We are extraordinarily grateful for M. McArdle's brief blogging absence. (Since Friday.) Recuperation time is always welcome. Although we are looking forward to seeing how McArdle responds to Andrew Sullivan's challenge. There is a very interesting class angle to this struggle. Sullivan, an elitist, is comfortable assuming moral superiority while McArdle, an elitist wanna-be, is accustomed to using moral superiority to bludgeon her opponents. Who will blink first?!
The Atlantic is more fun than a barrel full of (self-deluded, shallow) monkeys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
maybe you could sharpen your teeth on this in the meantime?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/cable-news-broadcasts-bad-uses-of-your-time.html
My money's on 2,000 + words over a series of posts as to why Sullivan misunderstood her point.
As poorly written as CFs take on how crappy cable news is, it basically agrees with Tom Levenson's
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/22/once-more-into-comcasts-breach-kos-ko-foreshadows-cable-on-the-canvas/
@downpuppy:
agreed, but I was more referring to the purported intellectual atmosphere at the hallowed halls of the Atlantic and the crushing bring down that apparently followed in returning home to cable news.
and we're off to the races as Megan trolls another publishing house over purportedly not having fact checkers
The graphic suggests an equivalence between Bill O'Reilly and Olbermann. I'd love to hear CF defend that, or else disavow it as the glib lie that it is.
To put it another way: You meet an immigrant studying American society to obtain citizenship. He tells you he's reading a) the New Yorker; b) Washington Monthly; c) The New York Review of Books; or d) the Atlantic.
Is there any doubt that d) is the worst answer?
Please please please please do Brooke's New Yorker piece. Please?
Post a Comment