The “credibility” of the right-wing blogosphere

[CatWoman]

Following up my post about Malkin's black eye on the AP witch hunt, Glenn Greenwald echos my sentiments exactly:

These right-wing bloggers love to piously masquerade around as "media watchdogs," keeping a watchful eye on the "MSM" and compelling them to adhere to facts. But they are nothing of the sort. Nobody is less interested in media accuracy than they are. Correcting media mistakes is so plainly not their agenda. They are nothing more than hyper-partisan hysterics who jump on any innuendo or rumor or whispered suspicion as long as it promotes their rigid ideological views and political loyalties and hatreds. They have a long, shameful and really quite pitiful history of incidents filled with ones like this Jamil Hussein debacle, including…read on

Bob Geiger writes about it also—along with the Nitpicker—David Neiwert—AlterNet —Sadly, No! Jesus General Booman Tribune Firedoglake Lindsay Beyerstein and Oliver Willis

Daily Kos:

That they are always wrong is a feature, not a bug. This is my favorite:

Michelle Malkin going on Fox News the night of the midterm elections to announce that blogger Dan Riehl has "called the race for George Allen," prompting a smirking, condescending Brit Hume to observe — correctly — that when you have a blog, you can say whatever you want, and that it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. Hume didn't know how insightful that observation was, or how perfectly chosen was the receipient of his observation.

Nice one Michelle. Dan Riehl calls it for "Macaca Allen. I couldn't stop laughing when I read that.

Update: AP executive editor rips into bloggers who have now endangered Jamil Hussein's life.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/05/the-credibility-of-the-right-wing-blogosphere/