Instapundit writes that he's been misrepresented in a Newsweek article by Steven Levy. Glenn is a nicer guy than I am; he assumes that Levy didn't mean to misrepresent his remark. I on the other hand, when chosing between assuming Levy is incompetent or biased, will side with biased, since he is a national columnist, and must therefore possess a bare minimum competence at his profession.
So, I sent him an email. (Oddly, the email link on his article didn't work, so I guessed at his address using the common format for Newsweek. It hasn't bounced yet, so maybe I got lucky.) Presented below is the text, with a few revisions I thought of after hitting the send button.
Hmmm...misusing a quote from Pr. Reynolds is probably not the best way to make a point about the faults of blogging. Glenn has the ability to point out your attempted deception; a fact you should have realized from his traffic. Now there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, that realize you will misuse a quote in service to your story.Ain't that a bitch? (Another bonus of blogging; we're allowed to use vernacular.)
In fact, your column is Exhibit A of the case against big media. Not only are you transparently biased, you're incompetently biased.
By the way, blogs, particularly the high traffic blogs, are just as relentlessly fact checked as is Big Media. The primary difference is that when a blogger makes a mistake, he corrects it immediately and openly, instead of stonewalling. We can't say the same thing about CBS now, can we? 'Forged, but accurate?' Please!
Speaking of Rathergate, why shouldn't a third rate forgery attempting to sway a Presidential election not receive equal coverage as did a third rate burglary attempting to sway a Presidential election? The only real difference is that this time, the successors to Woodward and Bernstein aren't reporting the story, they ARE the story.
No wonder you don't want to cover it.
As for Kerry's health care policy, we'd be happy to talk about it if he would. So far, his plan consists of a series of objectives, with no clear plans on how to reach those objectives. It's all cotton candy, and there's very little to analyse. This makes for great campaigning, but doesn't leave a lot to talk about. He wants to help sick kids. Cool. Who doesn't? Let me turn it around for you. Why does the press allow the candidates, and I'm talking about both parties now, get away with such weak platforms? Where are the hard questions? When Bush or Kerry comes up with some wonderful new program to extend healthcare to everyone, why aren't there any reporters asking for details, like how are we going to pay for it? Do your job, and we won't have to.
Additionally, Kerry himself chose to make his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, making it fair game for examination, a fact he encouraged with his 'Bring! It! On!' speech.
We did.
By the way, tell me how this represents the high road. Sex on a college campus is news? Naah. but it will sell a few copies now, won't it?
Finally, as a very active and involved ankle-biter, I just want to make sure that you realize that once that achilles tendon is removed, gravity will ensure that the jugular is right there in reach. Underestimate us at your own expense.
So, what do you think? Was I too hard on the guy?
Posted by Rich at September 28, 2004 1:19 AM | TrackBackRich,
Have you gone over the edge? Partisan politics is one thing,..dogmatic doggerel is another altogether. Come back.
I'd be happy to; but it'll take some work from the other side.
What exactly about the letter was over the edge?
Other than the achilles tendon to jugular thing? (It was late, and I hadn't had much sleep.)
Levy did misuse a quote from Reynolds, is downplaying the seriousness of Rathergate, and is asking to talk about issues that even Kerry fails to talk about.
I mean, look at Kerry's speech today. Bush has a secret plan to hurt dairy farmers, so I'm going to help you.
What was that all about?
I am very interested in the issues, and I'd love for a Kerry supporter to come here and debate the issues. In fact, I issued an open call for just that very thing. We could dissect the platforms of both cadidates, and see whose vision is the more realistic. I note that despite the rather ardent democrats that read this site, nobody took me up on the offer.
BTW, I keep getting called partisan for some reason, and I'm not sure it's appropriate. A closer read will show that I don't defend Bush so much as I go after the dishonest attacks on him from the left. Attack him on Homeland Security, and I'll be liable to agree with you. Attack him on the Patriot Act and I'm probably ahead of you. Attack him on the explosive growth in the Federal Government in 4 years, and you'll get an Amen from this corner. Attack him on faith based initiatives or the Constitutional Amendment to Save Marriage, and we can go grab a beer together (Coke for me actually) Attack him on the conduct of the Iraqi War, and we'll talk about it, but be prepared to offer alternatives that weren't tried. In short, address real issues honestly, and we'll have some fun.
But don't expect me to sit here and listen to the trumped up BS being thrown out by the left in an all out attempt to win this election and not say something. It's not going to happen. How is Bush's TANG service 30 years ago relevant? And if it is, then why isn't Kerry's service subjected to the same level of scrutiny? Mapes has been diggin into Bush's TANG service for 5 years. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Heck, Mafia crime families are taken down in less time.
Bob, most of this rant is not directed at you; rather, it is an explanation of why the tone here has changed a bit over the last few months.
I'm just trying to keep it clean.
BUt it is nice to hear from you. I thought you'd taken off someplace. I hope things are going well for you.
http://ankle-biter.blogspot.com/. =)
Posted by: Christopher on September 29, 2004 4:23 PM