Baldilocks notes that Columbia Journalism Review’s Paul McLeary, in his attempt to both defend the New Republic’s Scott Thomas Beauchamp and denigrate his attackers (which are now legion) apparently doesn’t realize that the word “milblogger” is a portmanteau that combines of the words blogger and military:
Apparently McLeary’s Ivy-honed intellect didn’t help him to deduce that milbloggers=military bloggers. Nor did that “superior intellect” lead him to discover that all military officers have an undergraduate degree, at minimum, and that half of enlisted men/women have obtained the same.
He denigrates the military bloggers then has the nerve to quote Andrew Sullivan approvingly in the next sentence. :::shakes head:::
I hope that he came to my blog, saw that “101st Fighting Keyboarders” link on the top right and got fooled. What a clown.
Sounds reminiscent of the Boston Globe’s Alex Beam being taken in by libertarian Bjorn Staerk ‘s 2002 April Fools’ Day Stalin parody. Too bad that McLeary didn’t stop for a moment to read Baldilock’s bio page.
Update: Here’s a somewhat related item regarding a veteran journalist who’s definitely on the other side of the aisle from the CJR: “So That’s Why Novak Hates Blogs!”
More: Dan Riehl compares CJR’s coverage of Beauchamp with their thoughts on Scooter Libby:
It seems, according to CJR, what Beauchamp himself published on the web should be left alone and kept private. In the Libby case, third party letters are fair game, mock away, it would seem. Given the particulars, this goes beyond simple hypocrisy, or a double standard. It’s just plain biased.