Independent Christian Voice


MalkinWatch: Nothing but malice for NYT piece on left v. right blogging

Malice in Malkinland rises from her sick bed to unleash a fresh dose of malice toward a New York Times piece about the influence of conservative blogs vs. liberal blogs, calling it a "candidate for dumbest NYTimes piece ever." Now, I can understand why Malice, blinded by her right-wing allegiance, would disagree with the conclusions of the writer. However, she is completely unhinged if she believes her hyperbolic headline. It hardly ranks in the top 100, unless we're going with the category "piece most hated by Malkin ever," which has a lot off competition. Malkin takes great exception with this particular statement:
But Democrats say there's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, is routinely vilified on liberal Web sites for supporting the Iraq war.) Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.
She then cites several examples "debunking" the author. The problem is the examples are very much the exception to the rule. Anyone (not blinded by right-wing allegiance) who regularly reads right-wing blogs recognize that Crowley's piece was right. It's one reason that explains why Democrats and liberals can't get together on a single message or single strategy to gain traction in defeating the GOP and conservatives. The piece's assessment also explains why the GOP talking points are so effective... they are parroted across right-wing blogs across the blogosphere, nearly verbatum. Malice's reaction tells me the article hit too close to home.


Post a Comment

<< Home