Hah!

As Glenn noted a while ago, I am a "sometime blogger." Last night,falling asleep, I composed pretty much this post in my head. planning to put it up for my dozen readers.

Only it wasn't nearly this well-written.

Glenn has said that he welcomes comments from trolls and lunatics because they are so revelatory. Likewise, a good fraction of Beltway journalists who twitter reveal just how shallow and false they are. Following them can teach you a lot about how "news" gets made.

I bet it was Cheney. Who else talks like that?

And Mukasey thinks the torture memos shouldn't have been released, which WSJ thinks merits op-ed space.

But it is fun to reflect on for a bit.

It would have been perfectly acceptable to write exactly this:

While I was writing the piece, a very well-known former Bush administration official e-mailed some caustic criticism of Obama’s decision to release the memos. I asked the former official to be quoted by name, but this person refused, e-mailing: "Please use only on background"

followed by stating, "I refused, naturally, to pass on his slurs anonymously."

Alternatively, Allen could have named the author (probably Rove, or Bolton, or Cheney, picking some of the nastiest Bush people I can think of) outright, and post the whole drunken, insult-filled, unsolicited rant or everyone to see.

Either course would be doing the public a service--so, apparently, Allen would never do such a thing.

anyone recently reading the comments section on politico could tell you what bent this "fox news wannabe" has become.

so I'll do it here. Really outstanding coverage/defining of last week's turmoil and developments and once again, you are the go to guy. Thanks. I went over and read this smarmy slug's rebuttal to you and Andrews comments and yes, he's a damned apologist and liar. The funniest part was reading all the comments where people called him on his fake assed "journalism" where he protects his source (a rethug's definition, btw) and his "editing" of said hidden sources dialog. Classic. Not only does he feel it necessary to add spin to the story by a Bushie, he hides his identity and then puts only the more palatable parts into print. Go on Glenn, wid yo bad sef.

I'm not liking the coincidental conference of the America's going on now as I get the totally cynical feeling that Barack's going to try to tamp down the Spanish attempt at justice for the "Bush Six". I guess we'll know if the lottery winning Judge caves and decides not to do it. I hate to think that way, but Barack is giving me plenty of ammo lately. Having to watch him like a hawk is becoming tiresome after eight years of El Smirko® and SO!™.

Mike Allen deserves an award. Perhaps something suitably Drudge-like.

Something like Drudge BFF "Lackey Of The Week"; an award valued above all else by Drudgers everywhere.

And perhaps a prize too!

Something like an all-expenses paid, gossip-filled week at the Drudgeon, arriving in Drudge's personally chauffered clown-car, horns blazing, lights flashing, passenger mooning, all to be emblazoned for termporary posterity in neon red 76 point caligula fonts on Drudge's website for 3 minutes.

Oh the joy! Mikey has finally arrived!

The last we heard of Mikey as he made his entrance was:

"Down with Journalism! I'm hot and you're not!"

Allen uses the phrase "he [Obama] is more popular than they [ex-Bush Admin] are." Journalistic practices aside, the people who stand behind the OLC memos are warped beyond redemption and should not be tolerated in civilized society -- anonymous or otherwise.

I never heard of Glenn slipping out of control before. Whoa. Glenn if you are feeling chagrined about anything, I believe I speak for most of us that your passion on these subjects is what keeps us coming back over and over again. And we also appreciate your willingness to participate in interactive media such as your own comments section.

Which encapsulates a twitter tantrum.

• tantwittertum
  
• twittertum
  
• twittum
  
• tantwit

That was pretty funny, Glenn. It sort of seems out of character for you... or, at least how I imagine you. You're always so blessedly rational. It's good to know you're human. You could be right. The highest and best use of twitter might be harassing folks like Mike Allen.

As I think about it, it might be better framed as a twitter outburst.

• twitburst
  
• twitluge

At any rate your thwacking of Allen via twitter is almost enough to make me sign up.

• thacktwit
  
• twitthwack

Aarrghhh! Look what you've done to me!

I am reminded, once again, how much I miss Media Whores Online.

A Drudge link gives a story like this upwards of 80-90.000 links. Add to that the fact that a number of liberal blogs wrote rants about it with links. All this creates a huge incentive for Allen and Politico to keep doing what they are doing. They love it, and are laughing all the way to the bank.

Seems like a more constructive method might be used along with the outrage.

I object to anonymous comments for several reasons in addition to the ones you list, Glenn.

1. If we have no named source, the comments could just as easily have come from Mike Allen himself, made up to generate page hits. Call me skeptical.

2. If the source isn't named, how do we ascertain the authority of the figure? If it's Bolton or Feith, we know it's meaningless and the dregs of stupidity. If, on the other hand, it's Rove, or Cheney, then we know there's a knife in the hand. If it's someone remotely trustworthy (no "top Bush official" meeting that criteria comes to mind immediately, but I'd entertain the concept), then we can mull it over.

In a Salon War Room post titled "Ex-Bush aides: Releasing torture memos is dangerous" Mike Madden writes:

It didn't take long for former aides to George W. Bush to figure out a response to the Obama administration's decision to release memos on how Bush's administration handled torture: say it's dangerous.

One Republican operative told Salon today that Bush aides were blasting the decision for giving too much information to terrorists. And former CIA director Michael Hayden was on MSNBC earlier saying exactly that. "On balance, the release of the memos harms American security," he told the network.

This "one republican operative" is never named. Why not?? This source is used to make "former Bush aides" plural throughout the piece. This source and Hayden are the only two people referenced in the post. (link at sig)

For me, this example only goes to show that using anonymous sources is such a pervasive practice that few journalists question whether to do it anymore and even fewer readers think to complain.

I'm glad you called out Mike Allen. Yes, his justifications are particularly troublesome.

I for one very much enjoyed the twitters.