[dalebert]

so?

[jessduntno]

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.

She is...or will be...

[ReneeLynn]

Oh, the huge manatee!

(I just had to do it.)

[YHAOS]

Over here! Over here! Don’t look over there! Look over here!

[jessduntno]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2120637/posts

[marron]

All sorts of folks have presented evidence and information related to wrongdoing on ACORN's part. Yet, if you were to only read Gaynor and Malkin, you'd be under the impression that the only whistle blower was Moncrief.

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.

[xjcsa]

The real scandal here is the author’s use of about 20,000 words without ever actually saying anything. Pithy, it’s not.

[Raycpa]

whereas Moncrief is relatively unknown by most that don't follow Malkin's site.

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?

[decisis]

So where’s the picture of Michelle? You know the rules . . . . . . . .