My philosophical differences with the Santa Fe Reporter


Since I confronted the Santa Fe Reporter earlier this spring for their spin and biased reporting they have not only been interested in attacking me as being heavily influenced by my personal ideology, but they have also gone personal.  First asking to meet with me, then offering to have me on the Santa Fe Reporter’s podcast program.  The requests from the SFR were harmless enough (though one approach from Alexa Schirtzinger was rather forceful and sinister).

When I didn’t begin arrangements to meet the Santa Fe Reporter’s Alexa Schirtzinger or agree to be a guest on the Weekly Word podcast with Santa Fe Reporter writer Joey Peters, Peters took another path.

One dog picture:

Two dog pictures:

Then a very strange message:

Peters seems to have me confused with somebody by the name of ‘Rebecca.’  While I can’t fault him for his curiosity, the approach Peters chose is inappropriate, unprofessional and (to be honest) a bit creepy.

Yesterday I wrote about Alexa Schirtzinger blocking me on Twitter and my thoughts on her actions which make it clear she is biased (read here).  To the aforementioned I received interesting responses.

Joey Peters Santa Fe Reporter’s Staff Writer was the first to come to speak out:

Alexa Schirtzinger, Santa Fe Reporter’s Editor:

Addressing the issues with the Santa Fe Reporter

Alexa and Joey,

I believe we (whether it’s you and I, or my approach to thinking as contrasted with the Santa Fe Reporter mentality) have fairly basic, fundamental differences in philosophy.

For me, the philosophy of government, the development of a worldview, and practical politics itself, are all about ideas. For many on the Left, so-called “progressives” et al., it’s too often about personalities. I prefer argumentation that goes to the central point of the idea being discussed— causing participants to reflect on, and ask the question: Does this make sense? Whether the criterion is economic, historical, demographic, cultural or just simply political. I practice argumentum ad rem. And I get frustrated when people cannot defend their viewpoints and begin substituting name-calling for real debate, in other words when people respond argumentum ad hominem—as if it makes a difference ‘who’ I am as opposed to ‘what’ I believe, and what I am positing.

So it is with your, and apparently the entire Santa Fe Reporter’s, obsession with who I am. Fairly or unfairly, that approach sends the signal that you’re out of ideas—that you have given up on defending your ideology, that you’re just not able to answer questions point by point.

In contrast, I would be happy to exchange ideas, answer any and all questions you may have, engage in dialog, and have you answer questions too. My focus is on the argument to the idea, not the argument to the person.

– Politix Fireball

5 thoughts on “My philosophical differences with the Santa Fe Reporter

  1. They want to know ‘who’ you are so they can do the usual leftist thing, attack the messenger (and ignore the message). Stand your ground 🙂


  2. Dear Political Fireball:

    The SF Reporter’s politics and agenda are easy to discern. Some of their methods are not. Contrary to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics they will record telephone calls and interviews without permission or knowledge (the SF Reporter refused to disclose whether they just recorded conservatives or Republicans via this dishonest practice, or whether they recorded their liberal “sources” as well). Contrary to the Code of Ethics they will then make very selective portions of the audio available that exclude all the context and anything inconsistent with their pre-conceived story line. The SF Reporter is slanted, biased, irresponsible and ethically challenged.

    Don’t spend any more time on the SF Reporter until they do an honest story and stop avoiding the donkey in the room, ie Loera, Corwin, Davis and Bregman. Any such honest story would have to include the text, the details or a summary of the federal and state, criminal and civil laws concerning the theft, use and dissemination of stolen emails.


  3. How is this even legal? I am legit scared of what social media has turned into. If we don’t share the same beliefs or opinions we get attacked? Our personal pics get posted? How does this make us any different than the terrorist that attack us because of our religious choices?
    This is a whole new level of cyber bullying. Again I don’t understand how this is legal! This is America where we are allowed to disagree and shouldn’t worry about personal attacks. No justification for these actions. These folks should be ashamed of themselves. I hope they leave your personal life out of it. Sorry for the rant.


    1. Thank you for sharing!

      At this point nothing illegal has been done by these people at the Santa Fe Reporter in regard to their attempts to uncover my identity as far as I know. They made wrong calculations.

      The troubling thing is that these Leftist operatives claim to be doing this under the banner of ‘journalism.’ As this story unfolds it becomes increasingly obvious that they’re not journalists, but mouthpieces for the Democrat Party of New Mexico, and the entire leftist crew: Bregman, Corwin, etc.

      I, too, hope that these ‘journalists’ will come to their senses and strive toward achieving some level of integrity.


Your comments and criticism are welcomed and encouraged. Please keep it "G-rated."

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s