Posted on 10/11/2009 3:17:53 PM PDT by fiscon1
always say I love numbers because numbers don't lie. I recently scanned Michelle Malkin's site, Michael Gaynor's site, and Anita Moncrief's site, and what I discovered is rather illuminating. For instance, on Michelle Malkin's site, Anita Moncrief is mentioned in more pieces (25-19) than Wade Rathke. In other words, if you relied primarily on Michelle Malkin's site for your news, you'd think that Anita Moncrief is more important to the ACORN story than the long time CEO of the group, Wade Rathke. Wade Rathke is known by almost all that follow ACORN whereas Moncrief is relatively unknown by most that don't follow Malkin's site. (Moncrief blew the whistle on ties between ACORN and Obama among other things. Her story became infamous when it was discovered that the New York Times buried her information in the lead up to the election) Furthermore, all but one of the stories started on May 18th. So, in just under five months, Malkin has written 23 times about Anita Moncrief. In that time, the only person I've found mentioned more times by Malkin is the President. (there may be others but I didn't have time to search every name in the world) Each and every time Malkin mentions Moncrief Malkin uses the monikor, whistle blower, and all articles present Moncrief in a positive light.
(Excerpt) Read more at theeprovocateur.blogspot.com ...
If the entire world is commenting on one person and not on another, wouldn't it be a good strategy to write about the person no one else is discussing?
After carefully reading the piece, I'm at a loss what the supposed corruption is. In less than the thousands of words the author unsuccessfully uses to highlight it, can you spell it out?
P.S. If you this writer, you may want to suggest another line of work.
Sure. Malkin misconstrued who Moncrief is. She constantly referred to her as a whistle blower while rarely pointing out the theft that lead to her ouster from Project Vote that eventually lead to her whistle blowing. She misconstrued Moncrief’s role in the ACORN scandal. She made Moncrief the center of whistle blowing in all the corruption whereas in reality a lot of people blew the whistle and Malkin only mentions Moncrief as a whistle blower.
Meanwhile, Gaynor also puffed Moncrief up so that she took credit for a lot more than she was responsible for. As such, the two of them became more of a PR dept for Moncrief and not journalists. Meanwhile, Gaynor acted as a hatchet man for Moncrief for all enemies. Then, Gaynor would quote Malkin in support of glowing columns about Moncrief. Finally, Malkin quoted Gaynor in attacking one of Moncrief’s enemies.
Finally, Moncrief initially didn’t like either Malkin or Gaynor and only learned to like them after she was sued and needed them to continue her platform.
None of this is ever revealed by any of the three, and if you don’t think that’s corrupt, don’t complain about left wing corruption.
Again, if this were Peter Beinart and Andrew Sullivan, I think everyone here would be talking about how wonderful this piece of investigative journalism is. Since it’s Malkin everyone suddenly can’t understand where the corruption is and they attack the author.
If you think there isn’t something fishy about a random whistleblower being mentioned more often in the ACORN story than the former CEO then what can I tell you.
A good idea is to write the truth. Anita Moncrief is not more important in the ACORN story than Wade Rathke. So, she shouldn’t be mentioned more often than him. Furthermore, Malkin credits her with every single break in the case. That’s of course not true either. Malkin presents Moncrief as something simply is not. She misconstrues Moncrief and Gaynor is her partner in crime in it. Worse than that, they quote each other to build their cases in propping up Moncrief.
This is very revealing. If this were all liberals, I don’t think that everyone would have trouble understanding all this.
Determining what is important by the number of times a name is mentioned is borderline malpractice.
YOu keep calling Michelle Malkin a journalist. So far as I can tell, Michelle was never a “journalist”, she’s an opinion writer and a book author, who writes opinions on a web site and sometimes breaks news stories.
You seem to have a personal stake in this. What is your relation to the author? Are you the author (you write as clearly)? Are you a sock puppet?
You keep calling it a corrupt relationship. She has a source. The writer has eight; go for it. If he disagrees with what Malkin’s source is saying, based on what his eight sources say, then thats a story. But it sounds like his sources are saying essentially the same thing. So great.
With eight sources he ought to be able to write rings around her.
So where’s the picture of Michelle? You know the rules . . . . . . . .
Malkin writes about ACORN plenty. If you think that Anita Moncrief is more critical to the ACORN story than Wade Rathke that is your problem. It’s indicative of her corruption that Moncrief is mentioned more often than Rathke. That’s a symptom of the problem. What Malkin has done is elevated Moncrief to something she’s not and it’s because she miscontrues what she’s done and what she hasn’t done.
Meanwhile, Gaynor is both her p.r. machine and hatchet man against all enemies. Worse than that, Malkin and Gaynor trade quotes of each other either to build up Moncrief or to tear down her enemies. Both have the exact same source.
Furthermore, Moncrief didn’t like either in the beginning and only came around after she got sued.
So, if you all think it’s cool for a journalist to act as someone’s p.r. person that’s fine, but then don’t complain when the New York Times does it.
It’s not about what one person knows compared to another. It’s about Malkin totally and completely misconstruing who Moncrief is to build up her source into something she isn’t. If you only read Malkin, you’d think that everything we know about ACORN we know from Moncrief. That’s how Malkin makes it seem. She’s written about her 23 times since May. That’s a lot to write about someone that blew the whistle about a year ago. Furthermore, she doesn’t reveal that she only blew the whistle after she was fired. Don’t you think that’s something that needs to be revealed each and every time she talks about her.
The worst part is how her and Gaynor use each other to either, build up Moncrief or to tear down Moncrief’s opponents. Two journalists bothr rely on one source exclusively. Each build up that source and make them into a hero. Then, they use each other to build evidence that she’s a hero and to tear down her opponents.
Given that both Gaynor and Malkin both exclusively talk only to Moncrief, do you think it was right that Malkin quoted Gaynor to attack Michael McCray, who Moncrief considers a rival. Don’t you think that’s totally corrupt?
What’s happening is that two journalists are doing the bidding for one source. They’re her mouthpiece. Do you think it’s merely a coincidence that Gaynor used to like ACORN 8 and then stopped liking them as soon as Moncrief did? Do you think it’s mere coincidence that the two journalists that use the same source are always quoting each other?
I’ll try one more time. What, if any, is your relationship to the author of this piece?
I can't refute the piece because I got bored after the first hour; I haven't found the point yet.
Since you like Malkin, you try and change the topic.
Actually I find Malkin humorless and tiresome - I don't have a dog in this fight; I just care about clear and concise writing. This piece is neither, though the point may be valid, if anyone has any idea what it is.
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.
No, I would be critical of a poorly-written piece about them as well. I think I tend to be pretty consistent about that - writing skills are important if you want to do any good as a writer.
Look at it this way - if the piece was written better, the point would come through much more clearly. Poor writing is a distraction from the author's goal.
I'll second that question.
And how long can the question be ignored before one begins if the poster is a sock puppet for the author, or the author himself. Then the irony of a sock puppet preaching about ethics enters the picture.
That would indeed be ironic.
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.