Discussion for article #223203
âSneeringâ in a media kerfuffle?!?!!? Iâm shocked.
Kinsleyâs piece reeked of professional envy and personal animosity. I felt a little embarrassed for him.
5 Likes
I felt like I was reading a GG article.
8 Likes
Oh, NOW we get it: it was supposed to be a Book Review! See, when I read Mr. Kinsleyâs screed, I didnât get that, mostly because there wasnât much if anything in it about the book.
Sometimes thatâs appropriate. Martin Amis once had a review published of a book by Desmond Morris on English professional soccer, and Mr. Amis decided to spend almost all the space allotted for his review in discussing his own take on the subject of the book. Eventually, Mr. Amis threw in less than a sentence, right near the end (presumably to lend the impression of it being an afterthought) about how the subject of the book appeared to have completely evaded Mr. Morrisâ comprehension, or even attention. And that was fine, because the treatment struck the mark exactly in the bullâs-eye
Mr.Kinsleyâs aim, however, was not so true. His review of Mr. Greenwaldâs book was more like a Cheney Shot, where the hunter shoots a friend in the face, or mortally wounds an ally, or offs his own foot.
Yet, The New York Times presumably PAID Mr. Kinsley for a book review, right? This is a good gig Mr. Kinsleyâs been able to secure for himself: just off the value in his own name, he managed to get published in the Paper of Record a screed so devoid of substance and so puffed up with hubris, it might as well have been posted at NRO, The Daily Caller or on the Breitbart site.
4 Likes
âŚor a Greenwald article.
6 Likes
This comment, I strongly suspect, was posted by someone whoâs not read Mr. Greenwaldâs book, nor possibly any article heâs ever published, and perhaps not even Mr. Kinsleyâs, um, âreviewâ. I feel like sending a wave and a âYoohoo, we SEE you!â to some troll hunkered down behind a bit of decayed public infrastructure.
6 Likes
Would that be one of the Greenwald articles in which he revealed the scope of NSA surveillance activities and for which he won the Pulitzer for public service?
5 Likes
Well, at least we have a reasonable suspect for who clicked âLikeâ on CallmeEricâs comment.
Heâd respond, but for the fact heâs not read any of those.
What a profoundly misinformed assumption,
Try shooting from lower down on the hip, you might get lucky and accidentally hit something.
Edit: Misread the comment as being directed at me thanks to the non-threading aspect of the less than stellar commenting schema.
2 Likes
Whatâs there to suspect?
Click on the red â1 person liked itâ link and you can see who it is.
2 Likes
Greenwald is what Kinsley wishes he could be, because whatever Greenwaldâs flaws, deference to tastemakers with money to burn isnât one of them, whereas, Kinsley pays the piper over and over again.
6 Likes
The moneyed tastemaker funding his vanity project website aside, of course. Iâm sure thatâs what you meantâŚ
6 Likes
Iâm not sure which character in this telenovela has me giving the least amount of f**ks about the outcome.
Theyâre all making the National Enquirer look like the closest thing to a proper news source.
1 Like
Writing for the New York Times Book Review, Kinsley levied personal insults at Greenwald and wondered whether the newly crowned Pulitzer Prize winner might deserve to be locked up for his reporting of the agencyâs surveillance programs.
Pretty much like most of the GG Haters/NSA suck-ups at TPM - they are great at levying shallow insults, not so much at refuting his work. Itâs SOP.
2 Likes
Poor Kinsley has been ripped to shreds over this across the webbertoobz. Barry Eisler at Techdirt has a great piece ending with this gem:
Kinsley claims that, âEspecially in the age of blogs, it is impossible to distinguish between a professional journalist and anyone else who wants to publish his or her thoughts.â
Blockquote
Really? I think a good working test of whether someone is a journalist, professional or otherwise, is whether he or she agrees with Kinsley. Because if you believe the government should have ultimate decision-making authority over what leaks to publish, you might be many things. But a real journalist isnât one of them.
4 Likes
Hey, if you think you can ârefute his workâ. have at it! Letâs ALL see what you got in your handly little embroidered refutation bag.
While youâre at it, be sure to include some refutation of the Guardian - oh, and donât forget Barton Gellman, and the Washington Post.
Whew! Thatâs actually QUITE SOME LOAD of refutation youâve set yourself up to show us all. I for one am 110% - maybe even 1000%! - dedicated to reading each ⌠and ⌠every ⌠word of what youâve got to ârefute his workâ. Iâm VIBRATING at the very prospect. Standing by. On alert. Waiting. Bated breath. Tenterhooks. Canât wait. Oh, this is JUST like Christmas!
⌠ach ⌠I had so much fun typing that, I failed to notice I was issuing friendly fire.
4 Likes
Since it appears you may have forgotten to include thisâŚ
~DROPS THE MIC~
Ha! No problem, Avattoir.
I even give you extra points for âhandly little embroidered refutation bagâ 