It's A Howie Kurtz Hacktacular!

I didn't think it was possible to be this much of a tool.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021502065_pf.html

It is.
Damn liberal Washington Post.

 

You have to feel for poor Michelle, having to deal with crackpots, cranks, and such

 

The world is gray, not some inflammatory yellathon of half-formed ideas. Liberal talk radio (and commentary in general) struggles to be as fired up over nonsense as conservatives, so the shows (and pieces) are perceived to be less engaging.

 

I like a lot of Kurtz's stuff, including the Sunday show on CNN, and this was a good piece.

Malkin, or any political talking head, is open to criticism from the other side. (Frankly, she can really go over the top sometimes). To have some of these things done to her, though, is ridiculous.

My guess is if she was a liberal, and some conservative bloggers did this, there would be people on this board throwing all sorts of fits, including the person who started this thread.

 

Sounds like Malkin's quite fine dishing out the hate and obnoxious rhetoric, but not so fine on the receiving end. :

The martyr complex at the end was a nice touch. :

And Howard Kurtz is a tool. A year ago, I wrote him a letter and an e-mail pointing out a glaring error in one of his columns that dealt with me personally. The jackwipe never acknolwedged it in any way, shape or form.

 

There are three words you rarely see stacked together in that order, sort of like "Low-fat napalm."

 

I think of Kurtz as an aggregator, but not much else. He's great as scraping a bunch of links together, but I don't listen to much else of what he says.

Malkin's a hack, one of the worst the right has. She stumbles on a nut every now and then. But then, so does Coulter.

 

Maybe the piece could have, you know, mentioned what prompted the publishing of her address. (Her doing the same to a couple of UCSC students who then got death threats they didn't get to whine to HK about). Maybe the piece could have mentioned that she wrote a book defending the internment of the ethnic Japanese during WWII, a book that reputable historians of the period shredded for its poor scholarship for almost a flat year. Maybe the piece could have mentioned the time she accused John Kerry on national television of self-inflicting his wounds.
But then, the embattled-conservative-chickie storyline would have been disrupted, and no hack wants that.

 

For Birdscribe, if Kurtz screwed something up, and you pointed it out, and he didn't acknowledge, that's wrong on his part.

But as for this piece, I thought it was fair.

His CNN show on Sundays is always a good watch, I think. He poses legitimate questions to both sides. I'd rather watch him than Lupica and Albom on at the same time over on ESPN.

 

If by "touch on it," you mean "with the overall impact of a baby sparrow's wing," I take your point. He doesn't mention the Kerry episode at all. He mentions her completely meretricious book about internment only in the context of why people don't like her. (One legitimate historian would have been nice.) He mentions the UCSC student in the context of "some people say" bullshit, and doesn't point out that her info got posted as a direct result of what she did.
Sorry, FH, but this doesn't get by any desk I ever wrote for.

UPDATE -- Maybe some of these quotes should have made it.
http://saw.revolt.org/node/51
Not to mention Malkin's involvement with the VDARE website, which is pure white supremacist crap.