First, if I said Malkin, I apologize, I meant Moncrief however I was describing things that Moncrief did so it should have been obvious who I was talking about. Malkin is their contributor.
You don’t mention it on occasion but every time. People don’t read all your work. Many people only read one article and so they won’t know what you said before.
As for her book, when Gaynor says she addressed it was one sentence that says, “Moncrief who was fired for charging up a company credit card for less than $2000.” That’s it. She spent a full chapter on her and that sentence. Again, it’s beside the point. What if I didn’t read her book. What if this is the first time I’ve read Michelle Malkin. Then, she says that Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower. I won’t know the whole story. That’s why journalistically you have to mention it every time. You have to treat your audience as though they’ve never read your work before.
No, you don't. That is your own standard, and a contrived one from that. And coming from someone who flat-out lied about Malkin not being allowed on Fox, it seems to me that YOU are the one who needs to re-examine your journalistic ethics.
Ah, good to see at least that.
So tell us - why did you write previously that you thought Malkin should not get paid as a journalist?
Why did you mention on this blog entry that Malkin wouldn't have you in her Green Room?
Why did you engage in the absurd attempt at moral equivalence between Malkin and the Obama Administration?
Why do you make the absurd distinction that a whistleblower would not print out proprietary information and spread it without permission of those who want it kept secret?
And why do you refuse to acknowledge that Malkin, through Moncrief, broke the story that the Acorn embezzlement was more like $5 million, not $1 million, a claim since verified by another source?
In other words, why are you being a petty, jealous little ankle humper against folks that are doing actual journalism?