No, it’s Malkin’s attempt to prop up a source by willfully excluding pertinent information about her. Whether Moncrief is telling the truth or not is beside the point and none of us know if she is. Malkin is required by journalistic ethics to state each and everytime that Moncrief falsely applied for a Project Vote credit card, used it illegally and was fired for cause by Project Vote, and only after all that happened did she become a whistle blower. If she does that, Moncrief becomes a lot less credible. That’s the substance of the problem.
Furthermore, her and another blogger act as attack dogs for Moncrief’s enemies. They quote each other in support of Moncrief and in attacking Moncrief’s enemies. What isn’t mentioned in the piece is that Malkin suddenly began writing about Moncrief, in glowing terms, two months before her book came out and Moncrief is the central source for Chapter 8 of the book. Of course, she never mentioned that in any of her writings prior to the book.
No, it's about your petulance about Malkin not allowing you on Hot Air. Hence your attacks on Malkin and your previous bashing of Ed Morrisey for purely nonsensical reasons.
Come on now, when's your statement forthcoming?
Unfortunately, I know nothing more about this whole situation other than this blogger’s writeup and now, your additional information. The gist of the blogger’s article seems to only pull together what I note in my prior post.
That said, can you please show me where “journalistic ethics” define the need to list when a source did something with a credit card application which allegedly got them fired, therefore potentially discrediting the whistleblowing that source then does?
Personally, I don't think there's ever been a whistleblower that wasn't accused by their former company of being less than perfect on the job in an attempt to discredit the source.