Soros Can\’t Pay Your Way Into The Fourth Estate
May 9th, 2007 by 
Kevin
So the fortunate and sane amongst you may not be familiar with Minnesota Monitor (Mini Money). Here\’s the background, basically George Soros paid a bunch of leftists bloggers to pretend they are \”reporters\” and run a \”magazine\”. I\’m serious, these are words they actually use to describe themselves. They even have a \”Code of Ethics\” which apparently they think makes them real \”reporters\” despite the fact that they ignore those \”ethics\” on almost a daily basis.
And apparently they actually take themselves seriously. As when some runs an obvious prank by them, they trip all over themselves to use it to smear the GOP but then cry foul when they are made to look the fool as a result. Jeff \”fecal\” Fecke is now crying he was \”lied\” to. Look Mr. \”Reporter\”, did you follow up on anything? Did you do any sort of research? Check any of it for consistency? You know, things a reporter would have done.
Let\’s face it, anyone reading the responses should have known something was up. Then again, considering the model this group of \”reporters\” and \”editors\” has to work from, I guess maybe we shouldn\’t be surprised. The Mini Money clan, despite their protestations to the contrary were just looking for a hatchet job on the GOP. They got floated bait and they bit, and now are crying foul when they realized the bait had a hook in it.
Maybe certain parties will stop taking them seriously and recognize them for what they are, George Soros funded political hacks looking to publish propaganda dressed up as news.
…
…
Actually, to their credit, that\’s what most real news organizations are too. Maybe they are \”reporters\”. No that would give them too much credit. Just because you\’re paid to report propaganda, that doesn\’t mean you\’re a reporter.
My fellow co-conspirators offer up their tales of debauchery.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in Damn Dirty Hippies, Ecker Exploits, Events of the Blogosphere, Local Events | 
6 Comments »
May 9th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
[…] Now read the rest from Kevin! […]
May 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Kevin,
Thanks for your interest in MinMon and our coverage. However, we do take our code of ethics and our work on the site very seriously, and do not, as you somewhat falsely imply, “ignore those ‘ethics’ on almost a daily basis.”
Name-calling against Jeff Fecke doesn’t make your argument that we should have known Aplikowski’s responses were a joke any stronger. Quite the contrary. If Mr. Aplikowski (and his friends, apparently) wanted his responses to be treated as a joke, he either should have made it clear he wasn’t taking the interview seriously or not done the interview at all. But Jeff went into it with an open mind, and despite incredulity at some of Aplikowski’s answers, wrote it as a straight news story anyway.
As for your concerns that there was no research, I’m not sure which claims you wanted us to research. “I’m not sure about your boy Obama” perhaps? Wondering about how Bill Clinton would sneak “nappy-headed hos” into the White House under “Shrillary’s” nose? These aren’t researchable topics, and were given in the context of an interview with someone we considered interview-worthy for his firebrand reputation and continual activism for the Republican Party of Minnesota.
However, we’ll be sure to take your concerns into account in our future coverage. Thanks!
May 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Wow, you just don’t get it do you??
“despite incredulity at some of Aplikowski’s answers, wrote it as a straight news story anyway”
Remember that old saying, “if it’s too good to be true, it is”.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
“But Jeff went into it with an open mind”
Perhaps one can be too open minded. Do you think that’s possible?
And perhaps we can dispense with the glamorous “news story” label too and call it what it actually was: a blog posting.
*shakes head* Give some people a few pennies and it goes to their head.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Fecke’s recent liveblog of Coleman’s speech was rather snarky rather than straight “just the facts ma’am” reporting – and that’s an example of something that could be fairly criticized at Minnesota Monitor.
But Fecke did nothing wrong with his coverage of Aplikowski. In fact, he bent over backward to avoid making the story a hatchet job pull quoting Aplikowski’s more outrageous quotes. What’s to follow up on, when Aplikowski went on the record with his quotes – in writing. Fecke was using a primary source.
Also “fecal” Fecke? Grow up.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Did someone say something?