Patterico's Pontifications

1/22/2007

Allah Blasts E&P and Greg Mitchell

Filed under: General,Media Bias,War — Patterico @ 7:23 pm



Allah, worth his weight in gold at Hot Air, notes E&P’s “eerie silence” regarding Michelle Malkin’s finding that several mosques described by the AP as “destroyed” . . . weren’t.

Today? No pieces. No new quotes from Allah.

Now, long-time readers know that I’m not a fan of the tactic of hastily criticizing your opponents’ silence — especially the silence of individual bloggers, who may have other priorities, like work, that would interfere with their ability to comment on a development within hours. But as Allah points out, when this story seemed to look bad for conservatives in the past, E&P had the news out within hours.

So let’s give them a little more time — but let’s keep an eye on them. Surely the silence won’t continue for days. Right?

Allah:

Maybe we’ll see some movement tomorrow. It takes awhile for a story to filter through the lefty blogosphere, unless it suits their agenda in which case it filters through instantly. In the meantime, I’m going to work on a new quote for E&P. I don’t want to give it away, but it involves some combination of the words “hack,” “disingenuous,” “profession,” “disgrace,” and “Greg Mitchell.”

Heh. Based on their past performance, I’d work in one more word: “dishonest.”

And hey — speaking of dishonest, let’s add Media Matters and Eric Boehlert to the watchlist.

10 Responses to “Allah Blasts E&P and Greg Mitchell”

  1. “Michelle Malkin’s finding” — that’s funny. It’s not like she’s some unbiased source who wasn’t pimped around Iraq for propoganda purposes. Hell, Tony Snow all but admitted that much.

    Hey, media critic guy. How come the silence on the phony Obama-madrassa story that was pimped by Fox, Washington Times, etc.

    If I were quick to draw attributes to silence I might think of a word … hmmm … “unprincipled.”

    But I’m with you, P. Let’s not be so quick to read into people’s not-so-quick reactions.

    [Don’t really know what you’re talking about. I’m not talking about covering one story and not another. I’m talking about covering one story like white on rice every time something goes your way on it, and ignoring it entirely — the SAME STORY — when it goes the other guy’s way. Different situation, but keep trying ineffective ways to try to tear me down, buddy. Makes me feel special. — P]

    Macswain (5b310d)

  2. It’s not like she’s some unbiased source

    What has that got to do with whether the mosques were destroyed or not?

    Geez Louise, way to sound like a six year old caught eatting the chocolate cake who then points to his sibling and says “why are you listening to her, she doesn’t like me.”

    The Left… the ideology of arrested development.

    Darleen (543cb7)

  3. To be fair:

    If conservative bloggers can accuse the AP of making up sources and inventing stories of human immolation, it’s fair for liberal bloggers (not me, though) to question the relevance of a report coming from someone so slanted as Michelle Malkin. Who’s to say that those photographs are even of the mosques in question? I can’t tell the difference. Can any of you?

    The AP is a massive organization. I would be shocked if Michelle Malkin made better use of any given information than they did.

    That said, I would be shocked to find out that either party pulled a story out of thin air (or Hot Air, for that matter).

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  4. “Who’s to say that those photographs are even of the mosques in question?”

    And what’s the basis for that belief? The right didn’t go after the AP based on pulling crap out of the air. They went after the AP when they couldn’t produce a named source for a specific story when the specifics of the story were challenged by the Iraqi government and the US military. Fair isn’t equating something that’s possible with something where this is actual evidence of something being amiss.

    Sweetie (b46da0)

  5. the last part should read “where there is actual evidence of something being amiss”

    Sweetie (b46da0)

  6. I thought Jamil Hussein was the source for the mosque information…you know, the guy that existed contrary to your wishes to the contrary.

    Am I right?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  7. You mean that Jamil Hussein who isn’t actually named Jamil Hussein and denies being the source for the AP?

    Darkmage (4de99c)

  8. Or the “Jamil Hussein” who apparently makes stories up out of whole cloth.

    Techie (476074)

  9. Yes makes perfect sense. Michelle Malkin, who went to Iraq personally and produced pictures of the destroyed Mosques that aren’t destroyed is too biased to tell the truth. But the AP, who reported that four Mosques were destroyed when they weren’t, who reported that six Sunnis were burned when they weren’t, who claimed that Jamil Hussein, who just happens to be named something other than Jamil Hussein and who says he’s not their source, is their source, is telling the truth.
    Honestly, people that believe this sort of nonsense shouldn’t be allowed to handle their own affairs.

    corvan (d5227a)

  10. I thought Jamil Hussein was the source for the mosque information…you know, the guy that existed contrary to your wishes to the contrary.

    Am I right?

    Leviticus’s internal monologue: “Man, this debate thing is really easy when you don’t need to be grounded in reality and can just caricature your opponents.”

    OHNOES (d573a4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2117 secs.