Posted on 10/11/2009 3:17:53 PM PDT by fiscon1
so?
She is...or will be...
Oh, the huge manatee!
(I just had to do it.)
Over here! Over here! Don’t look over there! Look over here!
No good without the picture...
And reading this piece, I get it that he doesn't like Malkin but I still don't know much about those other whistleblowers.
Furthermore, I am not the issue.
But the writer is trying to make Malkin the issue. This is mostly a hit piece on Malkin and Moncrief, while not revealing much about Acorn or the Acorn 8 that he says he wishes Malkin would write about. Call it a division of labor. She's got one source; this writer has 8, apparently. You'd think he'd run with it.
Journalistic corruption? If you've got the goods on Acorn, then write your stuff. Sounds like this writer should be able to scoop Malkin if he'd just get after it.
Thank you!
How do you know the writer hasn’t? That’s first. Second, the piece isn’t about what the writer does or doesn’t know about ACORN. It’s about a corrupt relationship between two journalists and a source. Just because a piece is tough on someone doesn’t make it a hit piece.
Malkin is the issue in the piece. Of course. If someone writes a book called culture of corruption is it appropriate to engage in a corrupt relationship of their own?
The real scandal here is the author’s use of about 20,000 words without ever actually saying anything. Pithy, it’s not.
Attacking the messenger is typical. If you don’t care about blatant journalistic corruption, that’s fine, just don’t complain about it the next time the New York Times engages in it. That’s all. No one has refuted any of the poiints made, you’ve only attacked the author and tried to change the subject. That’s an inherent admission that you can’t refute the piece. Since you like Malkin, you try and change the topic.
If these exact set of events had occurred but the authors were Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart, everyone here would be praising the piece as brilliant investigative journalism. Instead, the author is mocked.
I did a Google search on “Mike Volpe” (whoever the hell that is) and “Michelle Malkin.” She beats him out about 20-1. And statistics don’t lie.
Maybe mikey and alex jones can go cry in their beer together.
I’ve been dreaming of an unholy alliance with Michelle for years.
“Pithy, it’s not.”
HOW CAN YOU THAY THAT? IT WATH PLENTY PITHY.
Hmmm... trying again...
rightwingnews.com/2009/10/the-obama-justice-departments-secret-blogging-team-is-it-illegal/
Surely a lot of the Mike Volpe hits are fake. Volpe is a much more common surname than Malkin in cyberspace.
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.