Patterico's Pontifications

10/15/2007

Did you Know Michelle Malkin Quit The O’Reilly Factor?

Filed under: General — DRJ @ 8:14 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

I didn’t.

Here’s Michelle Malkin’s post and this is a gossip columunist’s dish. Maybe I need to spend less time on the internet and watch more TV.

— DRJ

Comments (27)

27 Responses to “Did you Know Michelle Malkin Quit The O’Reilly Factor?”

Would be pointless now, DRJ…

Michelle isn’t on it anymore… 🙂

A shame FOX News decided to be so stupid, and not publicly admonish Spitter McSpittsburg.

G over M? I just don’t see it…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/15/2007 @ 9:03 pm
O’reilly’s viewership dropped from 2.2 million from the second quarter to 2 million in the third quarter of 07. Michelle began to appear frequently as the guest host and in regular guest appearances during this time.
This probably had more to do with it than Geraldo, although it is possible Geraldo with 40 years of journalistic background flexed some muscle with fox management.
Check his bio and you will see he has done some notable work in the past. Michelle is not a journalist in the remotest sense of the word.
voiceofreason (d6c6d3) — 10/16/2007 @ 12:50 am
Geraldo isn’t a journalist, and never has been. He’s a video tabloid reporter.

“Capone’s Vault”, anyone?

Michelle does more investigative journalism and reporting in a week than Geraldo does in three years.

Lemme guess, VoR, you don’t see anything wrong with what Geraldo said…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/16/2007 @ 4:59 am
Scott,

(1) his spitting comment was uncalled for.
(2) But that doesn’t make Malkin some kind of genius journalist in comparison to Geraldo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_Rivera
describes his career. He is not the best journalist there ever was but he has gone out and pounded the pavement to get stories. One of the ones Wiki failed to mention is his story on the Marilyn Monroe death, in which some pretty disturbing things regarding JFK and RFK were uncovered. ABC refused to air it but the Rolling Stone printed it. It was shortly after this that he went with the tabloid show.
You will note that he received an emmy for investigative journalism when Malkin was 2 years old.

What does Malkin do besides recycle news stories and comment on them. She ventured out of her house twice that I’m aware of. The first time to go to Iraq for four days to investigate the Jamil story, which it turned out she had wrong. The second was recently when she drove to the neighborhood of the kid who spoke for the Dems on a radio broadcast. She gave identifying information so that anyone so inclined could find the house.

But I’ll throw the gauntlet down for you. What stories has Michelle done that you would consider “investigative journalism”?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 5:37 am
I figured that was what happened.

You don’t have to be a fan of Michelle’s at all to think that what Geraldo said was rotten. And O’R says it hurt her feelings? Blech.
MamaAJ (788539) — 10/16/2007 @ 6:47 am
Personally, if Michelle were my wife, I’d have gone to visit Geraldo, and punched him in the face.

Her husband shows impressive restraint.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/16/2007 @ 6:56 am
Yah, what VOR said. Tho now that there is some anger there FOX can bring her and Geraldo back on to the Factor to give Factor watchers what they really want to see… lots of loud, unsubstantiated, loaded “commentary”, with plenty of smackdowns and a turned off mike or two (but they EACH get a button to turn of the mike of the other 2 if they want!) It’ll be the first round of the Right Wing Windbag Verbal Wrestling Federation Championships.
It’ll be a 3 day event… they’ll definitely get extra viewership, and FOX can time the whole thing so that the latest books that the participants have written can be relased during the “Ruckus Royale” and everyone will make a bundle.
EdWood (248b65) — 10/16/2007 @ 7:03 am
VoR,
Ms. Malkin would best be identified as a commentator or journalist rather than an investigative journalist. She does investigate stories, however, so the latter title may be a propos though it is not her bread and butter.

What does Malkin do besides recycle news stories and comment on them.

Either Malkin merely “[recycles] news stories and [comments] on them” or she acts as a journalist by overly [in your opinion] scrutinizing a figure in a MSM story (the Frost family). You can fault her for one or the other but not both simultaneously.

She ventured out of her house twice that I’m aware of. The first time to go to Iraq for four days to investigate the Jamil story, which it turned out she had wrong.

I’ll leave aside the snark about her leaving the house. I’m more curious as to where you consider her wrong; pertinent facts sourced to Hussein were demonstrably wrong and questions were rightly raised about AP’s over-reliance (61 stories) on a source who was neither a high-ranking official nor an official spokesman.

The second was recently when she drove to the neighborhood of the kid who spoke for the Dems on a radio broadcast. She gave identifying information so that anyone so inclined could find the house.

By choosing this 12-year-old as their spokesman (or spokeschild to be more accurate), the Democrats placed him and his family at the forefront of the S-CHIP debate, not Malkin. I find it curious that you fail to fault them for making the boy a public figure. Once thrust into the public arena, the boy and his family should have been examined further by the MSM, e,g. was the family even a bona fide S-CHIP target. The MSM again failed to fulfill its role of checking the facts in any story, leaving it to Malkin et al. to do so.
Socrates Abroad (14b001) — 10/16/2007 @ 7:07 am
Socrates,
I have no issue with the story about the boy or his family. I do draw the line at publishing things that specifically identify their home. Over the line in my opinion. If you have been following Malkin for awhile you will recall how indignant she was when her address and phone number were published.
The trouble with much of the blogosphere and news media is that readers have lost the desire, if not ability, to separate a story or issue into separate components.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 8:18 am
Socrates,

If the archives still have them on Hotair or at Malkin’s site you will find plenty of statements prior to her trip to the effect that the man didn’t exist and that was the specific purpose of going there, was to prove that.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 8:20 am
#6
Scott,
I noticed you couldn’t come up with any examples. As to punching out Geraldo.. are you suggesting violence is the answer to free speech, even when it is in extremely poor taste?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 8:25 am
“Free speech” includes the printed threat to spit on someone if you end up ion the same room with them?

You have a messed up version of free speech there, buddy.

“Free speech” is not an absolute. Never has been.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/16/2007 @ 8:28 am
Scott,
And violence is never the answer. IF she felt threatened she could file for a restraining order or simply refuse to be in the same room.
She posted the comment on her site like a badge of honor, so she must have not been as upset about it as you seem to be.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 8:32 am
I love VOR. Just shows what happens when your mouth overloads your brain. But to be fair there isn’t much of a brain to overload, which probably explains the substance of his comments. VOR’s classic wretchness is surpassed only by his soul numbing moral stupor.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/16/2007 @ 10:47 am
“I love VOR. Comment by Thomas Jackson — 10/16/2007 @ 10:47 am”

Oh Thomas dear, I’m sorry but I’m already taken.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/16/2007 @ 11:46 am
Thomas – It is only a matter of time until VOR calls everyone a racist.
JD (a481bb) — 10/16/2007 @ 12:31 pm
VoR,

I have no issue with the story about the boy or his family. I do draw the line at publishing things that specifically identify their home. Over the line in my opinion.

I wasn’t aware she had actually published the Frost’s address. If so, then perhaps she did in her investigative zeal, which would make her, de facto, an investigative journalist (or at the least an investigative commentator).
Mind you, I’m not a Malkin adherent – heck, I haven’t even lived in the US for over 10 years and rarely follow domestic politics.
That said, I found your criticism of Malkin somewhat disingenuous but what really grated was your touting of Geraldo Rivera as a reputable journalist. Emmy or not, Rivera also gave us Al Capone’s vault and his loathsome Jerry Springer/Donahue-like show. Hardly what one would consider “notable work,” journalistically speaking.

The trouble with much of the blogosphere and news media is that readers have lost the desire, if not ability, to separate a story or issue into separate components.

With regard to S-CHIP, a major story component was the boy and his family because the Democrats positioned them as a public rationale for a proposed policy change. Moreover, blogs shouldn’t be separating anything, the MSM should. The MSM should have been asking who the boy was and what his qualifications were to speak. Such pesky questions are not the hallmarks of vicious right-wing blogging but of any critical thinking. Once upon a time, the media strove to Consider the Source and “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”.

If the archives still have them on Hotair or at Malkin’s site you will find plenty of statements prior to her trip to the effect that the man didn’t exist and that was the specific purpose of going there, was to prove that.

As I just mentioned, the MSM should have been asking who exactly Hussein was and looking for someone – anyone – besides him to cite in 60 some-odd stories out of Iraq. Malkin was wrong, Hussein did exist, but her investigation spurred that revelation and she did acknowledge her error, if somewhat grudgingly. Perhaps Geraldo could take a page from her book…
Socrates Abroad (14b001) — 10/16/2007 @ 4:41 pm
Socrates,

If you want to call driving by the house and talking to a neighbor and then speculating on the worth of the vehicles (which may or may not have been the family’s) investigative journalism I’m not going to split hairs. But to me a journalist is a person who diligently checks their facts, doesn’t engage in speculation without proof, and generally goes out to meet the things they report on. There are far too few people who call themselves journalists that do that. But for Malkin to imply she is the answer to sloppy journalism and leftie bias in the news is too much of a stretch for me.

The Jamil thing was absolute speculation for two months prior to her visit, no more no less.

As for Geraldo I think you miss my point. He was a good journalist at an earlier period of his life. What he became after he got his talk show is entirely different. But I think it is important to recognize the whole picture. I really believe (my opinion only) that after his story on the Monroe death was turned down by ABC he decided he’d go for the big bucks since real news didn’t seem to matter.
voiceofreason (3d0525) — 10/16/2007 @ 5:18 pm
VoR,

If you want to call driving by the house and talking to a neighbor and then speculating on the worth of the vehicles (which may or may not have been the family’s) investigative journalism I’m not going to split hairs.

It’s not splitting hairs. What Malkin et al. did is what a journalist is supposed to do per the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists:

The duty of the journalist is to further those ends [public enlightenment] by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility…
1. The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for: Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty

The Democrats had a 12-year-old read out a speech he obviously did not write himself and the media ran it without even a cursory glance to points 1 through 3 above. I personally tend to side with Ed Morrissey that “the response on the Right sometimes outstripped reason” and “went too far in speculating about finances and motives of the Frost family.” But lest we forget that Morrissey also chastised the Democrats for

demagoguing the debate by using the 12-year-old boy to make their political argument for them, then screaming about how heartless it was for Republicans to question the Frost’s qualifications for government assistance. Like it or not, means testing is part of S-CHIP; in fact, it’s the entire debate. That puts questions like assets, real income, and personal choices on the table.

And now on to my second point…

But to me a journalist is a person who diligently checks their facts, doesn’t engage in speculation without proof, and generally goes out to meet the things they report on.

By your own definition, then, most of the foreign media reporting on Iraq aren’t journalists:

No official tally of reporters on the ground exists, but a head count of American print correspondents, not including wire service scribes or freelancers, caps out at around 20. McClatchy has cut its American reporting staff in half, the Boston Globe has folded its bureau altogether, the Washington Post doesn’t have nearly the presence it once did (although the paper wouldn’t confirm exactly how many remain), and the number of embeds—more than 200 at a high point in early 2005—was down to 48 by mid-April of this year. Edward Wong, who has covered the war since 2003 for the New York Times, describes the Western press corps in Iraq as “a skeleton crew.”
And yet, news operations still wouldn’t be able to file stories if not for their local correspondents—a fact they don’t seem eager to publicize.

As for my final point, I would explain that, no, I completely understood your contention. You yourself, however, pointed us toward Geraldo’s illustrious career (complete with Wikipedia link, for whatever that’s worth). I’ll concede that Rivera may have been a good journalist at some point long ago, but his repeated forays into tabloid reporting and daytime tell-all shows have forever distanced him from reputable journalism.

As you said, though, Rivera received his “emmy for investigative journalism when Malkin was 2 years old,” so Malkin has plenty of time to hone her journalistic craft. Rivera, in contrast, has the benefits of experience and maturity so he has no such excuse for plumbing the depths of actual journalism.
Socrates Abroad (14b001) — 10/16/2007 @ 10:56 pm
Socrates,

My last comment on this as it is clear you feel compelled to defend malkin. In the code you mentioned, she doesn’t adhere to 2&3 at all times.
– Her coverage of the Jamil case and the Frost case bear that out.
– Her many screes about the “anchor babies” ignore the fact that she herself is an anchor baby. (parents in US on a work visa, she is born the same year they arrive, they never leave because legally she is a citizen)
– Calling La Raza a terrorist organization when that is simply false.
– Strongly implying that Kerry shot himself with NO evidence.
– Her book “In defense of internment” used a central premise that was untrue, which she grudgingly admitted much later
– Referring to the Medal of Honor recipients recognized by Clinton as naked politicization, without even reading their biographies which made it pretty clear their actions met the criteria

She is a partisan, not a journalist.
Geraldo may now be a clown but for over a decade he was a journalist by the definition you gave. She can claim the degree but that is where it ends.
voiceofreason (3d0525) — 10/16/2007 @ 11:45 pm
VOR – Do you consider any bloggers on the left “journalists?” It would be fun to walk down a list with you now that you have exposed dome of your criteria. I suppose I could cross off a bunch of print and TV journos by the theories you have espoused here as well.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:04 am
DaleyRocks,

In comment #18 I said “But to me a journalist is a person who diligently checks their facts, doesn’t engage in speculation without proof, and generally goes out to meet the things they report on. There are far too few people who call themselves journalists that do that. But for Malkin to imply she is the answer to sloppy journalism and leftie bias in the news is too much of a stretch for me.”

But you want me to prove I have the same views on left leaning bloggers. I do. DKOS, Liberal avenger, and Huffington post to name a few.

Does that answer your question?
voiceofreason (3d0525) — 10/17/2007 @ 12:17 am
VOR – I asked which ones you considered journalists, not ones you considered obviously flawed. It’s a different question.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:34 am
Daleyrocks,
I’ve said it a couple of different ways. I don’t consider bloggers journalists. Left or right I have the same opinion.
I don’t rule out the possibility that there may be a handful that actually are but for the most part bloggers recycle and discuss news with readers.
I like the ability to discuss issues and see it as a value added aspect of the internet. But at this point in time it is not an alternative news source.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/17/2007 @ 11:46 am
VoR,

My last comment on this as it is clear you feel compelled to defend malkin.

It’s a good thing that was your last comment as you appear to have lost the argument.

In the code you mentioned, she doesn’t adhere to 2&3 at all times.
– Her coverage…
– Her many screes (sic)…
– Calling…
[Blah, blah, blah]

VoR, what say I provide you with a couple of basic hints on debating:
1) Taking a shotgun approach in what is your supposed “last comment” to claim all sorts of things – heretofore unmentioned – merely signals the weakness of your position, implying concession of previous points that thus necessitated your resort to an argumentary last stand.
2) Claims must be substantiated. And to make things perfectly clear for you, a source like Wikipedia that anyone with a net connection can edit does not suffice as evidence.

She is a partisan, not a journalist.

She is no more partisan than her fellow journalists who donate to Democrats and liberal causes (by an 8:1 margin, mind you) or who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (by a 7:1 margin). If journalists lean left in reality but still trot out the mantra that they can maintain objectivity, then Malkin is entitled to the same since the only major difference is that she leans right.

Geraldo may now be a clown…

Even if in closing, at least there’s one point upon which we can agree.
Socrates Abroad (14b001) — 10/17/2007 @ 5:29 pm
Socrates,

It is clear by now that you are a wide eyed fan of Malkin although you claim otherwise.
The Wikipedia reference was for Geraldo. His history is no secret and you offer nothing to dispute what was in the reference. Whether journalists lean left or not is irrelevant. She is simply not a journalist. I gave you examples you don’t wish to consider – another reason to believe you are more of a fan than you profess.
But if I’ve boosted your self esteem by making you feel you have won some victorious debate in an internet forum I’m happy something positive came of our dialog.
See ya around.
voiceofreason63 (b58fd1) — 10/17/2007 @ 5:46 pm
VoR,
So much for your “last comment.”

Another basic debating hint – ad hominem attacks like

“a wide eyed fan of Malkin”
“you are more of a fan than you profess”
“if I’ve boosted your self esteem”

are poor form.

The Wikipedia reference was for Geraldo…you offer nothing to dispute what was in the reference.

Let me spell this out for you in simple language: I place little (OK, no) trust in a source I can edit myself to say whatever I wish. Citing Wikipedia is the net equivalent of using your mom as a reference and should be taken with just as much credibility.

I gave you examples you don’t wish to consider

No, you made a series of claims attacking Malkin on Frost and Hussein. I countered, complete with cites. And then you made a series of wild, unsubstantiated claims about a score of other issues in your supposedly final comment. Let me reiterate – wild, unsubstantiated claims absent a link, a quote, logic, or any other demonstrable evidence.
To echo the movie line, “Show me the money.” Thus far, I’ve seen little more from you than evidentiary pocket change.
Socrates Abroad (14b001) — 10/17/2007 @ 8:09 pm

10/15/2007

Did you Know Michelle Malkin Quit The O’Reilly Factor?

27 Responses to “Did you Know Michelle Malkin Quit The O’Reilly Factor?”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out