Read other letters about this article

• Monday, February 19, 2007 03:40 PM

  I'm with cal on this one

  Glenn, I hardly ever disagree with what you write. But this time you missed the mark, at least in one respect: Jonah Golberg was in no way saying that Geraldo trumped Dana Priest as a journalist. What he appeared to be saying is, there is a style of self-important faux-populist blowhard out there (Geraldo, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly) that could make this thing a cause and have a positive effect. He was trying to do the right thing. I'm no fan of Goldberg's politics. That won't stop me from commendeding him for seeing a story that should disgust any patriot, taking it seriously, and speaking out against it.

  While I would be interested in hearing why Goldberg suspects Dana Priest may be biased, I'm sure I can guess. His caveat may simply have been a way of saying to his right-wing audience, "I know this comes from a source we hate, but it's worth paying attention to." Whatever. It wasn't central to the point he was attempting to make. It's hard to argue with the idea that a story in The Washington Post is likely to motivate one side of the political spectrum more than the other, and that, for maximum effect, it would be best to engage the right-wing noisemakers. It's also hard to argue with the idea that a cable-news talking head can reach a far wider audience than a front-page news story can. In these respects, Goldberg makes sense (Oh Lord, did I really type that?)

  I'm with you on hatred of this Malkinist maxim of the Right: You can offset any reality -- no matter how tall the stack of evidence supporting it -- with a single contrarian email from a grunt on the ground.

  Keep up the great work.

  —Raj
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel