WaPo's handling of Cheney comments "scandal"

Re: “Death Wish” Mar 1

So sadly predictable. Lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald nailed it the day before Kurtz's column came out. VP Cheney survives as assassination attempt and immediately, right-wingers start “comment trawling”, i.e., going through comments made by anonymous commenters on various liberal blogs and they then drag up a few, highly unrepresentative samples that they then present as supposedly representing a significant number of blog commenters and then various people in the media, including Howard Kurtz, then present these examples as though they meant anything.

Yes, in the 15th paragraph, Kurtz admits the obvious, that the comments really don't give us a clue as to what the great majority of either the bloggers or their readers feel, but he rants and rails and carries on for over ten paragraphs before getting to Arianna's very sensible point, that these few unrepresentative commenters don't represent anything beyond themselves.

Why does Kurtz give the “comment trawling” right wingers a megaphone? Why does he present the screeching banshees of the right-wing blogosphere as though they were making a useful or important point?

So very predictable and so very sad.
Glenn Greenwald continues:

Why would Kurtz so prominently tout and condemn the meaningless and unrepresentative remarks of 200 or so anonymous blog comments, while ignoring the equally perverse behavior and ideas of some of his best-est friends on television, detailed here, here, here, and today by Arianna Huffington here?

No comments: