Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is pretty much the slime of the blogosphere, right up there with Perez Hilton. And I’m not just saying this just because of her political views, which are often nasty. Some of her blog posts, especially the ones that have lots of updates, are almost completely unreadable. She doesn’t comprehend that to understand the update we have to know what the post is about — she throws them in haphazardly and then sprinkles the post with links without giving indication of where they’re leading. I am utterly perplexed as to how she has become a popular blogger and can only conclude that she benefits from her frequent appearances in mainstream media outlets like Fox and the echo-chamber quality of the conservative blogosphere.
Given this, I’m seriously confused as to why possibly the best magazine publishing today, The New Yorker, wanted to write a profile on her. Granted, I don’t doubt for a second that the magazine would have taken plenty of swipes at her — possibly even shredding her to bits — but why even give her the satisfaction of devoting 10,000 words about her so that she can go run to her fellow bloggers and whine about her unfair treatment. Here’s an email exchange between her and staff writer Rebecca Mead:
Dear Michelle Malkin,
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m a staff writer at the New Yorker, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m eager to write a profile of you for the magazine. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been reading and watching with interest your commentary on the election, and Ã¢â‚¬â€ particularly with McCain rising Ã¢â‚¬â€ I think this could be a great time to look at your work and career and influence. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d hope to come and spend some time talking with you, and watching you do what you do. Is there a number at which I could reach you to talk about this further? You can email me at this address or call me at [redacted].
Looking forward to speaking with you,
Dear Patricia Jackson,
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m a staff writer at the New Yorker and am trying to get in touch with Michelle Malkin, with a view to writing a profile of her for the magazine. Can you let me know the best way to reach her, or put me in touch with her?
[phone number redacted]
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got a mssg from Rebecca Mead of the New Yorker looking for your # Ã¢â‚¬â€ is there one I should give her?
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Mark Cunningham
[phone number redacted]
Dear Michelle Malkin,
I am the editor of The New Yorker magazine, and I believe that you have
received some sort of contact from our office, but I just wanted to assure
you that our desire to write about you is serious and genuine. I can be
reached through email above or [phone number redacted].
On 2/16/08, Michelle Malkin wrote:
Dear Ms. Malkin, Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThanksÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â but can we talk? I am at home at [phone number redacted]. Best, David Remnick
Dear Mr. Remnick,
Again, thank you for your reassurance that your magazineÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“desire to write aboutÃ¢â‚¬Â my work Ã¢â‚¬Å“is serious and genuine.Ã¢â‚¬Â I have no doubt that your writer is serious and that your interest in printing some sort of profile for your audience is genuine.
The question is: Toward what end?
No disrespect to you and your august publication (of which my beloved in-laws are longtime subscribers), but I have neither the time nor inclination to sit down with your staff Jane Goodall and serve as an anthropological specimen for The New YorkerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s readership. If I want to play ape for amusement, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll do it for my kids.
I find it especially funny that she tries to take swipes at Mead, even though she’s not half the journalist Mead is. It’s because she knows that Mead will actually ask her hard questions, unlike the folks who wrote a puff profile piece about her at The Baltimore Sun.
Oh well, it’s not like this should actually cause Mead to abandon writing a profile — she can just do a write-around. This would be great because write-arounds are often much more harsh and blunt on the profile subject.
UPDATE: Note to Michelle Malkin. If you put quotes around a word, for instance, the word “scoop,” it’s usually a good idea to make sure that the person you’re targeting actually said the word. Otherwise it pretty much ruins the entire premise of your blog post. I find it also funny that she insinuates that I was “ripping off emails” by posting them and not providing a link. I find this funny because I found out about those emails through this post where she heavily block quotes a Politico story while expressly refusing to link to it. Better luck next time.
UPDATE 2: Below you’ll find a screen shot of what Malkin would call “blogging.” Yes, that’s the subject line of her blog post. No, Malkin doesn’t understand the basic concept of readability.