See post 65. The information has been provided. Over and over again.
You raise some kind of absurd journalistic standard that it must be mentioned in utterly every writing about her. Meanwhile, you made up a completely bogus allegation about Malkin - that Fox won't have her on. A rather strange allegation, give Malkin was just on last month (and that came from less than five minutes with Google) and Malkin has a contributors profile on the Fox News website. So you lie through your teeth on this thread, and the have the temerity to question ANYONE's journalistic ethics? What a pantload.
The reason we are ripping into your pathetic a** is that some folks might believe your lies. So that is why you are getting shredded here.
First, if I said Malkin, I apologize, I meant Moncrief however I was describing things that Moncrief did so it should have been obvious who I was talking about. Malkin is their contributor.
You don’t mention it on occasion but every time. People don’t read all your work. Many people only read one article and so they won’t know what you said before.
As for her book, when Gaynor says she addressed it was one sentence that says, “Moncrief who was fired for charging up a company credit card for less than $2000.” That’s it. She spent a full chapter on her and that sentence. Again, it’s beside the point. What if I didn’t read her book. What if this is the first time I’ve read Michelle Malkin. Then, she says that Anita Moncrief is a whistle blower. I won’t know the whole story. That’s why journalistically you have to mention it every time. You have to treat your audience as though they’ve never read your work before.