Interesting People mailing list archives

more on Another view -- you choose -- Michelle Malkin Distorts Krugman


From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:46:21 -0400



Begin forwarded message:

From: Valued Customer <s5218906 () earthlink net>
Date: June 16, 2004 10:11:40 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Another view -- you choose -- Michelle Malkin Distorts Krugman

Dave-
For IP, if you wish.

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin <http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000033.htm> argues that Paul Krugman <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/opinion/15KRUG.html? pagewanted=print&position=> is entitled to his own opinion about Ashcroft, but not to his own set of facts about terrorist prosecutions. To make her point, she excerpts part of an earlier Krugman column (May 11, 2004 <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opinion/11KRUG.html? ei=5070&en=e2baefa566f38d6b&ex=1087531200&pagewanted=print&position=>) in which he again complains that Ashcroft has not convicted any actual terrorists. Of course, she left out of her excerpt his next sentence which read, "(Look at the actual trials of what Dahlia Lithwick <http://slate.msn.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2098948> of Slate calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training videos," and you'll see what I mean.)." Since he was not unaware of these prosecutions, Krugman was expressing an opinion about what constituted 'actual' terrorists. The list of convicted terrorists that Malkin offers to rebuke Krugman, if one takes the time to try to even remember who they were, actually makes Krugman's point, that these were 'disaffected bozos,' not actual, competent terrorists. No doubt they represented a problem that needed cleaning up, but not something which merits boasting about.

One might disagree with Krugman's assessment of the importance of these cases, but that is his opinion which Malkin asserts he is entitled to. Yet, instead of taking on Krugman's opinion, Malkin tries to subvert it by pretending he was simply ignorant of facts. This is contumelious and typical of what David Brock documents in "The Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy."

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: