Post Reporter: ‘We Are Not Spared’ The ‘Nasty, Vulgar E-Mail’ From ‘Liberal Blog’ Readers

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/03/post-reporter-we-are-not-spared-the-nasty-vulgar-e-mail-from-liberal-blog-readers/


Post Reporter: ‘We Are Not Spared’ The ‘Nasty, Vulgar E-Mail’ From ‘Liberal Blog’ Readers

Last week, both conservative and traditional media outlets did their best to turn some hateful and inappropriate statements about Vice President Cheney by anonymous commenters at liberal blogs into a broad commentary on the left in general. As Glenn Greenwald predicted, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz devoted his column to the “scandal”:



But as Greenwald (and Arianna) pointed out:

Stray, anonymous comments prove nothing. And those who rely on them to make an argument — especially without bothering to make any effort to prove that they are reflective of anything — should be presumed to have no argument at all. That is why they are relying upon such transparently flimsy and misleading methods to make a point.

During a WashingtonPost.com chat on Thursday, a reader confronted national political reporter Lois Romano about the coverage: “Selectively quoting anonymous posters from any political blog is shoddy ‘journalism’ at its worst. What does Mr. Kurtz have to say to defend himself on this?”

Romano had nothing to say about Kurtz. Instead, she bemoaned the “new viciousness in the process often generated by the blogs,” and likened herself and other reporters to Cheney, complaining that “we are not spared” the “nasty, vulgar e-mail” produced by “liberal blogs.”

Romano: We are watching the blogs, and just this month The Post assigned a young reporter to cover Internet campaigning. There certainly is a new viciousness in the process often generated by the blogs. You need to know that we as reporters are not spared — if we write an article the liberals blogs do not like we will be inundated with nasty, vulgar e-mail — which has no impact on our coverage.

While “liberal blogs” are lumped together with a tiny unrepresentative sample of anonymous commenters, the hate speech by leading figures of the conservative movement is ignored: today’s Post coverage of the Conservative Political Action Conference makes no mention of Ann Coulter’s inflammatory “faggot” remark.

[Cha]

1. Oh BOO FRIGGIN HOO!

THe Liars over at the washed out post can't handle.

[Journeyman]

2. Do they never receive reasoned, rational responses from the "liberal blogs"?. . .

I know I've written them often, stating exactly where I learned about their article and the general tenor of its reception at the site (be it here at DU or any of a host of places I post), and I am always exceedingly polite, even when angered. Do they only read the nasty negative comments, and ignore constructive criticisms? And are thoughtful, considerate responses lumped together with the bile and each given "no impact on (their) coverage"? What an incredibly insular world! Much like Paul Simon's Boxer:

. . .all lies and jest, still they hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

[ProSense]

3. “we are not spared” the “nasty, vulgar e-mail” produced by “liberal blogs.”?

:wtf:

She believes the media's job is to get into pissing contests with readers?

Does she compare "liberal blog" readers with Coultergeist, Satan's Chambermaid and frequent evil spitter on major cable networks?

[mloutre]

4. Ah, yes, The Wicked Witch of the Wonks

Here's hoping that a house falls on her head.

And that somebody captures it on their cell phone camera and posts it to YouTube.