Replies

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.

Ah, good to see at least that.

So tell us - why did you write previously that you thought Malkin should not get paid as a journalist?

Why did you mention on this blog entry that Malkin wouldn't have you in her Green Room?

Why did you engage in the absurd attempt at moral equivalence between Malkin and the Obama Administration?

Why do you make the absurd distinction that a whistleblower would not print out proprietary information and spread it without permission of those who want it kept secret?

And why do you refuse to acknowledge that Malkin, through Moncrief, broke the story that the Acorn embezzlement was more like $5 million, not $1 million, a claim since verified by another source?

In other words, why are you being a petty, jealous little ankle humper against folks that are doing actual journalism?

I never said that Malkin wouldn’t have me in the green room and if I did it was entirely by accident. Find it and I will explain.

If you are a corrupt journalist, you shouldn’t make money as a journalist.

I never said anything about the Obama administration here. I said that corruption is corruption and it’s inexcusable no matter what and it shouldn’t be excused just because you agree with someone’s ideology, which I do with Malkin.

You aren’t allowed to remove proprietery information from a company and release to outsiders without their permission. Do you even know what she released?

Neither Malkin nor Moncrief broke that. What Malkin said was that Moncrief told the New York Times about that figure. That figure was used in a board meeting. Moncrief wasn’t on the board, so she couldn’t have broken it. Even if she knew about the figure, she would have gotten it from someone who was at the meeting. That figure is still not confirmed. There were all sorts of numbers thrown out at that meeting and so no one knows how much the embezzlement is for.

This isn’t petty. Malkin used Moncrief as her main source for a chapter in her book. Then, began to write over and over about Moncrief in anticipation for that book. She willfully didn’t include pertinent information about Moncrief which obviously paints Moncrief in a better light and as such, it helps her credibility, which by extension helps the credibility of her own book. Never does Malkin disclose prior to the release of her book that this person that she’s suddenly writing a lot about will be featured in her book. So, she paints her in a positive light and then voila, she’s featured in her book. That’s not right.

We all have serious problems with conflicts of interest and non disclosure and there’s mountains here.