Johnson’s knack for ferreting out fakes and hypocrisy has been
impressive. But hyperbole sometimes overshadows his analytic approach.
He’s not immune to the throes of passion he has disparaged on both the
left and right.
He jumped on a lame and misbegotten attempt by
conservatives last year to force the Los Angeles Times to release a
videotape of Palestinian Americans meeting with then-candidate Barack
Obama, even though the paper had promised a confidential source not to
Somehow The Times — the news organization responsible
for telling the world about Obama’s politically dicey association with
the activists — ended up being punished for that good work. And
Johnson was an unfortunate participant in thefatwa, accusing the paper of “brazen, unethical media malfeasance.”
won’t pretend to have read enough of the husky, pony-tailed blogger’s
work to give a full report card on his tactics, or politics.
Emphasis mine. Jesus Aloysius Tits. Look. This isn’t about me being pissed off that the LA Times did a big piece on Charles Johnson. He’s a local, it’s actually a mostly serious piece, whatever. I think Johnson’s an attention whore who’s discovered it’s more fun to attention whore as a pretend lefty than as a pretend wingnut these days, and he’s getting the kind of media loving those dirty fucking hippies who were right all along never got nor will ever get, but again, whatever. That’s not where this piece falls down.
Where this falls down SO HARD is at James Rainey’s claim that he dunno know shit about shit after he’s declared Johnson’s “knack” for kicking up dirt “impressive.” He cites precisely half of one example of Johnson doing something investigative, omits most of the really nasty bigoted shit Johnson used to pull, ignores almost entirely how Johnson was willing to smear not only Rather but John Kerry based on nothing but Michelle Malkin and Lucianne Goldberg’s say-so, but then throws that line in there like a reportorial condom to protect against the transmission of complaints. What a pussy. “In case you think I think his knack is impressive, I don’t actually know if it is, I just think it is, but hey, should you be able to provide me examples of how it’s not, I don’t know anything. I didn’t have time to read the whole web site, I mean, c’mon. Shut up, hippies.”
Here’s a free fucking clue: IF YOU DON’T HAVE TIME TO RESEARCH YOUR SUBJECT DON’T WRITE ABOUT HIM. For sure don’t admit to your readers you’re too lazy and careless to figure it all out. It’s one thing to say to a critic that the entirety of a particular incident, or the long and storied history of Johnson being a butthole, is too much to get into in one shallow puff piece, but don’t make excuses about the limits of your knowledge. Have a little goddamn pride. And if you get caught making a mistake, just fucking own it, say you weren’t aware of such-and-such, apologize, issue a correction, pull up your big boy pants and move the fuck on. Don’t make it all pre-emptively defensive with shit like this. It won’t shut your critics up, and it will make your readers think you suck.