Saturday, May 17, 2008

Is Michelle Malkin "spreading distortions" about the liberal McCain?

While I'm not a follower of Michelle Malkin's blog, it did seem to me to be a pretty serious charge to level against her that she's "spreading distortions" about Senator McCain. According to Mr. Auster, Malkin propagates two distinct distortions:

Distortion no. 1: Malkin gives the impression to her readers that McCain's "Big Vision" speech is referring to the here-and-now, as opposed to some future date.

Distortion no. 2: Malkin makes Senator McCain's immigration stand sound weaker than it actually is via selectively quoting McCain out of context.

As I said, I'm not a follower of Ms. Malkin, nor am I particularly fond of her. If anything I'm really just neutral toward her, but I disagree with the premise that she engages in spreading distortions about Mr. McCain in either case.

Regarding the first distortion charge, it seems to me that the title of her article about McCain's speech gives the exact opposite impression than that which Auster ascribes to the article itself. In addition, if the title of the article were not enough, Malkin says in the body of the text, and Auster quotes her as saying:

The bulk of the speech is a "look back" as if it were 2013 and McCain's assessing all his progress as president. You know it's pure fantasy because of this line: ...

How could anyone with a pulse read that and come away with the impression that McCain's speech was referring to the here-and-now? Is it Malkin's responsibility to take greater pains than she has here to ensure that every nitwit out there understands the clear meaning that this line conveys? I think not.

As to the second charge of spreading distortions, I addressed it in a comment to the VFR article. And Mr. Auster responded.

By the way, it occurs to me that by labeling them as I did in the body of this text I may have given some of you the impression that I'm the one accusing Ms. Malkin of propagating distortions about Senator McCain's speech. If that's the impression you got, I strongly suggest that you re-read the entirety of this entry (pay particularly close attention where I've added emphasis), including the title, as well as following the link provided to the VFR article. Thanks s'much!