"you're putting me to sleep...kiss me, you fool!"
Posted on 02/18/2005 8:31:18 AM PST by Valin
Hey kids, check out my nifty new tagline above. (Thanks to my web guru, Mark Jaquith, for the design.) You like? I think it's a keeper.
If you don't get the allusion, click on the asterisk for a refresher and then come on back here and read on. I've got a calm, cool, and collected bit to say about this.
Wall Street Journal editorial writer Bret Stephens appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show last night to defend his paper's strange and snotty treatment of the Eason Jordan "kerfuffle." (Full transcript at Radioblogger.)
I found the following remarks, in which the cheesed-off Stephens contrasts what he considers irresponsible bloggers with their grown-up MSM counterparts, particularly amusing:
If someone is going to get attacked, and attacked really viciously, I think there is an obligation to give the other guy a chance to give his side of the story. "This is what we here at the Wall Street Journal try to do," Stephens told Hewitt, as opposed to the meanie, non-professional bloggers who raised questions about Stephens' possible conflict of interest in the matter.
Oh, really? Because I didn't get any phone call or e-mail from Stephens before he singled me out by name for a noxious personal attack in his Feb. 10 op-ed, which pooh-poohed the reporting on the Eason Jordan story done by us immature, amateur blogger-types. Reminder:
Did Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, actually say the American military has deliberately killed journalists covering the conflict in Iraq? It's a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it's generated. Google "Easongate" and you get 2,500 results. There is an Easongate.com Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan release a transcript of his remarks--made recently in Davos--by Feb. 15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.
Now, go back and look at what I did and what I wrote and explain to me how it's possible to characterize my work as "somewhere between meltdown and release." Compare my blog's contribution to any of my male counterparts and explain to me how I deserve to be ridiculed as a psychological basket case by the august Wall Street Journal editorial board.
My e-mail, Mr. Stephens, is malkin-at-comcast.net.
Last week, I brushed aside the Wall Street Journal's slap because 1) there were more important Eason-related developments to cover and 2) it pales in comparison to the attacks I regularly receive.
But Stephens' sanctimony on the Hewitt show yesterday shouldn't just slip by. Instead of acknowledging his own failure to pursue the story and plumb its full significance, Stephens deflected criticism by refusing to retract his ad hominem attacks on the Internet's "usual suspects" and instead singling out Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters for making "reckless" charges.
Captain Ed, as every reader of his excellent blog knows full well, is always a man who argues in good faith. He responded to Stephens with characteristic candor, promptness, and a correction/retraction. He is a model of the best the blogosphere has to offer. (He was also one of the most outspoken bloggers to challenge Stephens' insult against me, and I deeply appreciate that.)
Question: While Captain Ed and others were digging up past quotes from Eason Jordan and other CNN employees to give the Davos remarks context, what was Bret Stephens doing? Slapping together a CYA sandwich and a side order of snark.
Stephens and the Wall Street Journal editorial board have no business lecturing the blogosphere about reckless cheap shots. They are masters of the art form.
Nevertheless, Stephens used his interview with Hewitt to complain about how he's "suffered" at the hands of the blogosphere.
Oh, kerfuffle. No need to get emotional about it. We're all grown-ups , right?
What? No photo of the author? :)
And just what in the world was the WSJ thinking with that ludicrous editorial on the Jordan matter.
"you're putting me to sleep...kiss me, you fool!"
Bret Stephens , Wall Street Journal is now jumping on the bandwagon about the Eason statements. Saying he was there. The story was not broken by the press but by a businessman. Now the press wants to get in on the action.
As a Freeper I don't cut anyone in the press any slack. I e-mailed this to Bret Stephens. see below. - tom
From: Capt. Tom To: capt.tom@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:52 AM Subject: Article Feedback: Re: 'Easongate'
The following letter has been submitted via the OpinionJournal article response feature. Contents of response as follows: #---
Name: Capt. Tom E-mail: capt.tom@comcast.net City/State: Scituate, Mass. Date: Thu, February 10th, 2005
Subject: Re: 'Easongate'
Comment: If you were there, and heard Mr Eason speak, and are on the newspaper staff,why didn't you break the story. It appears you sat on your hands until the Internet blogs forced the story out. - Tom #---
thank you!
Did you get a response?
Congressman Billybob
Excellent question Capn'.
Hadn't thought of that.
It is also curious that CNN didn't report on the targetting of journo's in the first place isn't it? Or maybe they just reported it outside of the US. Hmm.. don't know.
Lets face the facts that the lame stream press tried to keep the story from the public and the military.
For Bret Stephens to whine about being attacked by bloggers, shows what an elitist he is. There is a guy who get paid big money and doesn't get the news to us.
On FR we regularly get slapped around by other Freepers, for our unpaid comments and still stay the course.
I am off to the boatshow now,I'll check in later today. - tom
Re: 'Easongate'
Thank to Hugh Hewitt for mentioning this on his show. My first thought was, WHAT! He Said WHAT!
Still waiting for the tape.
For Bret Stephens to whine about being attacked by bloggers
A tagline I used for a while sums it up. "I'll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter."
Bloggers aside, why isn't he interested in the Jordans' story? Seems to me, it'd be big news.
The Lame stream press does not to bring criticism on one of its important members. They protect the image of the competent journalists and news heads. This story is detrimental to the press, so they don't want it out into the public realm. - Tom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.