCaughey, had secretly prepared her articles in cooperation with Philip Morris (much of Hillarycare coverage was to be funded by hiking tobacco taxes). McCaughey's article, "No Exit," won for The New Republic that year’s National Magazine Award. However, her articles were complete frauds; not journalism, but the very opposite of journalism: Tobacco industry propaganda designed to kill off health care for Americans in order to protect big tobacco profits.

A secret 1994 memo from a Philip Morris executive outlining the tobacco giant's role in crafting McCaughey's articles reveals just how grotesquely corrupt journalism under Andrew Sullivan's editorship had become:

"Worked off-the-record with Manhattan [Institute] and writer Betsy McCaughey as part of the input to the three-part expose in The New Republic on what the Clinton plan means to you. The first part detailed specifics of the plan. The second part, to be published imminently, will focus on the impact the Clinton bill will have on cities. She will explore why medical education will decline, why teaching hospitals will be driven out of business, why regional health alliances will shift the cost of caring for the poor off the federal budget onto the backs of urban workers and their employers, and why discontinuing Medicaid and enrolling the disadvantaged in HMO's will fail. Betsy is also working on a comparison of the other proposals, what an "ideal" bill should include, and what kind of reform Congress is likely to give us."

The articles were so full of obvious lies and embarrassing flaws that in 2006, The New Republic publicly recanted. But as with the October Surprise smear, the damage was done — health care reform was dead for another 15 years. When you consider that a recent study estimated 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care coverage, and you multiply that by the nearly two decades since Andrew Sullivan helped kill Clinton's health care reform, you start to understand who the real terrorist is.

But that's no sweat off Sully's whiskers: The pattern, set early, proves that no matter how hard he fails, no matter how disastrous the consequences for journalism or his adopted country, Sullivan's career advancement is guaranteed to keep rising. Journalism, schmournalism: He's a proven reliable waterboy for the tobacco lobby and the Republican Right, what value can journalism have that can possibly compete with that?

The same goes for Betsy McCaughey, who reappeared again in 2009 to sabotage any Obama health care reform — it was McCaughey who invented the "death panel" lie, and it almost worked a second time (my old friend Dylan Ratigan helped bring McCaughey down on his show).

Even after his own magazine recanted the article, in 2007, Sullivan, while admitting "I was aware of the piece’s flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation," defended his failure, and the catastrophic consequences to millions of Americans, with all the aggressive conviction of a sociopath:

I think the magazine's refusal to be mau-maued by the Clintons at the time - and Hillary was threatening blue murder against anyone who so much as dared to criticize her - is a feather in the magazine's cap. We weren't "out to get the Clintons." Some of us - well, two of us - were merely worried that America's excellent private healthcare system would be hobbled by too much government regulation. I am glad we helped head off the Clinton-Magaziner behemoth. Proud, actually.

by Anonymousreply 4201/10/2013

That same year, another Manhattan Institute alumnus named Charles Murray published a book "proving" that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to other races in intelligence. The racial eugenics in The Bell Curve has since been thoroughly debunked as "academic fraud" and worse — as ABC News, FAIR and others reported, a large portion of the evidence used to support the The Bell Curve came from research funded by a notorious white supremacist foundation called "The Pioneer Fund." That fund’s first president, Harry Laughlin, helped craft the 1920s laws restricting Jewish immigration, after Laughlin testified before Congress that 83% of Jewish immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were born "feeble-minded."

Murray’s Bell Curve also acknowledged its debt to a modern-day neo-Nazi eugenicist named Richard Lynn, who has written:

"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples...Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent...Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?"

The notes of The Bell Curve are a house of horrors packed with eugenics freaks like Richard Lynn — you can find more in our SHAME profile on Charles Murray — but the point is this: Thanks to editor Andrew Sullivan’s decision in 1994 to publish an entire reworked chapter of The Bell Curve, 10,000 words of reanimated Nazi race theory, in The New Republic, using the liberal establishment credentials of the magazine to launder and legitimize rancid pre-war racial science used to justify genocide, The Bell Curve entered establishment discourse, making racist quackery respectable again. Seeing that in The New Republic encouraged a saggy old pus-bag like the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, who some people label a "liberal," to embrace Charles Murray’s Nazi science:

"Murray [and his co-author] have been called racists...Their findings, though, have been accepted by most others in their field, and it would be wrong—both intellectually and politically—to suppress them."

As with Betsy McCaughey’s and Steve Emerson’s articles, The Bell Curve has since been thoroughly discredited as intellectual fraud of the rankest sort. Most of Bell Curve's early boosters of the Richard Cohen variety long ago realized that it was the wrong bandwagon to ride on, and probably wished no one remembered how much they'd sung its praises. And yet despite that, Andrew Sullivan proudly stands by Charles Murray's book and racial eugenics.

In 2005, after Sullivan’s much-ballyhooed reversal on Iraq, he still had this to say about The Bell Curve:

One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from "The Bell Curve" in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it... The fact of human inequality and the subtle and complex differences between various manifestations of being human - gay, straight, male, female, black, Asian - is a subject worth exploring, period."

It’s a theme Sullivan can’t get over — in fact, biological human inequality is pretty much the only thing Andrew Sullivan believes, and his only defense of it seems to be that he’s a principled martyr to liberal Big Brother censorship when he’s denounced for peddling fraudulent Nazi science.

That, by the way, was the same damage-control strategy used by Sullivan's hero, Charles Murray: when ABC News questioned Murray about his reliance on so many neo-Nazi quacks to back up The Bell Curve, Murray "accused [ABC] of being on an intellectual witch hunt that would have a pernicious effect on research."

Indeed. First, they came for the Nazi eugenicists...

by Anonymousreply 4301/10/2013

t still goes on. As late as November 21, 2011, Sullivan published this blog post that, I have to admit, even now still shocks me. If you ever researched the smelly word of racial eugenics quacks, you’d recognize the name Sullivan proudly drops here:

[The study of intelligence] has been strangled by p.c. egalitarianism. The reason is the resilience of racial differences in IQ in the data, perhaps most definitively proven by UC Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen...

The right response to unsettling data is to probe, experiment and attempt to disprove them - not to run away in racial panic. But the deeper problem is that the racial aspects of IQ have prevented non-racial research into intelligence, and how best to encourage, study and understand it.

In other words, Sully’s concerned about that ol’ pernicious effect on racial eugenics again. As for Sullivan’s hero, Arthur Jensen — he received over $1 million in funding grants from the neo-Nazi Pioneer Fund, and he’s not coy at all about his support for practicing actual real Nazi eugenics on "lower" races:

"Eugenics isn't a crime," Jensen has said (Newsday, 11/9/94). "Which is worse, to deprive someone of having a child, or to deprive the child of having a decent set of parents?"

Elsewhere, Jensen has worried "that current welfare policies, unaided by genetic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial portion of our population."

* * * *

Most people in Sullivan’s position would’ve had a hard time following up a performance like his in 1994 — but not Sully.

In 1995, still serving as editor-in-chief of the New Republic, Andrew Sullivan brought in Stephen Glass as an intern, then as his personal assistant. Vanity Fair’s brief description:

After about a year [Glass] became an intern at The New Republic, working as an assistant to Andrew Sullivan, who preceded Michael Kelly as the editor. It was not a particularly stimulating job, involving administrative tasks such as answering the phone, answering correspondence, and an occasional personal errand for Sullivan.

Glass did little actual writing under Sullivan, but did complete assignments on disputes over governmental subsidies for cheese and on presidential candidate Bob Dole’s handlers.

Sullivan, by the way, also nurtured fellow neocon Michael Kelly’s disastrous rise, paving the way for Kelly to take over as editor-in-chief after Sullivan left. Kelly proved worthy of carrying on the Sullivan tradition of journalistic failure and fraud, but on a level for the history books. It was Michael Kelly whose name is forever associated with Stephen Glass, with Kelly as the dupe who couldn't see a blatant fraud if it screamed "fake" in his face. (A few years later, Michael Kelly became the first American journalist killed in the Iraq invasion.)

But I digress — I was talking about Andrew Sullivan’s big last year, 1995. He not only brought Stephen Glass into The New Republic as a kind of time-delay WMD, but he also was responsible for what would have been The New Republic’s most shameful episode in journalism fraud had Glass not topped her a few years later: Ruth Shalit.

As with Stephen Glass, all the signs that Ruth Shalit had a problem with basic journalism ethics were smeared all over the proverbial wall, Manson-family style. A few months before Shalit’s big career-ending journalism fraud, she was the subject of a handful of curiosity stories, including this one in The Washington Post dated July 18, 1995, headlined "A Writer’s Repetitive Stress; New Republic Admits Phrases Were Copied":

For the second time in less than a year, the New Republic has admitted that one of its most prominent young writers copied material previously printed in another publication.

The weekly political magazine said that in both instances, Ruth Shalit confused other writers' material with her own after transferring their stories into her computer.

by Anonymousreply 4401/10/2013

he Post responded to the smear. In a published response, they discovered about 40 factual errors in Shalit’s piece, beyond the countless unsourced and anonymous innuendos and accusations that couldn’t be fact-checked (i.e. "a white editor complained blacks unqualified" / "a black editor charged racism pervasive"). Shalit even plagiarized a passage from a book and put it, word for word, into her article.

But the worst failures were Shalit’s race-baiting inventions. For example, a black WaPo reporter named Nathan McCall had just published a memoir about his path from crime to journalism, including a three year stint in prison. In his memoir, McCall recounted how the first time he tried getting a job with The Washington Post, he was rejected because he’d tried hiding from them the three "missing" years spent in prison. After building up his credentials with a local paper in Atlanta, McCall returned for more follow-up interviews with the Post, no longer trying to hide his prison past. Instead of hiding it, he faced up and spent his efforts on trying to convince the WaPo editors that he’d genuinely transformed himself, that he was reliable and serious about his commitment to journalism. After a long rigorous process, McCall was finally hired.

Yet here is how Ruth Shalit rewrote that same story about the hiring of Nathan McCall in her 13,000 word smear for Andrew Sullivan and The New Republic:

Nathan McCall, author of the 1994 autobiography Makes Me Wanna Holler, is a Post reporter currently on leave from the paper. In 1987, when the Post tried to hire McCall from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, editors at the paper inquired about a three-year gap in his resume. He told them he had spent the time traveling and "finding himself." In fact, he'd been serving a prison sentence for holding up a McDonald's at gunpoint. Post editors upbraided him for being less than honest but hired him anyway. Despite this kid-glove treatment, McCall, too, claims his career at the Post has been marred by racism. "Because of the myths, I could never seem to settle down and relax and write with flair the way I knew I could under normal circumstances," he wrote. "Nobody makes allowances for black folks anywhere."

One commenter pointed out that, to understand just how vile and misleading Shalit's smear was, in 1978, when McCall was in prison, only 4 percent of reporters were black; in 1993, a year before his book was published, just 4.3 percent of reporters were black. The backlash Shalit hyped and Sullivan promoted as fact was nothing but literary fraud, James Frey under the guise of mainstream journalism in the liberal institution, The New Republic.

To prove that "racial sensitivity" was ruining the Post’s reporting, Shalit claimed that the Post intentionally censored news that a black "crony" of Mayor Marion Barry named Roy Littlejohn had "served time for corruption."

Subsequently, Sullivan had to issue a correction:

Ruth Shalit's October 2 article, "Race in the Newsroom," erroneously reported that Marion Barry supporter Roy Littlejohn "served time for ... corruption." Mr. Littlejohn was neither indicted nor imprisoned. The New Republic regrets the error and apologizes to Mr. Littlejohn.

Publishing lies like these didn’t take balls, nor was it mere eccentric contrarianism — this is just hate, a weird, bug-like sociopathic hate.

I looked up Ruth Shalit— I want to know, who are these hissing 28 Days Later freaks who ransacked America’s media, and left the whole fucking industry in ruins — in the sorry state I found American journalism in back in the summer of 2008, after the Kremlin ran me out of Russia?

Turns out Ruth Shalit, like Betsy McCaughey, like Charles Murray, and like Andrew Sullivan, was another right-wing movement mole. An article called "The Sisters Shalit" published in Forward described both sisters as radical-right Jews whose father, Sol Shalit, emigrated from Israel to study economics at the University of Chicago, home to Milton Friedman and the birthplace of libertarian/neoliberal economics. Ruth’s sister, Wendy Shali

by Anonymousreply 4501/10/2013

I want to give some examples here, for the permanent record.

Like a lot of imbeciles, Andrew Sullivan reacted to September 11 as if it was a test of Andrew Sullivan's mettle, starring Andrew Sullivan as the protagonist in an epic battle between good and evil, with the fate of mankind hanging in the balance: Red Dawn meets Revelations by way of [NAME OF TOM CLANCY BOOK POPULAR AMONG BELTWAY WAFFENDWEEBS]... Lots of pompous cliches, and flapping flags in the wind... Writing in The New York Times (his new home after he lay waste to The New Republic), just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Sullivan declared:

This coming conflict is indeed as momentous and as grave as the last major conflicts against Nazism and Communism...The difference is that this conflict is against a more formidable enemy than Nazism or Communism.

Over the next couple of years, between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Sullivan filled op-ed pages with screeds denouncing leftists as traitors:

"The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column."

"...the enemy within the West itself—a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead."

Sullivan took so much glee in attacking war critics, he invented a neologism in the blogger world, "fisking," which describes what happens when a pro-war pundit savages a feeble liberal critic of war, to commemorate what happened when Sullivan savaged leftwing war correspondent Robert Fisk.

As mob leader, Sullivan found ripe targets everywhere. He attacked Susan Sontag and Salon.com founder David Talbot for not showing sufficient enthusiasm for Dubya’s stuttering speeches:

"These pampered journalists who have never seen a moment of real censorship in their lives, and who have marginalized conservative voices for their entire careers in their own organs and field of influence, take the occasion of the massacre of thousands of their fellow citizens to worry about themselves — and preen self-righteously at the same time."

I assume by "real censorship" Sullivan is referring to the liberals’ failure to warmly embrace the Nazi eugenics science that he peddles to this day... and by "marginalized conservative voices" he must be referring to the tragic struggles of an Oxford Tory like Sully, forced to wait till he was all of 28 before being handed an American media institution, The New Republic...or the other unfair marginalization that happened after his umpteenth plagiarism scandal destroyed his magazine, forcing this persecuted conservative maverick into the lonely margins of The New York Times magazine ghetto, a ghetto he was banished to after leaving Michael Kelly and Stephen Glass to man what remained of The New Republic after Sullivan was through with it...

And here we are in 2013, more than two decades after Andrew Sullivan burrowed into this country's journalism world, or what's left of it anyway. Today, 22 years after Sullivan was handed the keys to his first car, what's left of my profession has one collective groveling question for him: "Is Andrew Sullivan the future of journalism?"

Look, Sullivan’s been the future of this ruined profession for more years than anyone can remember anymore. Nothing seems to change; the same stagnation and rot, the same names, the same failures. How long can this scam run?

I have a whole list of Andrew Sullivan’s forgotten attacks on liberals "complicit" in Saddam’s "evil" and a series of infuriating quotes of his. I think they're worth remembering, and storing here in a corner of the permanent record. In case anyone should give a shit. Too many people seem determined to forget. Read these sample Sully gems, you'll see what I mean –

"We will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I have no doubt about that. I initially supported this war for hard-nosed geopolitical reasons, and I stick with that jud

by Anonymousreply 4601/10/2013

Enough, David Ehrenstein, enough about "Milky Loads". You look ridiculous posting this stuff year, after year, after year, liked an obsessed old queen.

by Anonymousreply 4701/10/2013

fuck off, R47, you harpy. Go pay for his sycophantic rubbish while you lick his sperm-encrusted anus.

A lot more people than D.E. dismiss this teabag fraud.

Why Are Gay You So Stupid?

by Anonymousreply 4801/10/2013

What a bunch of antisemitics.

by Anonymousreply 4901/10/2013

I'm sure it won't be the first time Andy's charged for it.

[quote] OMG, David Ehrenstein will be having major hissy-fits over this news.

Oh, THAT pretentious cunt. Has he been here lately? He's usually spreading his cuntiness over at Towleroad.

by Anonymousreply 5001/10/2013

While you spread yours here, R50.

We're so lucky.

by Anonymousreply 5101/10/2013

R51 I'm in shock. I had no idea Ehrenstein had an actual fan.

by Anonymousreply 5201/10/2013

What is with you, hag?

Delineating the insufferable hypocrisy and journalistic whoredom of Milky Loads into a mere binary bitchfight; this is your Sully-esque way of avoiding his fraudulence, to satisfy your sniping denial?

Did you even read any of the article, or are you just one of his sniveling Log Cabinite devotees who has a Google search result app with his name?

You sad little worm.

by Anonymousreply 5301/10/2013

I dare say that money included one big gift from a rich Log Cabinette, wouldn't you?

by Anonymousreply 5401/10/2013

Yes, Log Cabinites are into FISKING.

"Sullivan took so much glee in attacking war critics, he invented a neologism in the blogger world, "fisking," which describes what happens when a pro-war pundit savages a feeble liberal critic of war, to commemorate what happened when Sullivan savaged leftwing war correspondent Robert Fisk.

As mob leader, Sullivan found ripe targets everywhere. He attacked Susan Sontag and Salon.com founder David Talbot for not showing sufficient enthusiasm for Dubya’s stuttering speeches"

by Anonymousreply 5501/10/2013

Sully has said he was wrong, many times ... what more do you want him to? He also said that the health care system is SO fecked up that perhaps single payer is the ONLY way to fix it, after ranting about the "evils" of the British NHS.

I'm NOT thrilled with his attitude at times, but he's not ALL bad. (See: "Obama fucked up that debate SO badly, Romney is now President-elect!")

by Anonymousreply 5601/10/2013

" what more do you want him to?"

He could go back to merry olde England, shut the fuck up, or just die.

by Anonymousreply 5701/10/2013

Ehrenstein should have been arrested years ago when he started posting for Sullivan to die and that someone should kill him. Looks like he's back.

by Anonymousreply 5801/10/2013

Your deranged obsession with a Ehrenstein is typical of the snide tactic used by Milky Loads' sycophantic Log Cabinites.

Anything to distract from the multiple examples of the teabag's schizoid sociopathic scribblings, eh, trollina?

by Anonymousreply 5901/11/2013

R59 -- are you the same poster representing Sully's spouse as a lazy leech?

by Anonymousreply 6001/11/2013

R60, can you even TRY to address the multiple wrongs Sullivan has committed against basic ethical journalism?

No, all you sycophants can do is drudge up long-absent boogie men to falsely portray this porcine bloviator as some kind of victim.

Are you really this pathetic, or are you, like him, pothead balding chubs who think your every thought is worthy of being published?

by Anonymousreply 6101/11/2013

Chub??? I thought Sully HATES anyone the least bit overweight, no?

How do you know so much about his personal life?

by Anonymousreply 6201/11/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.