I didn’t say anything about Obama. I have posted plenty of anti Obama articles. Because Malkin writes against Obama, that gives her the right to dismiss basic journalistic ethics. It doesn’t. She can’t simply dismiss pertinent information about a source. She can’t. You can’t be allowed to call someone a whistle blower everytime you talk about them but then not mention that the same person stole and misused a credit card and only after they were fired did they become a whistle blower. Remember, Moncrief didn’t report on any corruption while collecting a pay check from Project Vote. By that, it looks a lot more as though Moncrief has an axe to grind. If Malkin still believes her that’s fine, but it’s not her job to misconstrue. If she wants to use her information, she can but she must give the whole story so that the audience can decide whether or not to believe it. That’s what she must do.
Quite telling.
Well then, since you're playing the roll of whistle blower on Michelle Malkin, perhaps it would behoove you to be up front with everyone here about yourself. Hold yourself to the same standard you want to hold everyone else to. I think you know what I'm referring to...something you haven't announced as yet in this thread.
“...basic journalistic ethics...”
You keep mentioning this concept of “journalistic ethics.” Can you please point us to the governing association responsible for assuring such ethics are, indeed, ever followed? Perhaps you can tell us the authority that certifies actual “journalists?”
Last I heard, there was no license needed for being called a “journalist,” nor was there any set of standards a “journalist” was required to follow. That’s why such a term really means, literally, nothing.