[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.

[fiscon1]

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?