The Hateful Michelle Malkin
Apr 18
A group of college students protested some military recruiters at their college. They foolishly sent out press information with their personal contact information on it. Silly mistake, but Malkin showed her true colors: she published that information on her blog. The students have been bombarded with threats at their residences since she did so. When the students contacted her and asked her to remove their information she posted it again and made it sound as if she was somehow the victim of an outrageous attack. And no, no link — I won’t reward thuggish behavior. Her website is not hard to find.
This is a despicable, loathsome thing to do. Malkin deliberately set out to harass people for the “crime” of protesting military recruiters. She didn’t attack their ideas, or debate their conclusions, or engage them in anything resembling an honest fashion. She made sure that they would receive death threats and harassment at their homes. She set out to intimidate the students and make their lives miserable for having the unmitigated gall to disagree with the worldview of the great and all knowing Michelle Malkin, defender of reasonable discourse, champion of the internment camp. They will know better than to disagree with Michelle Malkin next time, by God.
Malkin posted — twice — the personal information of student protestors. She demonized the students and implied that she was the victim of their attacks. The second time she posted the information, she knew that the students had received death threats and she went ahead and posted the information anyway. One wonders if one of the students is hurt if she will take any responsibility. Or maybe she will whine about how the students are blaming her, Michelle Malkin, pure as the driven snow, maiden-like in her intentions and comportment, champion of the internment camp, for what happened — before she posts the contact information for a third time.
UPDATE: In the comments to this excellent Ezra Klein post, a good suggestion from DwG:
Ms. Makin derives a substantial portion of her income via her syndicator, Creators Syndicate. Their email is info@creators.com. Their fax number is 310-337-7625. Every business LOVES a busy fax machine! Foaming-at-the-mouth, obscenity-laden missives won’t do, but intelligently-worded letters of concern about the ethics (NOT THE OPINIONS) of one of their “properties” might have an impact. Remember, neatness and spelling count!
Be nice and polite and make it clear that the problem is not Malkin’s opinions but her ethics-free behavior in this case.
UPDATE II:
Oh, Uncle has shown me the light! How could I have been so wrong! It’s okay because someone said something mean to her! I guess that makes it okay for me to do the same thing to someone because I have gotten nasty emails. Wow, thanks — I hadn’t known it was all right to participate in the harassment of someone at their home because some had written me a mean email. That has the potential to make my life so much more interesting. And, hey, if someone gets harassed or has to move or gets hurt, well, hey — not my fault. I mean, the info I will use will be in the public domain and hey, someone wrote me a mean email calling me a “worthless f*cking traitor” and hurt my little feelings. Because we all know that mean emails are exactly and precisely the same thing as knowingly keeping up the personal information of people I know to be receiving death threats and harassment. Exactly and precisely the same. No difference at all. Nope. Mean email == making it easy for people to harasses someone at home. Well known fact, that. I am sorry, what could I have been thinking?
Hey, how far does this exemption actually go? Is it a one time thing — do I get to do this to anyone I don’t like, or do I just get to do it to one group/person per nasty email? And where is the limit of what I can do? Is it based on the nastiness of the email? Like, if someone calls me a poopy head, I just get to write their phone number on a bathroom wall under the words “for a good time call” but if they threaten to kill my non-existent dog I get to set their car on fire? Does someone have a chart or something? Because I would hate to step outside the bounds of good taste and decency.
#1 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Yes, Malkin reprints information that is already in the public domain and is therefore hateful, like every other blogger out there. It’s not like she called anyone a fucking slanty-eyed cunt or started an email bomb campaign or anything like that.
#2 by Victor Lamp at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
The college students who were protesting are not angels. They posted their own personal info when they coordinated their protests. The people that they motivated to show up…and the vandalism and damage that this particular part of the group caused…they are the hateful ones. Michele Malkin is only blogging on what she and everyone else is seeing.
#3 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Nice, Uncle. They are getting death threats, almost certainly from her readers, and she won’t take the hard to find and released as a mistake information down and instead reprints it. And you are perfectly fine with that. Nice.
Oh, but its okay because someone said something mean to her! I guess that makes it okay for me to do the samne thing to somoene becasue I have gotten nasty emails. Wow, thanks - -I hadn’t known it was all right to participate in the harrasement of someone at their home becasue some had written me a mean email. that has the potential to make my life so much more interesting. And, hey, if someone gets harrased or has to move or gets hurt, well, hey — not my fault. I mean, the info I will use will be in the public domain and hey, someone wrote me a mean email calling me a “worthless f*cking traitor” and hurt my little feelings. becasue we all know that mean emails are exactly and precisley the same thing as knowningly keeping up the persoanl information of people I know to be recieving death threats and harrasement. Exaclty and precisly the same. No differnece at all. Nope. Mean email == making it easy for people to harrases somene at home. Well known fact, that. I am sorry, what could I have been thinking?
#4 by Fred at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Good for Michelle Malkin. Many of the protestors who are opposed to military recruiters often abuse both the recruiters and those who seek information from the recruiters. The revelation of the identities of these people is fair game. Why should those who harass others have their identities protected? What are they ashamed of?
#5 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘They are getting death threats’
So is Malkin. Two wrongs don’t make it right and, as I said, all she did was post already public info.
‘And you are perfectly fine with that.’
Nice strawman. If you don’t want your info in the public domain, don’t attach it to press releases. Period.
Basically, you guys seem pissed that her blog is popular enough to bring criticism and some kooks out to threaten them. It’s like saying the press should not print things that may result in threats.
#6 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Your update is funny. See, someone said something mean to Malkin and something mean to the folks on the press release.
#7 by Fred at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Kevin: ” Because I would hate to step outside the bounds of good taste and decency.”
Fred: LOL When have you been inside the bounds of good taste and decency?
#8 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Uncle
No, you miss the point. They released the persoanl information by mistkae, the want the persoanl information taken down, they are getitng harrasesment and death threats and she wont take it down. In fact she reposts it after they make the request. What possible reason could there be for her to post their home phone numbers but to encourage people to harrass them? And harrasement — death threats, an unending barrage of phone calls at all hours — is a differnece of kind from saying something mean to someone.
And your original comment and post says nothing like “two wrongs don’t make a right.” It responds to a definte wrong with the equivalent of “well, someone was mean to her once!”. There is no way to read that as “two wrongs don’t make a right”
#9 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Oh, and Uncle — when Fred agrees with you, its time to take a hard look at your position
#10 by norbizness at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
The students should have been petitioning for the right of the executive to have an unchallenged prerogative to inter undesirables, then this whole unpleasantness could have been avoided.
#11 by Fred at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Kevin, and when that’s the best defense of your position, you need to take a hard look at your position.
#12 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘They released the persoanl information by mistkae’
Tough nanners.
‘In fact she reposts it after they make the request’
I would too if your supporters were calling me hateful names.
‘What possible reason could there be for her to post their home phone numbers but to encourage people to harrass them?’
To allow people to respond to things they don’t agree with?
Sorry dude, the two wrong things stand. Some idiots threatening those folks is not michelle malkin’s fault just like some idiots calling malkin names is not the fault of you. THe latter, however, is likely the fault of the asshat who set up the email bomb campaign.
#13 by Tim at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
The question is not about politics, it’s about civilized behaviour. I don’t make death threats or racist statements, neither does Fred, neither does Say Uncle, neither does anyone I have seen post on this site. For that matter neither has Malkin, directly that is. Putting contact information on a press release is standard practice and is for the benefit of the press, not the general public. Malkin’s actions are in the same vein (though not quite as bad as) the anti-abortion protesters who put up wanted “dead or alive” posters of abortion doctors and then cross them out if the doctor is killed. Malkin according to her website wants the students “held accountable” but then gives no indication of what that accountability should look like. She never directly invites others to do dastardly things but doesn’t do much to prevent it. The behavior is out of bounds and I hope her publisher has the ethical sense to deal with it.
#14 by Fred at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Poor ‘ittle babies. Wah, wah, wah. Pass the baby bottle. They are just poor wittle kids who want to be able to have their free speech without an expectation that someone will free speech them back. We all know that freedom of speech is only for the superior minds and mouths of the highminded liberal college student. Start the violins playing.
#15 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Uncle
That is garbage and you know it. First, there is no evidence that the people who did the protests are connected to the alleged email bomb, so you cnanot argue “supporters” Second, it is Michelle malkins fault when she continues to repost the information knowing that they people are being harrased and threatened. Decent human beings don’t do things like that. And the argument that others did something mean to her doesn’t past muster.
What won’t you support in the name of getting back at people you disagree with? That’s a serioous question: if helping people harrass and threaten folks who did nothing but exercise their right to protest is okay with you, then where is the line?
#16 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
In this instance, Malkin had a great opportunity to show that she was above those who insulted her. Instead, she felt it necessary to stoop even lower. That pretty much confirms everything I’ve ever known about her character.
Uncle:
So if South Knox Bubba had inadvertently included personal contact information with some blog stuff, and sought to correct the mistake, you’d have had no problem with his enemies in the media beating him over the head with it?
#17 by Les Jones at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Printed by mistake, my foot. Here’s a scan of the press release. That contact information was included intentionally in a press release marked “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” and with their names listed as the ad-hoc press team.
I agree, though, that once the protestors told Malkin they were getting death threats and asked her to take down their contact info that she should have done so. Leaving it up is irresponsible.
#18 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
I most definitely can argue supporters and did. Yes, I know it’s all garbage that’s why I’m arguing. Puhlease.
‘What won’t you support in the name of getting back at people you disagree with? That’s a serioous question’
Gimme a break. More men of straw.
In light of Les’ comment, I can see a criticism of reposting it as being more valid but they released the info purposefully and it was just passed on.
‘So if South Knox Bubba … him over the head with it?’
I see no evidence that the release of the info was inadvertant. I see it as ‘oops, we can’t take this’ and they wanted it yanked.
#19 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Way to dodge the tough questions, Unc. McClellan would be proud of you.
#20 by Dawn at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Yeah, if people can’t take having their personal info “passed along” and subsequently used for threat and intimidation, then what the hell are they doing engaging in their own freedom of expression? Wusses. /sarcasm
#21 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘Way to dodge the tough questions, Unc’
Your question is irrelant. The situations are not similar. And your follow up was a nice little non sequitur.
#22 by Marc at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Wait a second. I thought sexism and racism were the worst crimes possible for those on the left. Is it worse to spew racist and sexist filth at malkin or for her to republish public information?
#23 by Fred at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Does anyone know for sure that death threats were received? Can you trust the protestors? One way to get attention is to pretend you have received death threats. Hate groups have been known to send themselves hate mail in order to get attention.
#24 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
“Gimme a break. More men of straw.”
No, where is the limit? You are saying that becasue after Malkin twice posted the home contact info of students engaged in peaceful protest — once after she knew that they were being harrassed and sent death threats — some jerks flamed her and sent her nasty emails that she was justifed in dong what she did in the first place. And how does that work — Malkin is fortune teller, and since she knew that she would get ugly email after she posted the students information twice that she was justified in doing it? If that doesn’t bother you, than what does?
And more, you are arguing that anonymous nasty emails have the same power as a major media figure making it possible for her readers to harrass people at their homes. You are excusing Malkin’s behavior — supposedly a professinal journalist and popularize of history — because internet trolls are bad people and some of the student’s apparent supporters are among those trolls. Malkin — and all decent people — is supposed to be above that.
And Uncle, since when should people be forced to “take” death threats and constant harrasment at home for exercising their first amendment rights?
#25 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘that she was justifed in dong what she did in the first place’
Heh, you said ‘dong’. Her posting info that was already public is not a crime and is not something I have a problem with.
‘And Uncle, since when should people be forced to “take” death threats and constant harrasment at home for exercising their first amendment rights?’
Who in the name of jumpin jesus christ on a pogo stick said that? The continuing pattern of you making up my position since you can’t or are unwilling to address the one I made. Simple, really: Malkin published already published info. No harm, no foul. She published it again, while it was still public elsewhere. No harm, no foul. The people involved willfully and intentionally made it public. Idiots sending death threats is a serious issue but it’s not her fault any more than any other publisher of info is responsible for what people do with it. Sensible people don’t blame Danish cartoonists for people rioting.
#26 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Marc:
Racist remarks are inexcusable, but they’re irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of Malkin’s behavior. As Uncle is fond of repeating, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Uncle:
The questions are relevant (and I was referring to Kevin’s question as well as mine). What’s frustrating about you, however is that you are utterly capable of seeing differences of degree when it suits you, and seem utterly incapable of doing so when it doesn’t.
So in Uncle-land, using someone’s personal information in a way they didn’t intend or want is okay if you’re someone Uncle doesn’t like, but not okay if you’re someone Uncle does like. Your repetition of “they included contact info on purpose, that makes it fair game” patently ingores this excllent point that Tim made above:
Putting contact information on a press release is standard practice and is for the benefit of the press, not the general public.
Then again, you’re probably right. It’s silly of us to expect anything like journalistic integrity from the likes of Malkin.
#27 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘And more, you are arguing that anonymous nasty emails have the same power as a major media figure making it possible for her readers to harrass people at their homes.’
Please show me where I argued any such thing. Again, making up my position. As I said, you guys have your knickers in a twist because Malkin has a wide readership. She’s the big dog in the fight, period.
#28 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Uncle:
Malkin published already published info. … She published it again, while it was still public elsewhere.
So, by this standard, you have no problem with the Abortion Doctor wanted sites because, after all, the information was already public.
Here’s a pop quiz for you here: What do you suppose was Malkin’s intent in publishing the addresses? Does her intent not matter one bit?
#29 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘So in Uncle-land, using someone’s personal information in a way they didn’t intend or want is okay if you’re someone Uncle doesn’t like, but not okay if you’re someone Uncle does like.’
In your SKB example, there is quite a difference. Outing someone for the sake of outing them is different from attempting to get people to challenge someone’s point of view after they release their own personal info. Not remotely similar, but that’s probably one of those ‘differences of degree’ that happen to suit me, eh?
#30 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘So, by this standard, you have no problem with the Abortion Doctor wanted sites because, after all, the information was already public.’
Publish away. If someone threatens or does violence, they should be dealt with.
‘What do you suppose was Malkin’s intent in publishing the addresses?’
For the same reason I publish reporters’ email addresses on occassion. So that people can tell them what they think.
‘Does her intent not matter one bit?’
Are you implying she wanted to send death threats? her intent matters if she was explicitly calling for people to threaten or do violence. I see no indication that is the case.
#31 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Uncle:
As I said, you guys have your knickers in a twist because Malkin has a wide readership.
Uh, it’s not the fact that she has wide readership, it’s the unethical way in which she’s exploiting it. But of course, there’s nothing unethical at all about continuing a behavior that you know has caused grief and possible harm.
#32 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Uncle
“Who in the name of jumpin jesus christ on a pogo stick said that?”
You did: I see no evidence that the release of the info was inadvertant. I see it as ‘oops, we can’t take this’ and they wanted it yanked.
The “this” is death threats and constant harrasement, as you well know.
Now you are just insulting our intelligence. Yeah, Malkin writes a post accusing the protesters of sedition and then posts their home contact information. Gee, wonder whats going to happen next? But, hey, no harm no foul — SHE never wrote a nasty letter (well, except for that whole blog post about how they ar enasty people comitting sedition, but it didn’t take the form of an email or a phone call, so i guess that is all right) so everything is kosher according to you. And when she was amde aware that the people in question were getting death threats and constant harrasement she posted the information again. Your response? “no harm no foul”.
As for the power imbalance, you started your comments with that equivalanece — in repsonse to pointing out the vileness of Malkin’s actions, you wrote about how other people are mean to her, implying that the two are somehow equivalent. (And note that she hasn’t posted a death htreat. So her antagonists, reprehensible as they are, have respected limits that the students’ antagonists, the ones enabled my Malkin, have not) And you do more of it now — absolving Malkin of any wrong doing because she didn’t personally send a death threat she hasn’t done anything wrong.
So where is the limit, Uncle? If callign people traitors as you post their home information, then posting their homeinformation again when you know they are being harrased and sent death threats is “no harm”, then what exactly is?
#33 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘You did: I see no evidence that the release of the info was inadvertant. I see it as ‘oops, we can’t take this’ and they wanted it yanked.’
Dude, can you read? Perhaps I need a kevin to english translator. I was unaware that ‘when should people be forced to “take” death threats and constant harrasment at home for exercising their first amendment rights’ was a synonym for ‘oops, we can’t take this’ and they wanted it yanked.’
‘As for the power imbalance, you started your comments with that equivalanece’
No, I started my comments off with publishing names that were already published is not hatred whereas racial slurs are.
‘absolving Malkin of any wrong doing because she didn’t personally send a death threat she hasn’t done anything wrong’
So, is Malkin responsible for the death threats? I doubt you’d get any reasonable people to conclude such.
‘So where is the limit, Uncle?’
I already explained that to you when I said ‘her intent matters if she was explicitly calling for people to threaten or do violence’.
Calling someone a traitor, while deplorable and overly used, is rhetoric and rhetoric only. And, again, are saying Malkin is responsible for these death threats?
#34 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
“Dude, can you read? Perhaps I need a kevin to english translator. I was unaware that ‘when should people be forced to “take” death threats and constant harrasment at home for exercising their first amendment rights’ was a synonym for ‘oops, we can’t take this’ and they wanted it yanked.’”
Maybe you need an uncle to English dictionary, becasue what the hell else could you be talking about, knowing that the “this” in your comment was death threats and harrasement and that your position is Malkin did nothing wrong by enabling people to harrass them even after she knew about the death threats?
“So, is Malkin responsible for the death threats? I doubt you’d get any reasonable people to conclude such.”
Really? She leaves the stuff up after calling them traitors and knowing that they are getting death threats, and she has no responsibility? Really? You have an odd definition of responible there Uncle.
“And, again, are saying Malkin is responsible for these death threats?”
“already explained that to you when I said ‘her intent matters if she was explicitly calling for people to threaten or do violence’.”
So implict calls for threats and harrasement are just fine with you?
I am saying that she is partly responsible for people getting them as she delibertly inflamed her readership with accusations of treason, then posted their persoanl information, then told her readership that they were getting death threats and psoted their information again. yeah, thats responsible. Gee, how could anyone ever think anything bad could come from that.
#35 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘what the hell else could you be talking about’
Or, I could be talking about, you know, what I said.
So, you are stating that Malkin is responsible for death threats? And there is the fundamental disagreement in a nut shell. You ‘feel’ she is and apparently ‘feel’ she did it intentionally. I have seen no evidence of the kind. Rather like you ‘feel’ my words must mean that people should be forced to take death threats and you ‘feel’ i’m OK with that, though I’ve intimated absolutely nothing of the kind. Period. Feh.
#36 by Dawn at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
No evidence of the kind? She reposted it again, AFTER they received death threats! I cannot believe you’re trying to make it look like Kevin is stretching it to “feel” as though Malkin had anything other than innocent intentions. Even if I bought that she didn’t intend for anyone to harass them the first time, I think anyone who gives her the benefit of the doubt after that is either a fool, or willing to overlook it because she’s on their side. “They’re traitors! Here’s their personal info again, in case you didn’t get it the first time I posted it! They’re traitors! Here is where they live!” Anyone who thinks that isn’t totally harmless is stretching it? Meh.
#37 by Ted at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
While I think Malkin had malicious intent when she facilitated access to the students, this incident is indicative of a troubling trend in our age of electronic communication. Many people now believe they have the inalienable right to attack others anonymously. I’m not convinced this is a good thing.
#38 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Feh indeed Uncle.
You said that the people wanted the info taken down not because it was placed in there inadvertently but because they couldn’t “take this” anymore. You said that knowing that the word “this” refered to the emails and phone calls they were getting, and you said it knowing that those emails and phone calls were overwhelming, were constant, were harassing in nature and contained among them viscious death threats. Combine that with your contention that Malkin did nothing wrong in posting the information and that the students were being dishonest in their reasoning for wanting it taken down and there is no way to read that statement as anything other than suggesting that since the information was in the public domain, they should just deal with the death threats and ignore people who are making it easier for the death threats to take place.
As for evidence, sheesh, man.
1)Malking called them traitors as she posted their information.
2) She refused to take down their information when she was informed that people were calling in death threats
3)She reposted the information at the same time she defiantly said she wouldn’t take down the origianl information because of the death threats.
4)When cald on her crap, she posts nasty emails she has recieved in response and says stuff like this: “All this because I think the punks at UC Santa Cruz who ran our military recruiters off their campus should be held accountable.”
But there is no evidence that she intended anyone to attack them. Not at all.
Sheesh, would to God you had been this demanding when Bush started in on Iraq and al_queda.
#39 by Fred at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
You don’t think Bush should have “started in” on Al-quaeda?
#40 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Kevin:
Sheesh, would to God you had been this demanding when Bush started in on Iraq and al_queda.
But don’t you see? Uncle’s being totally consistent here. The same inability to connect the dots vis-a-vis Bush mentioning al Qaeda, Iraq, 9/11, and nuclear weapons repeatedly in close proximity to one another (but he didn’t say these are explicitly related, and you can’t prove he intended for people to draw that conclusion) is evident here! Bush didn’t explicitly state they were related, so all the between-the-lines stuff and implications are perfectly acceptable.
Sure, Malkin has a lot of readers whom she knows will hate what these students did! Sure, there was always a chance that some of them would contact these students and harass them. Sure, once the harassment actually kicked in, she posted the information again. But Malkin didn’t explicitly tell her readership to harass these students, all her between-the-lines stuff and implications are perfectly acceptable.
No, the problem isn’t that Uncle didn’t apply this standard to Bush on Iraq and al-Qaeda. It’s that he applied excatly the same asinine standard. Had he allowed common sense and the slightest bit of critical thinking into the equation, the conclusions would have been much different, in both cases.
Of course, he could lend himself a tiny bit of credibility if he told us what he supposed was her intent in publishing the personal information. I mean, she clearly did it for a reason. Wonder what it could have been? Maybe she intended for her readership to send them flowers?
#41 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
‘Of course, he could lend himself a tiny bit of credibility if he told us what he supposed was her intent in publishing the personal information.’
I did. She intended to draw attention and bring criticism, much like any other blogger who posts email addresses or links to blogs, etc. Period.
There is no evidence she intended to send death threats to these folks. Period. She’s not responsible if her readers did send death threats. She did what other bloggers do when they take issue and it’s not her fault some kooks who happend to read her site threatened those people.
And, btw, Malkin says that not a single person involved has contacted her and asked to have the info removed.
#42 by Kristopher at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Of course they wouldn’t contact her.
Victimhood is a tag moonbats crave … especialy if they can get it without any physical pain.
#43 by tgirsch at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
She intended to draw attention and bring criticism
Which I’m sure she was shocked to discover wasn’t entirely civil…
The issue here is not a legal one, but an ethical one, and one of journalistic responsibility. If you can’t see that Malkin’s actions (especially her subsequent actions) are of questionable ethics and clearly irresponsible, an dif you don’t believe there was even the hint of a suggestion that people ought to attack the messengers rather than the message, then I guess we’ll never agree.
And to a previous allegation, I really don’t give a shit if it’s Michelle Malkin or Half-Bakered Mike doing it; readership has nothing at all to do with whether it’s ethical or responsible. That it’s someone who claims (or at least aspires) to be a “real” journalist only makes it worse in degree, not in kind. A real journalist should know better.
#44 by SayUncle at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
Malkin’s a real journalist? I thought she was kind of a partisan hack.
#45 by Sailorcurt at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
People who insert themselves into the public domain to get attention should realize that they might actually succeed. When inserting oneself into a controversial subject, there is the possibility that a portion of the attention may not be of the desired type.
That’s life.
I have no doubt that Michelle Malkin and others who publicly exclaim their personal opinions to the world receive plenty of attention of the unwanted kind.
I have seen no evidence of the alleged “death threats”. I’m not saying that it’s impossible; but I find it much more plausible that people have simply been expressing their displeasure with the members of “SAW” in much the same way that their supporters expressed displeasure to Michelle Malkin. Basically, the college kids can’t handle it and are crying “foul”.
Perhaps, versus bemoaning the consequences of their successful plea for attention, they should reflect on the old apothegm: “It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
#46 by Kevin at April 18th, 2006
| Quote
“I have seen no evidence of the alleged “death threats”. I’m not saying that it’s impossible; but I find it much more plausible that people have simply been expressing their displeasure with the members of “SAW” in much the same way that their supporters expressed displeasure to Michelle Malkin. Basically, the college kids can’t handle it and are crying “foul”.
Perhaps, versus bemoaning the consequences of their successful plea for attention, they should reflect on the old apothegm: “It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.””
You should pay more attention to th sayings you quote. Two seconds with google would have shown you this.
Uncle
You know, it is entirely possible to be boht a journalist — i.e. someone who is paid by news organiations to either report upon or comment upon the news — and a partisian hack. People have also been known to walk and chew gum at the same time.
#47 by tgirsch at April 19th, 2006
| Quote
Malkin’s a real journalist? I thought she was kind of a partisan hack.
Actually, she is a partisan hack, but she fancies herself to be a real journalist. Her actions here basically demonstrate that she’s just trying to play one on TV. What’s sad is that many on the right grant her undeserved credibility as though she were a real journalist.
#48 by Sailorcurt at April 19th, 2006
| Quote
You should pay more attention to th (sic) sayings you quote. Two seconds with google would have shown you this.
You must really type fast to be able to execute a Google search in 2 seconds.
I’m not that fast.
I did perform a perfunctory search and didn’t find the postings that you linked to…I guess I didn’t use the correct search terms. Thank you for directing me to them.
So now I can say that I HAVE seen evidence that they received veiled threats…that seem to me to be along the same lines as those received by any other public figure who comments on controversial subjects.
Insinuating insults toward me doesn’t discount my point. People who insert themselves into controversial subjects can EXPECT to be subjected to such tactics by the less scrupulous members of the opposition.
I fully expected to be insulted and berated after my posting on this subject and it is no surprise that you rose to the challenge. That’s the price of putting in my two cents.
First of all, I’m a mature, responsible adult, not a child throwing a tantrum. With that in mind: insults don’t bother me because you don’t know me and, therefore, your insinuations about my intelligence (regardless of how vague or explicit) mean nothing and only demonstrate that your argument is too weak to present without such histrionics. Threats don’t bother me (and I have received them in the past) because, unlike the more domesticated members of our society, I am well capable of defending myself and my family.
Inserting oneself into a controversy that so many feel so strongly about is not something to be taken lightly. Perhaps the children of “SAW” have learned that lesson from this experience. One can only hope.
#49 by Dawn at April 19th, 2006
| Quote
Your last comment is spot on, sailorcurt. I guess domesticated members of our society need to buck up and realize that free speech doesn’t mean the right to actually live without harm or loss of life, or threat of, after exercising that right, huh? Can domesticated members of society also recognize the difference between differing opinion and an outright threat instead of rambling about their own intelligence and maturity - apropos of nothing actually being discussed - at the person they’re disagreeing with? I’m betting the answer is yes. Who’d want to be one of them? Clearly they don’t realize that if they can’t or won’t arm themselves to the hilt, then they’re not worthy of free speech. Wimps. I can totally see your point. We should be defending the people who threaten them, and who pass along the info allowing that to be easier, and poo pooing those who criticise those upstanding individuals like Michelle Malkin and her brave minions. We need to teach them a lesson because it’s for their own good. If they shut up, they might just live longer. Leave the expressing up to those with the fortitude to take it. I was so wrong upthread. I’m totally convinced, now.
Oh, and you showed such courage right now, standing up to the terrible, awful barage of comments Kevin leveled back at you after so bravely expressing your opinion in this comment thread. It must have been pretty hard. Other people might have taken your mentioning your ability to defend yourself and asserting your own intelligence as defensive posturing, but not me. You’re clearly not like those wimps who asked poor Michelle to take down their personal information.