The point Welch is trying to make is simple: the fact that people
like Brietbart have no journalistic standards of their own doesn’t mean
there is anything wrong with them critiquing and influencing actual
journalists. And that’s a valid point.
But as is usual with glibertarians—even newly minted ones like Welch—there is a vast oversimplification. It isnot
problematic (it’s good, in fact) for the media to pick up on legitimate
stories uncovered by even the the most unhinged, partisan bloggers. Itis
is problematic that the Times and Post feel they have to kow-tow to
Beck/Breitbart in order to prove that they’re not teh librul.
It’s quite remarkable to contrast the Opus Dei style ritual self-flagellation the mainstream media went through about theACORN story with the complete lack of comment they gave about the fact that Josh Marshall started covering theUSAttorney scandal months before the Times or Post picked it up.
Which is really the issue: the wankeriffic idea that taking ideas from one set of bloggers means you have no standards, whereas taking them from another means you’re in touch with the pulse of the people or whatever bulllshit the Beck fawnage over the last couple of months has meant.
For what it’s worth, I don’t give a damn where you get your ideas for legit stories. Plumb whatever depths you have to plumb, but sack up about it and admit you made an editorial decision. Don’t be all, “We had to cover Glenn Beck because he’s a controversial firestorm of controversy phenomenony thing even though he’s batshit crazy nuts, but we can’t listen to some idiot Internet person who is his own editor even if he finds out the president is breaking the law.”
This shit doesn’t have to be twisted around a million ways. It’s very easy. Just be clear and consistent and have those standards you like to wank at everybody else about for a change.