Bloggasm

One of the things that often rises to the top of the political slush, particularly close to an election cycle, is anecdotal stories of individuals from either side of the political spectrum supposedly vandalizing or committing some form of violence towards the opposition. More often that not, there’s usually no real proof of who the culprits were. For instance, pundits will hype the vandalization of political lawn signs or bumper stickers as “proof” that the other side is composed solely of savages, even though whoever actually vandalized the signs is long gone. It could have been anarchists for all these pundits know.

Whenever conservative pundits do this, they almost always use the mocking term “liberal tolerance” either in the title of their post or somewhere in the body of it. Michelle Malkin, creator of the ingenious term “Moonbats” (whatever that means), has taken to labeling these incidents as evidence of “liberal thuggery.”

It seems silly to point out the anecdotal nature of incidents like this, how a few obscure individuals somehow represent an entire political ethos. I’ve held strong opinions for several years, and I’ve never attacked a politician or pundit, nor have I vandalized any political signs. Is this somehow proof that my political opinions come out on top?

What’s even more amusing is when pundits make specific accusations and even create the facade of citing sources that actually lead to nowhere, in that they just follow a circular pattern where no direct sources are actually present. Michele Malkin, in a post titled “Liberal thuggery at Ball State U.,” does just this. Like most Malkin posts, it’s short on actual analysis and long on block quotes, and it points to a specific incidence of “liberal thugs” attacking David Horowitz when he visited Ball State University. At one point, she makes the accusation that the attackers were part of Students for a Democratic Society, and links to another blog post to prove it. If you actually click through to her “source” (which few of her readers actually do, something that has been proven by several bloggers through their site meter statistics after she’s linked to them), you’ll see that no proof is ever actually given, which caused me to leave this comment in the post:

Malkin has provided a link to your blog as “proof” that the people who attacked him were part of Students for a Democratic Society, something that you repeat in your blog post. Do you have any evidence to suggest that they were part of this organization? Something more substantial than a rumor you heard? Names of the specific people who attacked him? They are all over the age of 18, so you have every right to print their names. Please do so, otherwise don’t credit this to an organization when you have no proof.

In fact, all news sources which cover this particular incident specifically mention that the attackers were never named. Which begs to question, why is The Horse’s Mouth making these accusations, and why is Malkin not bothering to check her facts?

Furthermore, Malkin then goes on to accuse the staff at Ball State of being hostile towards David Horowitz, and to prove this, links to an article that behaves in the same circular fashion, in that there’s absolutely no proof that the claims of “discrimination” hold any water.

As one commenter put it over at The Horse’s Mouth:

Boy, it’d be great if somebody would actually present some proof that the administration wanted to shut down Horowitz. You, my friend, are the sole source for Michelle Malkin stating, I quote, “The students took their cue from the university’s administration, which vocally opposed his presence.” Where the heck is any reference to the administration members who “vocally opposed” Horowitz?

I don’t disagree that college campuses are a lot more liberal than society at large. I applaud the efforts of individuals who attempt to point out this bias.

But making unsubstantiated specific allegations of overt discrimination against conservatives by particular administrators greatly diminishes your credibility. I’ve spent 15 minutes following links and trackbacks trying to find the source of Malkins claim that particular administrators “”vocally opposed” Horowitz. It appears the only sources are (1) your blog, which proclaims what the administration “really meant” by statements that articulate a facially non-discriminatory policy, and (2) Horowitz’ own needling comments in response to these unsubstantiated claims that the faculty opposes him.

Either Horowitz needs to be more controversial, to generate some actual prejudice, or he needs to stop saying he’s being discriminated against. Pointing to lunatic students doesn’t count — those students don’t represent the university any more than the drunken idiots who flip cars and light them on fire at sporting events represent the university.

After Malkin has made all these unsubstantiated claims, she ends with one of her usual glib remarks: “Parents of future college students: Scratch Ball State off your list.”

I always had this theory that becoming a popular conservative blogger wouldn’t be that hard, and this particular incidence adds substance to this theory. All I would have to do is write posts devoid of rational thought and make claims devoid of proof, and then I’d just continually email people like Michele Malkin and Instapundit until they started linking to me. Because god forbid they ever write any original content of their own.

***

Related posts: It’s time to Waterboard GOP Rep. Mark Foley, The irony of Ann Coulter in a nutshell, Brody ruckus is a fake