Letters to the Editor
-
Typo?
I'm guessing you meant "heroine," not "heroin."
-
ow, the word, it burns!
"Incentivized?" Aaargh, ow, wince! Maybe, "has an incentive" would be better? Please?
But aside from that, yeah, once again Howie Kurtz "fails to see" a conflict of interest that you see, that I see, that J. Random Reader saw. Maybe he needs to stop buying his sunglasses at a welding supply store.
-
What I want to know....
Is if the surge were such a brilliant idea, then why didn't we do it YEARS ago.
-
Just John/MJFGates
I'm guessing you meant "heroine," not "heroin."
I saw that and changed it, but before I did, I realized it would actually work both ways.
"Incentivized?" Aaargh, ow, wince! Maybe, "has an incentive" would be better? Please?
Sorry, no. "Incentivized?" is a perfectly fine word and there is no reason to resort to the clunkier "has an incentive."
-
Frederick Kagan
I hate to get into someone's looks in my criticisms. But reserve the right to do it when appropriate.
Check out a photo of Frederick. I cannot picture that face beneath a helmet, arm holding weapon, in a forward area of battle. It's simply unimaginable.
I'm going to open a booth at a carnival. I can spot chickenhawks by looks alone for a dollar. I don't even need their vocal or written words.
-
Kurtz
Has Kurtz ever agreed with a reader in any critique of the Post? Some critic. It seems his job is akin to being Press Secretary, chief spinmeister for the WaPo.
-
call it "nepoconservatism"
The pool of practioners seems to be contracting in inverse proportion to the editorial influence these people seem to wield; it's now a bunch of intellectual inbreds, like some corrupt court. The only way of influencing the editorial line in any way (and even this is doubtful) is to cancel your subscription.
-
re: "incentivized"
I was horrified by it as well 2 decades ago, but it has passed into acceptable and common usage. So, I now employ it myself.
-
Mr. Sheri Annis strikes again!
How much additional income do you think the Kurtz household is reaping for Howie's steady, shameless promotion of the Maleficent Malkin?
-
Larger question
Have the neocons; i.e. the Kagans, Kristols, et al been right about anything? Under what possible theory could the WaPo consider giving any of them a column inch much less OpEd space?
-
The Washington Post IS a neoconservative rag
nlacy:
Fred Hiatt. Does that answer your question?
-
How do you spell "lazy" at the Post? K-U-R-T-Z
It is also the same spelling for "intellectually dishonest".
-
@GG
Glenn, do you ever submit op-ed pieces to the MSM?
-
Espstein's Mom
All I kept picturing when scanning Kagan’s op-ed yesterday (and now your recap today) was Mr. Kotter reading yet another excuse-laden note from “Espstein’s Mom” while Juan sat there smirking (my apologies to those who didn’t have to survive the ‘70s).
Glenn, you continue to do yeoman’s work, now reviewing Howie Kurtz’s weekly discussion drivel. I officially banned myself from ever reading him again (after years of hoping he’d come around and sending him e-mail after e-mail on his inconsistencies) once he got into bed with Malkin and embraced her as a “respected” voice for the Right – a disgrace for the media to embrace someone whose agenda comprises only hate and building her resume to take Coulter’s place as dominatrix-in-chief for the GOP. Kurtz’s disingenuous and fake insistence that he doesn’t see hypocrisy or the press’s failure to hold itself to a higher standard of accountability makes him unqualified to do his job (though don’t bother complaining to ombudsman Deborah Howell – the queen of picking low-lying fruit (“Post Stories – Too Long or Short?” Discuss.”) and ignoring real issues). As I have mentioned before, the Coulters and Limbaughs etc. are not the true problem – that rests with those in the established and official media who give them credence and platforms, and normalize their language into the framing of the issues. That the MSM still can’t or willfully won’t see this or change this behavior further destroys their credibility, and undermines our political discourse and reality.
-
Kurtz Hurtz
"I have to think about that. I don't know if it's fair to hold someone responsible for a brother or sister's views."
The Asshat's saving ink.
-
If family ties were not really an important context...
...then who really thinks that George H W Bush would have been as publicly supportive of George W Bush as he has been?
Even while his own circle of more diplomatically minded aides were trying to rein W in...
-
@ mjfgates
"Incentivized?" Aaargh, ow, wince! Maybe, "has an incentive" would be better? Please?
Hey, it's now acceptable practise to go around verbilating nouns (as long as they've been consentivized). After all, the Deciderator-In-Chief does it, and he's Gawd Incarnivorate.
Cheers,
-
Malkin quickly defended Coulter
Kurtz: "Malkin seems to infuriate people on the left as much as Coulter, but it's worth noting that she quickly and strongly denounced Coulter's anti-gay slur."
What Kurtz failed to note is that shortly thereafter Malkin downplayed what Coulter said, and used one of her infamous “anonymous” e-mails to say that liberals are far worse than Coulter. Malkin:
It’s the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion. I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I’ve received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC.
Malkin’s repeated attempts to equate anonymous comments with someone prominent like Coulter have been already completely debunked, but Kurtz should know just how quickly she came to Coulter’s defense, or at least an attempted to defend her.
Kurtz is really grasping at straws to defend Malkin. It’s pathetic.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/malkin-downplays-coulter/
-
How to Avoid Conflict-of-Interest Issues
I was intrigued by Kurtz' initial response that having a war strategy's progress analyzed by the brother of the strategy's creator is OK because, in essence, everybody knows that the analyst loves the war so much that he will hail the strategy and say it's working regardless of whether his family is involved. In other words, Kurtz' DEFENSE was that the Post engaged, as a commentator on war developments, someone whose pro-war bias is so strong that he would cheerlead for the war no matter what. In Kurtz' mind, this is perfectly normal and appropriate.
The logic is brilliant, really: if you hire commentators who are so fanatical and closed-minded that their opinion is a foregone conclusion under any circumstances, you eliminate the possibility of a conflict of interest making a difference. What could be more journalistically responsible than that?