Incite v. Insight
A letter to the editor of the NJ’s Courier Post eloquently expresses what observers have long understood:
A member of the opinion class, [Michelle Malkin] makes her living by being perpetually irate.
In her column, she served up her usual dish of half-truths covered with a venemous sauce of sarcasm, ridicule and contempt for those whose ideas differ from hers. Her columns are meant to incite rather than provide insight. Given a pile of bricks, she’d throw them at others rather than build a bridge.
[Link]
NB — the specific column the reader refers to is listed at the top of the letter; not that it really matters.
If the letter to the editor is actually legitimate, then one would have to assume the writer has never visited any of the left-wing blogs such as Dailykos or HuffPo.
Because if the writer had visited those sites, he/she would be forced to include them with the letter.
.
Comment by JBenson2 — August 10, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
So assuming that this letter is legit, and assuming that the writer is pointing a finger at Malkin for irate and vicious writing, it’s only fair that he/she should also mention irate and vicious bloggers from the left. That makes sense. Assuming the writer is pointing out one person for the malicious views he/she expresses, the rest of the many vicious bloggers are worth mentioning as well, right? Which is why I agree. They should be included in the letter. Along with Malkin.
But wait…if they should be included with Malkin, wouldn’t that mean that Malkin is the same as the irate and vicious left bloggers you think the writer should include?
Comment by RavenStar — August 11, 2006 @ 1:11 am
Geez. Ever since this thing about the mocked up Reuters photos took the ’sphere by storm, everything’s a possible fake, huh? Because of the public-record aspect that LTTEs take, they nearly always contain the writer’s full name and the town or subdivision they live in. This one appears to be no different. Look up and call Daniel Smith of Williamstown, NJ and ask him if he actually wrote it if you’d like to verify legitimacy.
I can’t tell if you clicked through to read the whole thing, and that certainly isn’t a requirement for commenting, but the actual letter is contrasting Michelle’s column with that of another commentator. The columns apparently ran in the print edition of the paper. It’s not unlikely that the letter’s author is unfamiliar with Michelle’s online presence or book publications.
News junkies that we are, we endanger our perspectives if we don’t remind ourselves that blogs are far from being mainstream news sources. If you asked the average person what “Daily Kos” means, they’d probably say it’s something with the day of the week printed on it that keeps a can of beer cold.
See above. It’s not as if every two bit shrill lib is given column space in this particular newspaper. No need to include ‘em.
Comment by Ryan — August 11, 2006 @ 1:52 am
Actually, JBenson2, if one were looking for more right-wing shrillness, one only needs to follow the puddles of foamy drool to your blog.
Try again when you’re through with the three-syllable chapter of Vocabulary for Dummies. No need to work anymore on the Anglo-Saxon monosyllables.
Comment by Henri Alleg — August 11, 2006 @ 2:32 am
Daniel Smith, eh? Sounds like an islamofascist to me.
Comment by bvac — August 11, 2006 @ 3:02 am
Isn’t time for Ryan to admit he has a crush on Michelle Malkin? Otherwise, why would he be so obsessed with her even to the point of noting her lipstick and clothing and undergarments.
Comment by Jorge — September 27, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Jorge’s middle name is non sequitur. He also obviously has a crush on me.
P.S. I do not have a crush on Michelle Malkin. I can’t really go that far into it. It’s somewhat embarrassing.
Comment by Ryan — September 30, 2006 @ 4:29 pm