WaPo On Bloggers
Today the Washington Post has an article on a "liberal" blogger. Overall, it's very sympathetic in tone. However, the article does not paint a pretty picture of the blogger.
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?
It goes on in the same vein for five web pages. They even quote some of the comments she gets from her rants. What I come away from the article with is a sense of how full of hatred she is. I think there's a terrible sadness to someone who lives their life so steeped in venom.
Update: Response to the WaPo Article from O'Connor here, from Glenn Greenwald here, Mahablog here, Betsy Newmark here and Captain's Quarters here. Greenwald's take in interesting. Even though he gets into the "yeah but they do it to mode", he points out that this boils down to an attack on blogs and bloggers by the MSM. His last sentence: "The scariest part: none of this is unusual. It is not an unrepresentative picture of how much of our "journalism" is produced". Which is one of the things we here at the Boulevard have been trying to point out. O'Connor herself is quite proud of the article.
UPDATE: And Tim Blair weighs in.
Other Links to this Post
-
chez Diva » Angry White Woman — April 15, 2006 @ 9:42 am
-
CARRY ON AMERICA » Blog Archive » The Lynch Mobs of Today — April 19, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
By Andy D, April 15, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
People who disliked Clinton and/or opposed his policies were not labeled traitors, anti-American, freedom haters, pro-terrorist or the like by his administration or his supporters. Hence, while many obviously disliked and disagreed with his policies, there was not the anger we see today.
By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
But they didn’t openly call for military failures, label the country “Amerikkka” and things of that nature, either.
By Jacques, April 15, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
I’m of the same mind as chez Diva. I can’t help but feel sorry for this woman. That was my original impression after reading and blogging on it this morning and I haven’t changed my mind.
It must feel terrible to be so consumed with rage that life in America with a George Bush presidency is only worthy of hatred and venom.
By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
She’s very proud of herself according to the post she put up. All I can hope is that rational people take one look at the article and the sheer venom it conveys and recoil from it.
By LP, April 15, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
that article is a horribly, horribly written article. Finkel did almost no research and based his observations of hte blogosphere on the Left as a whole on what he saw that one day. He didn’t take a look or quote from any of Maryscott O’Connor’s work where she actually says insightful, rational things; that would ruin the story.
A very bad piece of journalism.
By Gauis Arbo, April 15, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Maybe she does, I haven’t read a thing by her. Maybe the author got it wrong, but it seems she did, indeed say the things – and she’s quite proud of the article – so it’s likely she thinks it accurately portrays her.