Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 23, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

CREATING A MARTYR?....Yesterday I was up at USC as part of a panel about blogs and newspapers, and Ana Marie Cox mentioned that ever since she stopped reading dozens of blogs a day in order to write Wonkette she feels much better informed. Everyone laughed.

But there might be a good reason for that. After she made that comment I asked the audience how many of them had ever heard of Ben Domenech. Two people out of a hundred raised their hands. And yet, for the past couple of days the single biggest topic of conversation in the left blogosphere has been Ben Domenech. "The reason you feel better informed," I suggested, "is that you're no longer wasting neurons on subjects like whether or not the Washington Post should have hired Ben Domenech to write a blog for their online site."

Everyone laughed at that too. But maybe Ezra is right. Might it have been better to let Domenech toil away in well-deserved obscurity instead of making him yet another high-profile symbol of conservative martyrdom?

Kevin Drum 12:51 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I see your point, but if the naming of a Radical blogger was such an unimportant thing why did the Mighty Wurlitzer(tm) fight so hard to get it done? And isn't the conferring of the Washington Post brand on such a crackpot (Jefferson Davis! There's the ticket!) itself news?

As I have noted before, a key Radical tactic and strategy is to push and push and push on every front, never giving ground and never giving up. This appointment seems to me to be a fairly significant gain of ground for the Radicals.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 23, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

The point isn't to make a martyr of Domenech, it's to make our displeasure known to the Washington Post. If they don't get voluminous and angry feedback from their readers they won't know how upset we are. It's called working the refs, and it's something the Republicans have been doing for the last forty years. Think they've ever been concerned that they were making Michael Moore, say, a martyr?

Posted by: Stefan on March 23, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

No, it would be better if the Washington post hired a Blue America blogger. Problem solved.

Posted by: Mitch on March 23, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky's right. This is not the time for us to pick and choose battles -- it's all out on every front. There's no reward for second place anymore.

Posted by: Stefan on March 23, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I agree in general. Sometimes I'm afraid that like with all human interaction, bloggers are prone to stampeding in herds around particular topics regardless of the topic's actual relative or subjective importance. Most of the time this is relatively harmless, but one has to admit that everyday there are probably a dozen or more topics any particular blogger could blog about, and anytime you waste a little time on something of relative unimportance you miss blogging or reading about something of relative importance. Consequently you, and your readers, are less well-informed.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on March 23, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I like to see the Lefty bloggers go mental over issues like Domenech.

It gives normal Americans a reminder of why they keep rejecting Democrats at election time.

So keep it up!

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 23, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

The point of your post is that Domenech is NOT a high profile symbol of conservative martyrdom! I read a lot of blogs, too, and I get a lot of redundant information and a lot of trivia like the Red State guy blogging for the Post. That's the nature of the beast, for good or ill. When I get busy, I read fewer blogs and feel just about as well informed. When I have time and I read all the blogs, what I get out of them is a sense of community. I like to read about your mother who worked in education and Shakespeare's Sister's crazy Scottish husband. I started reading blogs just as we were invading Iraq and it was invaluable to feel like I wasn't the only person in the world thinking the idea was crazy and dangerous. They have the same value for me now.

Posted by: qalice on March 23, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm...and as I see from the first few comments, bloggers are also prone to that unique human phenomenon of rationalizing their actions.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on March 23, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

> Ana Marie Cox mentioned that ever since she
> stopped reading dozens of blogs a day in order to
> write Wonkette she feels much better informed.

I think Ms. Cox was being a little deceptive here. Once Wonkette gained a following, I suspect it was the 10,000 e-mails a day of insider information that was keeping her informed, and I very much doubt she is *more informed* if she now just reads the WaPo and NYT as printed.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 23, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

I notice Miss Cox says she FEELS better informed. Whether she is better informed is likely subject to serious debate. Sometimes people do fill their heads with too much clutter, but on the subject of ignoring Box Turtle Ben...that sounds an awful lot like what most liberals did about conservative talk radio. They tried to pretend folks like Rush Limbaugh didn't exist, and look at the effect conservative talk radio has had on our political discourse and culture.

If you don't draw the line between what is and isn't acceptable, more and more unacceptable things become part of the "mainstream".

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on March 23, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

I think some of the more personal discussions of BD have crossed the line.

I say that despite having been banned by RedState earlier this month. I posted a blog there since 2004: the-lonewacko-blog.redstate.com

The latest official word is that I was banned because of imprecise language used by Dan Stein of FAIR in a news report I quoted (cross-post here; the RS post didn't include the update portion of that).

If you read the FAIR quote over a few times, you'll see that Stein made a mistake: illegal aliens who entered the U.S. specifically to participate in the Gold Card program wouldn't then be illegal aliens, they'd be "guest" workers.

In the update to the cross-post, you can see the Dallas Star-Telegram making a similar mistake. There's still a diary there making a similar mistake about the same topic:
wubbies-world.redstate.com/story/2006/3/7/154912/2175

In any case, it's good to know that I was banned because of an almost certainly unintentional semantic error made by someone else rather than my initial hunch that I was banned because I correctly refered to Bush's "guest" worker program as "un-American." That's a relief!

Posted by: TLB on March 23, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

My problem isn't that Domenech is a conservative with a blog on the Post site -- it's that he's borderline retarded and has a blog on the Post site. I don't always/ever agree with Will, Krauthammer, Cohen, etc. either, but I don't feel like the Post is wasting resources by publishing their columns. They give us something to talk and think about.

Domenech's idiotic rant-o-matic blog, however, reminds me of Kent Brockman's segment "My Two Cents" on The Simpsons -- it's stupid, oversimplified red meat you can get anywhere. What do we discuss about "Red America"? Whether "liberals hate America" or not? How evil the dreaded "MSM" is?

I know the WaPost wants to be cool, and down the blogs, yo, but something isn't automatically valuable just because it's a blog. Most political blogs are essentially op-ed writing -- frankly, the amount of research and self-vetting that Froomkin does is above and beyond the call of duty, which is why I think so many people like him, or at least appreciate what he does. Sometimes, they do something useful with blogs -- that guy Bert in the National Guard has a pretty interesting one that works very well in its current format -- but a lot of times they just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

Unfortunately, the Post has limited resources (it's cutting staff in the newsroom, you know -- real reporters), and it's spending them on an ass-clown like this. I'm a customer, and I'm just telling them what I think of the cable-news-esque direction they're heading in. I hope anybody who agrees would do the same.

Oops, rant over.

Posted by: bill on March 23, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I skip over blog posts attacking other bloggers, even when it seems like they need to be attacked. Granted, once in awhile a particularly egregious statement of post from a "conservative" blogger triggers a thoughtful piece from someone like Glen Greenwald, and I pay attention to those sorts of things.

I do, however, follow the links to progressive bloggers, which led me to Digby way back when. For some reason, a sizable number of those links still lead to Digby...

Posted by: Roddy McCorley on March 23, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

"The reason you feel better informed," I suggested, "is that you're no longer wasting neurons on subjects like whether or not the Washington Post should have hired Ben Domenech to write a blog for their online site."

You're point is not without merit, but this example is a poor one that does not support your argument.

It is the Washington Post that has taken a marginal nut and mainstreamed him. Indeed, the entire issue of what is so very wrong with this, and why it deserves scrutiny and active opposition, is that this guy is an under-the-radar extremist, and the position at the Post creates a pretty powerful validation of his every utterance.

Posted by: mondo dentro on March 23, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

of course it would be better to ignore. but just like no one ever ignores message board trolls....

Posted by: passing thru on March 23, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

"your point". dammit.

Posted by: mondo dentro on March 23, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Yay Cave-in Kevin! You see, all we have to do is do what the republicans want, and then they'll stop calling us names!

Jesus, Cave-in. You had started to act like maybe your spine was stiffening, but old habits die hard.

Is there a liberal bias at the Washington Post? No. Its editorials lean solidly right, its news is typically supportive of the administration, and it has no problems repeating verbatim white house press releases and calling it news. Sure, they every once and a while get a little snipet of truth out there, but they never follow up on it.

Adding a guy and nuts as Domenech to their staff is bad for two reasons - A) it gives yet another conservative a platform to vomit forth his hate of all things liberal, with equivalent platform for a liberal to counter; and B) it just reinforces the view that there is something liberal about the washington post needs to "balance", which there isn't. And getting this whackjob a platform isn't going to make the nonsense stop - you can add 500 conservative bloggers picked from the cream of LGF commentators, and they will STILL call it a left wing newspaper and demand more "balance".

You once said something very wise (unlikely, but true!) - don't blame the victim for being demonized. Its what republicans do. It doesn't matter if you spent every waking second feeding the poor, or building houses, or creating a company offering thousands of good paying jobs, or lost limbs fighting for your country - the republicans will demonize you.

If we throw up our hands and let this gasbag get a pass, will we be in any way demonized less? No. It doesn't matter what we do kevin, demonizing is their mode of operation. So we better fight, and fight hard, and fight everywhere where the idiots are gaining ground, because we cannot give up anymore ground. This country is on the ropes, and there isn't a single conservative idea that isn't part of the problem.

Posted by: Mysticdog on March 23, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

"The reason you feel better informed," I suggested, "is that you're no longer wasting neurons on subjects like whether or not the Washington Post should have hired Ben Domenech to write a blog for their online site."

Maybe. But maybe it's because she's watching more TV and sports, so when she has conversations with her friends who aren't political (or who are right-leaning), she now knows all the same things they do and nothing else.

I mean, if you lived in a fundamentalist community, you'd probably feel uninformed if you spent hours a day reading Pharyngula & Microbiology Today, instead of watching the 700 club and Dangerous Housewives. I mean, you wouldn't be able to have a conversation. But if you switched, would you really be better informed?

Or would you just have a lot more in common with people who didn't know very much?

Posted by: theorajones on March 23, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

MBunge is right. Martyr Schmartyr - people like Domenech don't belong in the public conversation. They should be soundly rejected by mainstream thought. If a major institution like the Post picks someone like this up to present as rational thought, someone they think should be paid attention to, they need to be called on it and called on it until they get the hell rid of him.

Domenech has free speech, of course - he can shout whatever he wants from whatever public space he can get into. But he should be rejected and ignored. Part of that involves vociferous complaint to whatever institution allows him into their fold.

My main concern on this isn't that bloggers gave it too much attention, it's that they're about to forget him en masse and move on to the next popular issue.

The main thing the left needs to be doing is dislodging all these nincompoops from their media soapboxes, which is why Media Matters is perhaps doing the most important work of the reality agenda right now. Everything else is doomed to failure as long as these radical nitwits' views continue to be accepted as valid.

Posted by: Adam Piontek on March 23, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"The reason you feel better informed," I suggested, "is that you're no longer wasting neurons on subjects like whether or not the Washington Post should have hired Ben Domenech to write a blog for their online site."

I'd probably think that was clever if I had been paying attention. I wasn't. Really, if I want to read some young schmuck, I can go read Ben Shapiro or somebody.

No, I was trying to watch the bouncing ball there: seems the Administration is trying to ice the puck at the UN while they do a line change in preparation for a full-press war-with-Iran campaign in August. Aha, said I, that's why Her Royal Clintoness is all up in mullah face there...because she's decided to start takin' advice from Bull Mussolini, the D's Fascist Philosopher Laureate. Now, that's funny. (I mean, given that Il Mooce will be on the McCain team come '08.) Oh ho. Trying to get ahead of the curve and shit.

Suddenly, that idiot 'defense plan' you guys were pimpin' awhile ago stops being annoying and starts being funny. HRC is planning her first term all around invading and conquering Iran, after Bush bombs Iran in his second term. Thus, the 'Peace-Keeping Divisions'. {snicker} (Freedom is Slavering, etc. etc.)

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen owin' to the fact we're busy fucking up our army. And thus no need to gag out 'You can't be fuckin' serious' because they are serious...because they're clueless twits. Right. Problem solved. By the time that batch of wannabe twits tries to get into power, the current batch of clueless twits will have completely fucked the country up and HRC will be hard-pressed to wipe her own ass without permission from our Chinese overlords...

ash
['So that's two things I don't have pay attention to.']

Posted by: ash on March 23, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Did it ever occur to you, Kevin, that hiring Domenech was actually designed to provoke the liberal blogosphere to overreact, check him out, and drive up washingtonpost.com's numbers, especially among younger readers?

So yes, the proper response is to ignore him.

Posted by: BradtheDad on March 23, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Might it have been better to let Domenech toil away in well-deserved obscurity instead of making him yet another high-profile symbol of conservative martyrdom?

Of COURSE liberals would have been better off, especially as all your hollerin' has just given WaPo oodles more traffic, so now they think "hmmm, what better way to get more eyeballs to our site than pissing off that hyper-sensitive, paranoid, defensive species known as the American Liberal". I mean, it's not like your substantive claims were even the least bit valid. Ezra himself says: "Here's a game: Any idea who Emily Messner is? How about Joel Achenbach? William Arkin? Give up?...They're all bloggers for WashingtonPost.com. And so far as the blogosphere is concerned, they toil away in obscurity.

Hmmm. One conservative voice. Four liberal voices. As usual, liberal outrage isn't created because conservatives are unfairly overrepresented, liberal outrage is created because conservatives are even given a voice at all. Heaven forbid that liberals only possess 75% and not 100% of the blogging real estate on WaPo.com

Posted by: P.B. Almeida on March 23, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK
Might it have been better to let Domenech toil away in well-deserved obscurity instead of making him yet another high-profile symbol of conservative martyrdom?
Yeah, that's what they said about Adolf Hitler. Worked pretty well, ignoring him.

OK, total bullshit. Just thought I'd pop in a Hitler reference, before someone else did it seriously.

Posted by: A. Hilter on March 23, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you don't seem to have the stomach for any attacks on wingnuttia these days.

Posted by: CJR on March 23, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

May I make one observation, please?

Doesn't it depend on which blogs you read?

If you read the screaming, you're less informed. If you read good analysis better.

On the idiot blogger hire. Agreed that people are over the top on it. But the basic point that the major media outlets have just bought into the right wing spin holds.

How to respond to criticism that you don't report very well?

Hire an un-informed 24 year-old!

That's just awfully revealing.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on March 23, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Almeida, do you actually read Achenbach? The guy's a freaking humor columnist. His blog ambles into the vaguely political every few posts.

Messner runs a blog with open comments called "The Debate". Not exactly a digital bully pulpit.

Arkin clearly has issues with the way the war has been run. Not sure that makes him "liberal", unless "liberal" means "doesn't think Bush is doing a good job".

On the other hand, you think Mr. "Red America" can get through one post without beating us to death with the liberal/conservative red/blue meme? My God, he's already using words like "deranged" and "unhinged", and declaring Republicans in all forms to be the moral and demographic majority of the country. Are you seeing a difference?

Posted by: Eckersley on March 23, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing that matters here is that the Washington Post management are now very aware that the left is going to scrutinize these things as closely as the right has traditionally done. If 7-8 people want to go over this guy's virtual paper trail with a fine-toothed comb, great. Domenech's said those things, and if the Post can't be bothered to do due diligence, we all have a better idea of what to expect from the Post.

Obviously there are many, many, many more important things going on in the world, but guess what? People are paying attention to all of that too! How many political bloggers are out there? If a dozen people want to go on Domenech watch, more power to them! We've got Sullywatch and Hitchenswatch and on and on.

Plenty of room in the pool for this sort of thing.

Posted by: TLaemmle on March 23, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

How can you possibly know how well informed you are?

Posted by: brent on March 23, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

How do we stop getting beat at "playing the refs?"

Might it have been better to let Domenech toil away in well-deserved obscurity instead of making him yet another high-profile symbol of conservative martyrdom?

It might, then again hasnt that been the strategy up until now more or less? The right wingers have been playing the referees far more aggressively.

This portion of a commentary on the CJR Daily seems to capture some aspects:

That criticism is the simple-minded "liberal bias" charge, and while it might seem ludicrous on its face to those incensed at the Post for its editorial support of war in Iraq, the mantra has staying power, fed as it is almost daily by right-wing blog chatter.
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/all_of_a_sudden_its_a_great_jo.php

Frankly, I'm not sure that "right-wing blog chatter" is the reason that so many people slavishly seem to believe the conventional wisdom that the main stream media is this big liberal monolith or why people still seem to believe that the Washington Post is a particularly liberal paper. The ongoing right wing echo chamber may be more apt.

Strangely enough, the Bush administration appears to have made blame the media the center piece for defending their record on Iraq. Cheney "explains" that his claim that we would greeted as liberators and that the insurgency was on its last throes, was "basically accurate and reflect reality." He "explains" that the "perception" of his error is manufactured by media images from Iraq. Rumsfeld and Bush take similar tacts. (See, e.g. http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/are_you_going_to_believe_image.php)
The fact that the so called mainstream liberal media doesnt point out these silly unsubstantiated lies is part of the problem.

The right wingers for whatever reason are better at playing the refs, how do we stop this cycle or can we, or is this the wrong battle all together?

Posted by: Catch22 on March 23, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Like, duh! How many times have I yelled into the void here that blogs, as of yet, don't count for squat to the nation in any manner? Preaching to the choir in an echo chamber.

As I wrote and linked to last week, Duncan Black (AKA Atrios) had the termity to claim that SS "reform" got shot down by liberal blog activism. Give me a fucking break. How many retirees or people nearing retirement read, I mean i>really read a decent newspaper let alone waste as much time as we do here in policy "discussions"?

Again, the NYT has greater daily circulation than about the top three blogs get "hits" each day, most of which are repeat "customers."

That is all.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 23, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

How can anyone in any seriousness care what Anna Marie Cox thinks makes her better or worse informed?

You want anal sex jokes, yeah, she's the go-to guy. Want a thought worth thinking? Go somewhere else, fast.

What does it say about a forum that it chooses to introduce her as a major player when it comes to the importance of blogs?

Really, Christ in fucking heaven.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 23, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

The racist liar BenDover isn't really the issue. It's all about the Wapo. Jeez..Kev

Posted by: Lillith on March 23, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

In short, no. Ben is the poster boy for extremist rightwing social currents that have been running strong but under the surface for decades. He is the shiny new face of the up and coming GOP. Shine the light. IMHO, of course.

Posted by: ww on March 23, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

To put my point differently: any forum that puts up Anna Marie Cox as a major spokesperson on the importance of blogs isn't trying to understand blogs, it's trying to trivialize them.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 23, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Ana Marie Cox always wind up on these panels? She's a damn gossip columnist, ferchrissakes. She stopped being amusing a long time ago and never was informative.

Posted by: SED on March 23, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Aren't Kevin's two points in contradiction?

If blogs skew a person's perspective with their focus on meaningless minutiae, and this makes readers less informed of what the rest of the country is on about, then why would leftie blog attention to Domenech make him a "high profile symbol of conservative martyrdom"?

How can no one have heard of it, and yet the issue be "high profile"?

Posted by: luci on March 23, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

So at a panel discussion ABOUT BLOGGING, two people out of a hundred have heard of Ben Domenech, which means out in the real world, about two out of a million have heard of him.

And you wonder why so many people dismiss the blogosphere as an idiotic, self-important circle-jerk.

Posted by: Most of you people need a hobby or to have some sex on March 23, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

To put my point differently: any forum that puts up Anna Marie Cox as a major spokesperson on the importance of blogs isn't trying to understand blogs, it's trying to trivialize them. Posted by: frankly0

I have to agree with you, but simply because Wonkette really wasn't a blog in the truest sense.
And yes, the butt sex jokes got old after a while. However, Cox is still my favorite stacked redhead Internet(s) "personality."

Posted by: Jeff II on March 23, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Really?? Just the way Al Sharpton (for instance) has been ignored by the wingnuts, instead of being elevated to leftie martyrdom??

I've often enough read you complain how the GOP arranges matters so that obscure, non-representative left-wing nutcases become somehow the face of the Democratic Party.

Why isn't it time to return the favor?

Posted by: Amit Joshi on March 23, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Cox is still my favorite stacked redhead Internet(s) "personality."

Why do I have the slightest feeling that what you're really saying is that "Cox is still my favorite stacked redhead Internet(s) "body."?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 23, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

I think Ana Marie was trying to make a point about the signal-to-noise ratio and about the difference bewteen reading and thinking (I was at the forum). I agree that after too much blog reading I do not feel more informed. She still reads blogs, just fewer. My new strategy has been to read fewer, more high quality (like WM), and try to do more thinkng and reflecting.

Posted by: ecoboz on March 23, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Domenech was hired by The Washington Post DOT COM. I assume that people who have subscriptions wont be reading him. So who else is going to be critical, or supportive, but others who get their info from the net.
There seems to be a bit of denial about how many people actually get all the info from the net. It might not be at the levels that get their news from "old school" sources, but it seems to be growing all the time and will probably at some point in the near future surpass the dailies and TV (if it hasn't already).
So something like this hire, while seemingly such a huh moment to some, needs to be forcefully confronted. The big media guys should not be allowed to skew their online sites the way their reporting their papers has gone.
And also. I have to agree. since when has Ms Cox's knowledge of the world been a barometer for the world at large?

Posted by: Todd on March 23, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

In order to be a martyr, don't you have to, you know, be martyred? Was Domenech fired while I wasn't looking?

By the way, he seems to already be running out of steam. No posts today. Hope they're not paying him much.

Posted by: KCinDC on March 23, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Next blogger/columnist on the Washington Post website:

Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report (not the real Stephen Colbert)

Posted by: Partisan on March 23, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting information on Daily Kos. It appears that they have a couple documented cases of blatant plagiarism.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/23/181857/404

Posted by: Catch22 on March 23, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm.....Search and Replace...

But there might be a good reason for that. After she made that comment I asked the audience how many of them had ever heard of Ben Domenech. Two people out of a hundred raised their hands. And yet, for the past couple of days the single biggest topic of conversation in the left blogosphere has been Jayson Blair. "The reason you feel better informed," I suggested, "is that you're no longer wasting neurons on subjects like whether or not the New York Times should have hired Jayson Blair to write articles for their paper."

Everyone laughed at that too. But maybe Ezra is right. Might it have been better to let Jayson Blair toil away in well-deserved obscurity instead of making him yet another high-profile symbol of journalisic martyrdom?

No need to expose plagarists who happen to be hired by one of the nation's few papers of record...

I always find it strange how Kevin goes out of his way to protect the Washington Post? Does he have an ongoing op-ed relation with the paper? I seem to remember him writing an op-ed or two for them before...

Posted by: justmy2 on March 23, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Kevin, but no. That's the attitude that has become our big problem. We just roll our eyes at some wingnut blather and walk away, totally convinced that no person with an IQ number higher than their shoe size will every take them seriously. But now we found out that didn't work. Since no one rebutted their wingnuttery, it took hold. We need to scream "tripe" whenever tripe is served up.

As Edmund Burke said - all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on March 23, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Ana Marie Cox was never really a bloggers blogger. Even at her height, she was pretty open about her disdain for chest thumping "blogger triumphalism"

I wonder just how skewed my worldview actually is by blogs.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway on March 23, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Might it have been better to let Domenech toil away in well-deserved obscurity instead of making him yet another high-profile symbol of conservative martyrdom?"

Do you suppose the NYT was thinking along these lines during the Jayson Blair fiasco?

Posted by: alleydog on March 23, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Oh come on Kevin! First you quote Wonkette, that fountain of nuanced insight and perceptive analysis, to support your point. "Look folks! It made this Internet gossip better informed, maybe it'll work for you too!"

And then, you go on to unironically state, '"The reason you feel better informed," I suggested, "is that you're no longer wasting neurons on subjects like [...] Domenech"' Would you listen to yourself?? No examination of just how people become less informed if they care about the Domenech issue, or even if they actually are less informed. No, what's important is that you feel more informed, that you and your panel-headed audience can smugly bask in your superiority of not having to "waste" time with the blog rabble.

You can be a real chump sometimes, you know that?

-L-

Posted by: a1 on March 24, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Domenech is not much of a conservative martyr if he is a plagiarist -- and it appears he is.

Posted by: Patterico on March 24, 2006 at 4:15 AM | PERMALINK

Domenech is not much of a conservative martyr if he is a plagiarist -- and it appears he is.
Posted by: Patterico

Indeed he is. An brazen out-and-out plagarist.

He's particularly fond, it would seem, of cribbing long stretches of A&E writing at Salon where they nail him this morning on several damning examples.

Perhaps his home schooling simply didn't include the use of " and " and a citation to the name of the writer whose material you're using.

Nor, apparently, any mention of the ethics of using other people's work to pad your own credentials.

Posted by: CFShep on March 24, 2006 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

And dumb enough to steal from P. J. O'Rourke, too.

They keep setting that limbo bar lower and lower.

Posted by: CFShep on March 24, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

I think, before Mr. Drum wastes more of anyone else's neurons poo-pooing other more confrontational blogger's efforts to keep the WaPo honest, he should perhaps be better informed.

I've been reading criticism of this blog for it's self-centered apologetics for some time; here is a clear case where the author not only takes the other side, but then essentially calls for readers to pay less attention to blogs.

With respect to reading Washington Monthly's Political Animal, I will accommodate him effective immediately.
...

Posted by: MFA on March 24, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

act

Posted by: 4545445454 on March 26, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, minh mong muon duoc lam quen voi tat ca cac ban. Thanks you

Posted by: phuong on March 26, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly