Monday, January 16, 2006

Let's consider Ms Malkin

You know, I don't want to become one of those obsessive Malkin-watchers (and they are out there), but I clicked over to one of her stories this morning, and she commits the same errors there that she did in the cell-phone incident that I talked about in my previous post.

In fact, looking at her work, all I can say is that the woman is ridiculously partisan, and because of this bias, her work is filled with factual and logical errors that a more objective mind would avoid. And so, because I'd already wasted my time reading her column, I decided to waste a little more and write her an e-mail.

I don't have any illusions that she'll even consider what I said, but I sent it off to her anyway.

Subj: Starbucks bombing
Date: 1/16/2006 10:02:19 AM Mountain Standard Time

OK, so I'm thumbing through the internet, and I came across your column on the Starbucks "bombing." And in it, you say:
Bay Area moonbats have quite a history of Starbucks-bashing... Apparently, they don't think the left-leaning corporation is guilty enough about its profits or organically pure enough for their caffeine-stained tastebuds.
Then you go on to quote one of your readers, who adds:
Once again, left-wing terrorism and violence gets a pass in the MSM. The Chronicle was equally coy when left-wing terrorist groups like ELF exploded devices at Emeryville's Chiron headquarters. But if a right-wing anti-abortion group placed a pipe bomb at a Planned Parenthood office, you wouldn't see such vague "vandals" descriptions.
Very nice. A little wide-eyed. Paranoid, even. But let's not go so far as to say "insane." That's a loaded term. But then, in your update, you provide the most important point of the story. And the headline says it all.

Starbucks 'bomb' found to be harmless
Preliminary tests apparently find no explosive material

Now, in light of that, let's go back to your initial writeup. You ended it as follows:
Whoever it was that left the IED in Starbucks ought to face serious consequences for endangering people's lives. But it's the Bay Area. So they won't.
Hmmm... But what we have here is a hoax. Possibly just something innocent that was misidentified - the Bomb Squad doesn't like to take chances on things like that - but more likely a hoax. So how "serious" do the charges have to be?

Perhaps, instead of "it's the Bay Area," you should say "it's the way justice works in this country."

Now, I realize that you're trying to be a neo-David Brock (from the early part of his career, of course - we all know how he ended up), so it's unlikely that you're going to pay any attention to me, but you also claim to have been a journalist. So I'm hoping that you can see where you screwed up on this one. You shouldn't express a wildly inflammatory opinion like that, without having all the facts.

Not that that's ever stopped you before, admittedly.

You know, whatever your degree was in, I hope it wasn't journalism, because your professor would be ashamed of you.

Take care

No comments: