More Malkin Infotainment

Interesting, looks like Michele Malkin is up to her old tricks. With a new twist thrown in.

She led off at just after 6 AM with a story another site had yesterday, with the full story on her site, of course. No need to click through folks, I have it all right here. Oh, but it gets better for you folks looking for a new credible, ethical conservative news source.

The story addresses an allegedly doctored photo which appeared in USA Today a week ago. Make no mistake, the photo was altered, though I didn't find it so bad on the actual page before USA Today acknowledged the problem and changed it. But there are some items alleged journalist Malkin conveniently left out.

1) She appears to have run it prior to any serious attempt to reach USA Today for comment, given that she e mailed them, from all appearances, when she made the post. That isn't how an actual journalist would approach it, frankly. So much for fair and balanced.

2) She neglected to point out that the text, which was the heart of the story, after all - was a more than adequate, balanced treatment of the report.

3) Along with the eyes being altered, in the version I magnified for a look, there were also blemishes and freckles washed out, which improved the image significantly from that perspective. And, face it, Condi's dark, cloudy eyes aren't really image enhancing, in my opinion. It makes her look tired. To be honest, a photo editor could just as easily have been trying to improve the image, as oppose to using it to attack Rice.

4) But best of all, she trolled someone else's story to Drudge, Instapundit and who knows who else - and still had time to slip in a link at the very top of her post to Amazon and her new book out next week on just this very topic. LMAO

5) At this time, USA Today has managed to update the story and replace the image. What are the odds that Malkin puts that update, if she gets around to it, at the bottom as she usually does ... but continues to use the picture and the bold text at top to hawk her book?

6) Maybe I'm misreading the whole thing and this is just her audition to go full time at Fox Evening* News. ; )

Blogs as the new credible conservative journalism? Sorry, it just ain't close to there, yet, folks. I love Limbaugh, been a fan for years - Hannity I can handle. Mostly they let you know they're as much entertainment as information and whatever else. But when people want to play credible journalist ... they should start acting that way. But they won't.

* With all due respect to Britt Hume, one of the best in the business, as far as I'm concerned. Too bad he turns the place over to the children at night.

Comments

[splashtc]

M.M. promotes herself as more then she actually is. Shall we call it tabloid blogging.
Amen to Britt Hume.

[duhhh]

don't know simone, what should we call it?

[Tamara]

Dan-

I understand where you're coming from, but who are you to sit there and write posts dedicated to trashing other people's blogs? Obviously you take blogging very seriously, and consider yourself to be a journalist. What do you think it does to your own credibility when you get all caught up in this petty, immature blog-bashing? An intelligent person can tell the difference between tabloids and news, and you should give people more credit. I mean what are you trying to prove?

[splashtc]

If I may- Tamara, M.M. promotes herself as a conservative syndicated columinst and she is a fox news contributor. Fox needs to stop having her on pretending she is a legitimate journalist/ political analyst when she has been caught several times using other peoples' stories and leading people to think they are her own.

[Michelle(Diedra)]

Splash - is this some kind of jealousy over the fact that Michelle is on Fox? Is that what this is about? Because that is what it seems to be.

Although I do not always agree with her , I really enjoy seeing her on Fox.I started reading her weblog after I saw her on there.

She's very animated, dynamic, and intelligent.

[Dan]

I understand where you're coming from, but who are you to sit there and write posts dedicated to trashing other people's blogs?

It isn't about trashing other people's blogs. This is a new medium governed by the systems and ethics we are establishing as we go. I have no intention of not speaking up when I see things being done which I find representative of poor ethics or principles, particularly by people who would purport to speak for the greater whole in the MSM.

[Dan]

Splash - is this some kind of jealousy over the fact that Michelle is on Fox?

That argument is typical, dead ended and dangerous. By definition, you could never question anyone or anything that appears to hold a position of authority, or privilege. Ironic that so many always bring it out first - pure sheep-think, IMO.

[splashtc]

Michelle, I'm all for girl power. I question if she has any original thoughts or opinions - I smell a parrot. You can only fool some of the people some of the time.

[Michelle(diedra)]

Dan if you did not really care about her being on FOX, or if you did not care about her at all...You would not even feel the need to write about her.

Everytime you write about this lady you mention that she is on Fox - and that you think she should not be.

It sounds like jealousy to me.

There are many other bloggers who really do commit grave errors. You are picking on her. ..and you harp on her...ALWAYS mentioning that she is on FOX.

Why does this particular blogger rub you the wrong way - other than the fact that she is on FOX and get more airtime than you do?

There are many other failable bloggers out there in blog world other who do much worse than this soap opera grudge you hold with Michelle.

There is a fine line between love and hate. Dan seems to give to much importance to Michelle Malkin.If soeone doesn´t care about someone they don´t even think about them. ..much less write long exteneded posts about that person.

[bud]

"No need to click through folks, I have it all right here."

No, you don't.

One of the really *good* things about the web in general and (good) blogs is the ease with which primary sources can be accessed. You've learned the mechanics of it -the link is there- but you discourage folks from looking at the pictures and making up their own minds.

Comment, interpret... yes. Filter? No. Baaad blogger, no coffee. :-)

Email is human readable - aloud.

[don surber]

Yea, she did horn in on it, didn't she? But in her defense ...

[don surber]

... still working on that defense ...

BTW, how come it is OK to knock MSM but not bloggers? Who made up that rule? Don't dish it out if you can't take it

MM did an MSM thing. Someone else did the work, give that person credit

[Sam]

I have the scoop on the photosphopping job on my site by a techie who knows his stuff.

It's worth checking out.