"they've been in talks with us about adding The BRAD BLOG to their list of paid homies"

Resist official trolldom Brad.

We still like it here ... we are the BLOG.

Sorry off-topic , but this is big bombshell today at MSNBC out of UK media source> Has John Conyers seen the NEW MEMO leak out of UK today? Media source "Daily Mirror" in UK has been dubious in the past, but (and this is a really big BUT) why did they indict the whistleblowin' leakers if it was not a real documented leaked MEMO???:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153489/

"U.K. charges official with leaking Blair memo>>>
Document allegedly says PM dissuaded Bush push for attack on Al-Jazeera"

One thing I can't understand is--- why is this Pajama Media (OSM) getting so much mention from the big blogs. So what?

There are so many great blogs out there that go under the radar (ah hem), and these Pajama guys, who seem to act like MSM types, get all the pub? Sorry, but why are these guys important again?

I forgot to congratulate Brad for coining "bloglomerate"

Brad, I sincerely hope you don't become a "paid homie".

With Judith Miller as their keynote speaker... can it be any more obvious what kind of people these are?

Judith Miller was obviously well paid for her keynote speech; it was a reward for her going to jail and keeping "quiet" about the truth. This is a nice message to anybody else that know things that could bring down the Whitehouse: "Keep quiet, even go to jail for us, and you will be well compensated afterwards".

Brad, consider the source, not the money.

Would you take money from *anybody*, no matter how ugly their background?

Please keep your self-respect...!

Mikey sez:

With Judith Miller as their keynote speaker... can it be any more obvious what kind of people these are?

Brad, consider the source, not the money.

Would you take money from *anybody*, no matter how ugly their background?

Please keep your self-respect...!

Do I lack self-respect if I take their money and keep it from going to someone else?

If I'm able to do anything and everything I want (just as I do now) but they, instead of advertisers like those you see on the left, give me money, then what's the difference?

I ask those questions in earnest, not to make any particular point or argue in favor of it. And I welcome your thoughts.

And no, I wouldn't take money from *anybody*. A criminal, for example, or someone who forced me to promote something I couldn't believe in (an ad placed for a company who I felt harmed people, for example).

But with the Pajamas folks, I don't believe such comparisons are accurate. And furthermore, I might be able to cause much more trouble from within the "inside" that I do from here. Please do not underestimate either my ability to do so, nor my ability to operate as a free agent no matter who might be paying the bills for it...

For example, I'd happily accept a contract to be a "Fox News Analyst" if they were willing to pay me, and foolish enough to give me air time

Anyway...that's *some* of my thinking for now. I am, as I said, open to all of your thoughts about it however.

How far did Charles lift up his hood before he gave you his offer?

The Fox comparison is bullshit. If you sign on you're helping to lend credibility to a new, floundering rightwing enterprise that will never be remotely close to even in its reporting (look at the board, look at the founders). Fox, unfortunately, is a done deal. And, believe it or not, even more they're even more "fair and balanced."

"they've been in talks with us about adding The BRAD BLOG to their list of paid homies"

Brad,
some things should be beyond simple debate. somethings are so important that they warrant action, and people need good sources of information (like bradblog) to base those actions on. I advice, don't join them. Those people have one common interest, and it is directly opposed to what you are doing. Intellectual flirting may be fun, but it can also be a trojan horse. I advice, don't join them.

Kevin K - I hear ya, though I respectfully disagree. I heard the same from many when they advised NOT debating Ann Coulter or appearing on various Rightwing radio shows (both of which I've done). I disagree that the best thing to do is roll over and let it go as a "done deal." Like it or not, the audiences that watch FNC and listen to Conservative talk radio are huge, and no --- they are not all "in the bag" already. FNC and the radio hosts are, but NOT the audiences. It is *those* audiences that I contend should hear the truth about what's going on. And if I can get to those audiences, I will.

If the choice is, should someone like Susan Estrich go on FNC, I'd agree with you, the answer is no. Because she's lame, doesn't have a prayer and will be their stooge. I will not.

SoJo - Allowing Pajamas to pay me for ad space here means nothing more than that. No content would be compromised in any way. At least not that *I* can think of. If you know something I don't, I'm all ears however.

You take pleasure in the most twisted things...

keep it up

hey i am fully agree to what all you have written here ..
i am lovin this blog...

This is looking really nice stuff..
Well you win my heart..

i am lovin this blog...
This is a cool stuff
:)

http://netWallpapers.com

http://tradealoan.com

Brad, I would love it if you were hired by FOX news and were able to be yourself.

What we don't want is for anyone to "sell their soul to the devil".

What we are talking about here may be the ploy to be used to take over the BLOG.

Rupert Murdoch has signaled the death of some of the media, so they will be moving to the BLOG, while at the same time denying a panic (link here).

For the record, Dredd (and others) the contracts that have been offered to me (which I have yet to accept) all include clauses specifying that I have complete and total control over my blog and its content as usual. There is nothing to allow *anybody* to "take over the blog". So you needn't have concerns along those lines.

It's mostly for *them* to have access to my ad space, and pick up content from my blog as they see fit to run it over at their main site.

But again, no deals have been done yet, and they won't be unless I feel comfortable with same.

You go Brad! I love the thought of you offering yourself as a sacrificial lamb and turning out to be a Trojan Horse! They'd never be that stupid, would they???

Sorry Brad - My Bad! Cross-posting! 2 minutes! I accept it, think a two-minute break is a good idea before committing an infraction (sorry, getting proactive there).

Well Brad,

Thanks for replying to my concerns. This is your blog, after all, and so it is your decision.

I wouldn't bother writing if I didn't think your blog has provided, so far, an invaluable service to all of us.

We all love ya, man.

Brad said:
>>And no, I wouldn't take money from *anybody*. A criminal, for example, or someone who forced me to promote something I couldn't believe in (an ad placed for a company who I felt harmed people, for example)."

That was the exact direction I was leading. If this company backs a point of view that defends the current administration's actions, then they back a point of view which allows: thousands of U.S. soldiers to die, tens of thousands of Iraqi's to die, U.S. agents' lives to be put at risk for the sake of "payback", untold billions of dollars to be taken from the working class and used to enrich corporate friends, etc, etc, etc.

I ask you, do those points (and there are many others) not harm people?

By advertising for them, you WOULD be be promoting their point of view, directing people to it.

The root of Pajama's existence is, in defending the status quo of the U.S. administration, to do its best to help the Whitehouse carry on doing whatever criminal things it wants to do.

So,
(1) Is Pajamas defending (and thus promoting) criminal acts? Yes
(2) Is, therefore, Pajamas harming people? Yes (by obfuscating the debate)
(3) By promoting Pajamas (allowing them to advertise), would you be promoting something you didn't believe in? Yes

Thus, by you own words, it sounds like you wouldn't become one of their homies.

But alas, it is your choice.
******
I know that money can be enticing. What if somebody paid you something huge, like $5,000 a month for example, to advertise on your website?

It would be nice, wouldn't it? You, I, or anybody, would quickly and happily get used to it. After some months, we'd probably come to depend on the availability of this regular payment - maybe even get a mortgage or take out a loan for a new car.

Then, once we're used to it, what would happen if the advertiser suddenly started making little *demands*?

Oops. We really like that money... and we *depend* on it now...Maybe we can appease their demand this *one* time....?

And at that point, you have fallen over the precipice. You know how the rest of the story goes.

Of course, I hear ya, MikeyCan. And I meant it when I appreciate hearing any thoughts you guys may have.

Perhaps I have more confidence in my own ability to stay true to my ideals. Dunno.

But responding to this graf:

If this company backs a point of view that defends the current administration's actions, then they back a point of view which allows: thousands of U.S. soldiers to die, tens of thousands of Iraqi's to die, U.S. agents' lives to be put at risk for the sake of "payback", untold billions of dollars to be taken from the working class and used to enrich corporate friends, etc, etc, etc.

I ask you, do those points (and there are many others) not harm people?

Your point is well taken, but I can see things another way.

That company (Pajamas) is going to exist either way. If I can be plunked down right in the middle talking about what is REALLY going on, perhaps I can make a difference to those people who would otherwise read that garbage and receive no opposing viewpoints.

Similarly, if clicks from here bring BRAD BLOG folks over there, where they can similarly make noise correcting the bullshit from the bad guys, that's a good thing too.

And finally, if links from PJM over to BRAD BLOG makes the work and opinions from this place more available to the type of folks inclined to read PJM, then perhaps we'll also win a few converts that way.

I LOVE going where the wingnuts are. I'd LOVE to be on FOX every damn day countering their bullshit. Yes, I might still be outnumbered over there, but at least we could get the message out to those that have never even heard it, and probably win a few hearts and minds in the bargain.

FOX is going to exist either with me or without me. I believe they are more dangerous to this country without me. Thus, if I can get in there, then the end result, in theory, is good.

I think the same can be said about PJM. Though, yes, I'm still cautious about it all.

Oh, and lastly, advertising for --- say --- Exxon Mobile only helps Exxon Mobile, which is a very bad company.

There is a distinction, in other words, between what I referred to originally as supporting a bad company and working with PJM in some way.

But again, I continue to appreciate *all* of your thoughts on all of this as they strike you.

Brad,

How are the discussions with Pajamas going?

Another thought *has* struck me:

If you do sign with Pajamas any, your freedom to report on Pajamese will be greatly limited.

What if, for example, you found out that Judith Miller was paid an outrageous amount of money, like $50,000, to be keynote speaker for Pajamas' grand opening?

This would be something that the Brad *I* know would want to make "siren" news. But your contracts with Pajamas would limit your ability to report on or otherwise criticize Pajamas' own actions.