Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

Eason Madness

March 17th, 2005 · 2 Comments

I wonder if the accumulation of scalps in the blogosphere’s trophy room hasn’t finally driven a few bloggers a little ’round the bend, to he point where they’re hallucinating scandals everywhere in hopes of collecting their own. Even while I thought the Eason Jordan scandal was overblown, at least there what he was supposed to have said—that U.S. troops had deliberately killed journalists—was offense-worthy if false. Now Michelle Malkin’s apparently desparate to have a scandal of her very own in the form of some thoroughly unremarkable comments from a People’s Daily interview with WaPo managing editor Philip Bennett. Bennett says the paper misconstrued some of his remarks, but assume that’s not even the case. That she’s actually found other bloggers capable of summoning the energy to give a shit about anything Bennett said is, as they have it, informative about media’s disconnect from reality, but the relevantly disconnected medium ain’t WaPo. Malkin boldfaces, as though they were shocking heresies, remarks about how Bennett’s correspondents are giving him a more complex picture than the unmixedly optimistic one Bush presents, and Bennett’s notion that it’s a bad idea for the U.S.—or any country—to be seen as “the leader of the world.” Stuff like that isn’t just “uncontroversial” in the sense of “not being worthy of a scandal.” They should be “uncontroversial” in the sense that any person with two brain cells to rub together ought to recognize them as fairly obviously right. I’d expect a smart hardcore Republican to endorse both without much fuss. Are we really this pathetically starved for stories to break?

Tags: Journalism & the Media



2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 B.R. // Mar 18, 2005 at 11:56 am

    Yeah, this is driving me nuts too. Apparently, journalists shouldn’t have opinions, period, unless they match perfectly with the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

    Think of it like this: I’m sure the editors at the WSJ are more pro-privatization than the editors at the NYT. Does this mean (as a liberal) I’m going to discount the Journal’s reporting on social security because of their personal opinions? No. And you know why? Because they’re goddamn adults who understand that the world is more complicated than their own personal biases.

    I mean, if you really want “patriotic” reporters who will tell you everything you want to hear, you can go to WorldNetDaily and stop bothering the people at the Washington Post. Of course, the reason the 101st Fighting Keyboarders DO bother the Post and the NY Times is because they know, in the back of their heads, that WorldNetDaily are a bunch of kooks…

  • 2 Jon H // Mar 24, 2005 at 2:05 pm

    I’d also point out that, even post-downfall, Eason Jordan was knocking boots with Sharon Stone.

    Sounds like a pretty nice retirement.