Posted on 10/24/2009 8:33:16 AM PDT by fiscon1
Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine we are about four years ago. The leak that Bush was using warrantless wiretaps had just occurred recently. Now, imagine that a spy begins to leak information but to only two sources for the most part. One source is Markos Malitsos of the Daily Kos. The other is a relatively unknown left wing blogger. Imagine that initially the unknown blogger leaked their name recklessly. Then, despite this initial breach of trust, both Kos and this unknown begin to not only write about the story but begin to write endlessly about this leaker and present them in a glowing manner. They do this only at about the time when this source, who was initially a conservative, suddenly becomes a liberal. Meanwhile, the unknown blogger will often quote Kos when making their case about how great the leaker is. At the same time, while Kos uses this leaker as a source, he also allows him to be a blogger on his own site. Not only do Kos and the other blogger write endlessly about how great this leaker is, they also often attack the leakers enemies, real and perceived. Eventually, it gets so bad that Kos begins to quote the unkown blogger when attacking the leakers' enemies. Worse than all of that, while they always write glowingly about the source, they usually don't disclose a piece of information about them that paints them in a bad light.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
LOL, I couldn't have said it better myself.
It is pretty obvious that it was for following that liberal rag's agenda of trashing people like Malkin versus the quality of the article. Thanks for posting though, you gave us a laugh.
No, it’s Malkin’s attempt to prop up a source by willfully excluding pertinent information about her. Whether Moncrief is telling the truth or not is beside the point and none of us know if she is. Malkin is required by journalistic ethics to state each and everytime that Moncrief falsely applied for a Project Vote credit card, used it illegally and was fired for cause by Project Vote, and only after all that happened did she become a whistle blower. If she does that, Moncrief becomes a lot less credible. That’s the substance of the problem.
Furthermore, her and another blogger act as attack dogs for Moncrief’s enemies. They quote each other in support of Moncrief and in attacking Moncrief’s enemies. What isn’t mentioned in the piece is that Malkin suddenly began writing about Moncrief, in glowing terms, two months before her book came out and Moncrief is the central source for Chapter 8 of the book. Of course, she never mentioned that in any of her writings prior to the book.
They don't know who Anita Moncrief is. It's entirely improper to identify her as a whistle blower and not identify her theft. That must be done each and every time because you don't know how much your audience knows.
That would be akin to saying every article about someone has to mention everything they have ever done.
This is one of the most lame-arsed line of attacks I have ever seen. And all because Malkin won't publish you on Hot Air. What a whiner. I can see why she won't even bother responding to your lame attack.
yes, because we all know how notorious the Sun Times’ anti Malkin agenda is. So, that must be it. Yeah, that must be why they did it. Having it published in the Sun Times is as good a defense of the article as everyone here saying they think it was poorly written. That’s about where it’s at.
Laugh all you want it doesn’t bother me. Most articles get a handful of comments, this one seems to be drawing a lot of attention.
Considering that every last comment, other than your own, drips with derision, I'd hardly consider that to be a compliment to your blogging skills.
No, it's about your petulance about Malkin not allowing you on Hot Air. Hence your attacks on Malkin and your previous bashing of Ed Morrisey for purely nonsensical reasons.
Actually, poorly written is only the heart of the matter, although it does contribute a lot to the lack of a coherent argument.
However, having it published in the Sun Times - BLOG section and reading some of the other comments so the background becomes clear does make one word come to mind.
Tool.
If you don’t think that her stealing and misusing a credit card from the very place she now accuses of wrongdoing is pertinent, then I can’t help you. That’s incredibly vital. It’s the main reason why outside of Malkin almost no one will speak to her. It’s why Beck and no one on Fox News will have her on. It’s not only pertinent but it goes directly to her credibility. It’s not as though Malkin doesn’t say Moncrief’s favorite color. She doesn’t mention that the person accusing Project Vote of wrongdoing before they “discovered” the wrongdoing, first they applied falsely for a credit card, then used it for personal items, then had Project Vote fire them, then they turned around and accused Project Vote of wrong doing. That paints a much different picture than saying Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower.
You have mail... :)
Did she start with herself first? Of course, everyone should see the biggest irony of all by now. Malkin has made a killing on the book, Culture of Corruption. The same person that condemns President Obama for a culture of corruption is embroiled in her own. Nothing she accuses Obama of doing is any worse than the complete and total culture of corrupton she's engaging in herself.
You can't be serious. Because Malkin doesn't mention a stolen credit card by a whistleblower, she's just as corrupt as the Obamas and the Obama Admin.
You either are a complete and utter fool or a depraved hack who will attack your betters because they won't let you into their circle. Probably both.
No,the issue is that you are such a jealous idiot that you try to draw moral equivalence between that and the wrongdoings of the Obama Admin. That's no my words. That's yours. And given your admission that Malkin won't publish you on Hot Air, it reveals what you are about. Petty jealousy.
That’s incredibly vital. It’s the main reason why outside of Malkin almost no one will speak to her. It’s why Beck and no one on Fox News will have her on.
Funny, I did a Google search, and without even trying I found that she was on Hannity bac in September. Here's a hint - lying about someone in your blogs is a far worse journalistic offense than what you are complaining about with Malkin.
She doesn’t mention that the person accusing Project Vote of wrongdoing before they “discovered” the wrongdoing, first they applied falsely for a credit card, then used it for personal items, then had Project Vote fire them, then they turned around and accused Project Vote of wrong doing. That paints a much different picture than saying Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower.
So tell us, then - when a mobster turns states evidence, does that mean his testimony is worthless?
Using your logic, it would be.
Here's a hint - instead of trying to make yourself look bigger by attacking Malkin and Ed Morrisey, make yourself better instead. Trust me, you have a long, long, long ways to go to reach that point, so you'd better get started.
If you don’t think that her stealing and misusing a credit card from the very place she now accuses of wrongdoing is pertinent, then I can’t help you. That’s incredibly vital. It’s the main reason why outside of Malkin almost no one will speak to her. It’s why Beck and no one on Fox News will have her on. It’s not only pertinent but it goes directly to her credibility. It’s not as though Malkin doesn’t say Moncrief’s favorite color. She doesn’t mention that the person accusing Project Vote of wrongdoing before they “discovered” the wrongdoing, first they applied falsely for a credit card, then used it for personal items, then had Project Vote fire them, then they turned around and accused Project Vote of wrong doing. That paints a much different picture than saying Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower.
Posting the same jibberish twice doesn’t improve it, moron.
I never said she shouldn’t user her, but she needs to mention everything. If someone is using a mobster as an informant, do you think it would be proper not to mention that.
Actually yes, to both protect the informant from retribution, to make sure what they are informing is the issue, not the informant, and to keep the ankle biters from going after the informant.
Welcome to the ankle biter category.
I didn’t say anything about Obama. I have posted plenty of anti Obama articles. Because Malkin writes against Obama, that gives her the right to dismiss basic journalistic ethics. It doesn’t. She can’t simply dismiss pertinent information about a source. She can’t. You can’t be allowed to call someone a whistle blower everytime you talk about them but then not mention that the same person stole and misused a credit card and only after they were fired did they become a whistle blower. Remember, Moncrief didn’t report on any corruption while collecting a pay check from Project Vote. By that, it looks a lot more as though Moncrief has an axe to grind. If Malkin still believes her that’s fine, but it’s not her job to misconstrue. If she wants to use her information, she can but she must give the whole story so that the audience can decide whether or not to believe it. That’s what she must do.
Using your standard, any article about that person should mention their entire criminal history. That's stupid.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill, apparently out of your own personal vendetta against Hot Air for not publishing you. And attempting to draw moral equivalence between this and the corruption in the Obama Admin is jawdropping. You really are an ass - given the poor quality of your writing, as many others have noted, you need to spend more time improving yourself and less time bashing successful bloggers. Tearing down successful people and playing moral equivalance games is the hallmark of a petty liberal. Which you have revealed yourself to be.
Whatever.
Quite telling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.