- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn (and pardon if that Glenzilla thing was considered an insult; I've seen it used by some of your biggest fans)
No offense taken.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Honestly, I really don't think I did. I think maybe you want to revise the point you made, which is fine - that happens to all of us. But you should just say that, then, rather than suggesting I misunderstood what you said. What you said was actually pretty clear and not really subject to misunderstanding:
I was not saying you make up arguments from whole cloth. The point I was trying to make is that most of what you cite to make your arguments--and I'm a regular reader--is stuff that was originally reported in the much-maligned MSM.
I don't really think that's true. Much of what I cite to is unquestionably reporting from what you call the "MSM". And I'm the first to note (as I did right in this very post) that there is some good and important reporting from the "MSM" (it's how we know about many of the secret and illegal Bush policies). But much of what I cite to is my own reporting, or my own analysis, or the original reporting of other bloggers.
Either way, that's all a separate point - it has nothing to do with the other point you made, which is that "bloggers" -- and specifically me (unlike reporters) -- enjoy "a real luxury: he makes a case; he doesn't have to prove it."
How are reporters and bloggers any different in that regard? Sure, sometimes what I cite to original reporting by journalists, but that is evidence. Moreover, you do exactly the same thing - your post this morning about the NSA program, for instance, cited to only one thing: Bart Gellman's reporting. You didn't offer any proof of your own outside of that. What we did wasn't different (except that I provided a lot more analysis and evidence to support my conclusions whereas you essentially provided a summary of some of the highlights from the Gellman excerpt).
As I understand it, you made two separate and distinct points in the comment section: (1) Bloggers sometimes rely on original reporting from journalists; and (2) bloggers -- but not reporters -- have the "luxury" of making their case without proof.
I wasn't addressing point (1) and don't dispute it. I was addressing point (2) and do dispute it. Pointing to (1) as a way of saying that I misunderstood your point (2) isn't really persuasive. I think, quite clearly, you were voicing the very common claim that bloggers don't hold themselves to the same high standards as journalists do -- that's pretty clearly what you said. I disagree with that point in general and, given the efforts I make to document everything I say with evidence, took exception to your specifically pointing to me as an example of that dichotomy.
