Read other letters about this article
Kurtz is a tool. No doubt. And lazy.
Kids, and THAT'S why he's a respected journalist! :-)
As a matter of strategy, then, attack him when the underlying issue is one that makes the other side look bad.
Otherwise, it looks to all the world like you are trying to shift the debate and defend the indefensible.
And, even while you are scoring points on Kurtz, you are allowing the other side to score points on you. The decision goes to them on the points. After all, the right is just as vocal as the left about media bias. Those complaints largely cancel each other out. All that is left, then, is the incident that sparked the debate. And it's a loser for us.
Oops. Silly me. I forgot that political discourse is just a basketball game (That must be why fans are expected to root for the "home team" even if the players are just doing some Harlem Globetrotter style showmanship trying to run out the clock instead of actually scoring.) Also you should replace "just as vocal as" with "WAY more vocal then", which is sort of why people like Greenwald need to exist in the first place, since punditry, is based the position of "repeat any old nonsense as much as possible as long as it's LOUD enough. That's how 'truth' is made." (hence the fake Lincoln quote from a few weeks before.) They don't "cancel" each other out in that respect because only one (rather dishonest) voice is heard through the mainstream channels. We have to fight to make our voices heard. That's why The right-wing smear machine and their MSM lackeys are trying to cut the "netroots" at the knees now. THAT'S what got people responding. Is that this ISN'T really about random commentors cheering about a persons death (As mentioned earlier that happens all the time on the net about various people and usually ISN'T worth even bringing up.) It's to slow down a potential liberal movement that's going full steam ahead. Complaints can't "cancel each other out" if they are not even on the same page.