Loving AttackWatch's new layout! http://www.attackwatch.com/
Compared to the site a few weeks ago I think it has real potential to become a great source for fact checking news even if the website name is a bit overdramatic.
Sure, people can continue to laugh with calls of "big brother" and "1984" but with the likes of Bachmann and Perry in the ranks of the right, I'm not concerned over a few additional fact-checking, smear-fighting websites. If anything, we need more.
My hope is the Obama campaign keeps the website going. As I've stated, with how long the rumors of the President not being a citizen persisted, and with the percentage of Americans still thinking the President is Muslim this website could be useful. Hopefully the campaign stands by it.
I can see defensive as it's a website designed to fact check and dispel rumors but I'm not sure I would call it a sign of weakness. Assuming Attackwatch doesn't twist information ( a whole other debate), how is correcting others a sign of weakness?
I think it makes him look a little paranoid. He's already got www.fightthesmears.com from 2008.
They really should take it down since they are getting spammed so much, and the site doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything except making a joke of itself.
5 comments:
Loving AttackWatch's new layout!
http://www.attackwatch.com/
Compared to the site a few weeks ago I think it has real potential to become a great source for fact checking news even if the website name is a bit overdramatic.
Sure, people can continue to laugh with calls of "big brother" and "1984" but with the likes of Bachmann and Perry in the ranks of the right, I'm not concerned over a few additional fact-checking, smear-fighting websites. If anything, we need more.
oh. i didn't answer the question.
My hope is the Obama campaign keeps the website going. As I've stated, with how long the rumors of the President not being a citizen persisted, and with the percentage of Americans still thinking the President is Muslim this website could be useful. Hopefully the campaign stands by it.
But doesn't it make POTUS look weak and defensive?
I can see defensive as it's a website designed to fact check and dispel rumors but I'm not sure I would call it a sign of weakness. Assuming Attackwatch doesn't twist information ( a whole other debate), how is correcting others a sign of weakness?
I think it makes him look a little paranoid. He's already got www.fightthesmears.com from 2008.
They really should take it down since they are getting spammed so much, and the site doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything except making a joke of itself.
Btw, I put that poster up above my cubicle.
Post a Comment