Ah, not well, which is why Althouse is so much fun. In her first blog post about the Packer post, which demands to be reproduced in its entirety, Althouse says:
Friday, October 24, 2008
I am shocked at the substandard ethics displayed by The New Yorker's blogger
George Packer.
This New Yorker blogger, George Packer, names me and slams me, but doesn't link,
so there's no way for readers to see the context. The context is here.
I didn't "push[] the plastic-device story," I genuinely thought I saw
something, something that wasn't a "story" anywhere else -- I took my own
freeze-frame photograph. Within 5 minutes, I looked more closely in the
surrounding frames and decided it wasn't there and said so. That's all my post
was. So what the hell is George Packer talking about?
Shame on you, George Packer! That is truly sleazy! You are so eager to push
your little theory that you have lost sight of ethics and fairness. Packer
writes:
The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political
subculture gone rancid.
Look in a mirror, man. Look in a damn mirror, loser.
ADDED: What Packer seems to have done is to have adopted another blogger's
summary of what a lot of bloggers, including me, have done over the course of
the election season. That other blogger paid no attention to my year of balanced
blogging, under an explicit vow of cruel neutrality. And Packer, I bet, did not perform an independent check to figure out what my blog is really like. It is this failure,
even more than the failure to link to the particular post he purported to
describe, that is really a failure of ethics. What absurd irony that he behaved
like this to reach the conclusion that the other side of the blogophere is
"self-isolating" and "rancid"!
Packer, I demand an abject confession of your self-isolation and
rancidity.
ADDED: Thanks to Instapundit for linking. There's also a separate post called "I got so mad at George Packer last night."
No boxed wine was safe that night, I bet.
Ms. Althouse has published in the New York Times and is often linked to by Instapundit. Her postion give her authority before the public. Yet her emotional, capricious posts, written to elicit attention and sympathy from anyone needing to rescue an ageing damsel, are meddling and snide, albeit not exactly dangerous. The last thing Althouse should do is demand further exploration of the content of her posts, but of course she does, since one of the first ways she attempts to fight back is to say that she is misunderstood or her words are being twisted. In the comments, she and Jon Swift exchange words about just that excuse.
Jon Swift said...Ann must have passed out at that point, for there are no further posts from her in that thread. No doubt any day now she will decry her "enemies" for their sexism.
Well, he does link to my story, which is what his post is about, and I had the
courtesy to link to you, so readers can in fact see the context.
Ann Althouse said...
Yes, you're a [loser and a] shithead too, Swift, but thanks for the tip. Are you saying Packer didn't bother to read the original source, that he just poached off your lame-ass post?
Ann Althouse said...
"The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid."Swift's comment underscores my point about Packer's observation. You
folks have been stewing in your own juices too long.
Ann Althouse said...
And Swift distorts to suit his purposes too. Congratulations for being a less devious than Packer.
Jon Swift said...
I'm saying, in fact, the opposite, Ms. Althouse. Since I linked to you in my story he most likely did see your story and still reached the same conclusion.
Ann Althouse said...
Swift, I get the point that you linked
and that he linked to you, but as a matter of the most basic blogger ethics, he
needed to put a link where he made an assertion about what I said, particularly
since what he said was completely distorted. He libeled me in The New Yorker,
one of the most important magazines. The fact that the link is on your little
blog is insufficient. You know the readers aren't going to find their way back
to my site via that circuitous route.And you got it wrong too, so if you have
any decency, you would fix your twisted post. You are not concerned with
fairness and accuracy. You should see the ridiculous irony of your post. YOU are
doing the very thing you are supposedly shedding light on. Hypocrite!
Jon Swift said...
I would be most interested to know Ms. Althouse what specifically was inaccurate about my post and how what he wrote and what I wrote rises to the level of libel.
Ann Althouse said...
Swift, I haven't read your post other than the sentence I emailed you about. Read my email. I said that Packer libeled me when he said I "pushed" a story after I posted a photograph of a freeze-frame and then in 5 minutes said it wasn't what it had originally looked like to me. That is not pushing. It is not true. And he went on to slime me and insult me in The New Yorker. That is harmful and shameful and I'm extremely angry about it. As for what you do on your blog, I don't bother to read it, and I didn't call it libel. I can't be bothered to read it, frankly. I think you're boring, but you do apparently appeal to people in your "self-isolating political subculture gone rancid." Good for you. Asshole.
Jon Swift said...
How did you manage to read only one sentence of my post, Ms. Althouse, while skipping all the other words? And which sentence was that? Your emails contain no mention of a specific sentence. I did not email you a specific sentence, only a link, which you must have clicked on because I did not describe the piece in my email and no one had linked to it when I emailed you as a courtesy, not even Mr. Packer. And I'm not sure why you feel the need to claim that you haven't read my piece and then
proceed to characterize it and me. Wouldn't that be unfair and in fact what you
accused Mr. Packer of doing?
Ann Althouse said...
"Wouldn't that be unfair and in fact what you accused Mr. Packer of doing?"I had read the sentence that had my name it it after seeing a Google alert. YOU emailed me to point out your work, and I responded to you by email based on the one sentence I had read. Then you came over here to talk about yourself -- I get it, you do self-promotion like mad -- and I responded here. It was never my idea to write about you on my blog, because I wasn't interested in reading what you had to say, since I could see from the sentence about me that you were being unfair. I'm not going to comb over what you said about everyone else, and I'm not going to write a post about you. I don't like you, and screw you. The idea that I'm doing anything to you that is comparable to what Packer and you did to me is flat-out bullshit. But
you are not interested in honesty. So pimp your posts to Sullivan and Packer and
get your traffic. Good for you, you little prick.
Ann Althouse said...
I don't mind people attacking me for doing that post itself, which was done at the end of a long session of live-blogging. But what angers me are these broad statements about how insular and narrow-minded I've been, when I have spent the last year (and more) being incredibly balanced, to the point where my readers really didn't know which candidate I was going to vote for. You know, I'm going to vote for Obama (94.67% chance), but these assholes make it a really distasteful exercise.
Ann Althouse said...
Now I feel like voting for McCain... and pushing the inside the ear transmitter theory...
Jon Swift said... Isn't it a wee bit hypocritical, Ms. Althouse, to complain of Mr. Packer's not linking to you, and then to refer to me and my piece and not link to me or even name me?
(edited for redundancy)
13 comments:
It's an excellent dust-up. She's such an easy mark.
Oh, and I assume you'll see it but the interview Thers links to here is awesome in the not-knowing-how-kooky-you-are way.
http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2008/10/your-right-wing.html
The far right will never stop saying that Obama's presidency is illegitamite/socialist/dangerous. Obama's pretty good at counterattack, however.
It's so funny to see the right panic about Obama, having no idea that their real masters have found him perfectly acceptable. It never occurs to them that the real elite don't mind throwing a few crumbs to the poor, as long as they get the rest of the loaf. Which they always do, no matter who is in office.
Wait a minute, isn't this the woman who wrote something like "just because I didn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there" in her "admission" that she had been incorrect about Obama supposedly wearing an earpiece?
How fun it must be to live in Althouseville. Criticism = libel. I imagine that level of delusion is something like being on drugs 24/7. Lucky her.
Yes, CP; I hope everyone does read Althouse's context so they can see that quote. It's too bad it didn't fit in the short post; it's a classic.
Now I feel like voting for McCain... and pushing the inside the ear transmitter theory...
My gaud, what a petulant child!
She's not just taking her ball and going home, she's drumming her little heels on the floor and screaming, "You'll be sorreeeee!"
Look what we made her do!
Althouse may be in her fifties on the outside, but she's still fifteen on the inside.
Fifteen? Try three!
I love Swift. His piece was, as always, a masterpiece of satire. She should have taken it in good part.
I won't say anything more about AA as I don't want to be sued.
Heh. You'll have to stand in line behind all the other people who criticize or mock her.
Even worse than sued, she'll track your IP and send your boss an e-mail telling him you called her mooky-stinks on the internet in the hopes that you'll get fired. She's not just childish, she's outright vindictive to a stunning degree for a woman of her age and position.
Althouse explains Althouse:
that post ... was done at the end of a long session of live-blogging
"Live-blogging"? Is that what they're calling it these days?
It used to be called cocktail hour, and Ann would have just bored the rest of the faculty. Now, thanks to the wonder of the internet, she can bore (and amuse) thousands.
Post a Comment