ash is a great fan of the writer/blogger/columnist and proud liberal Eric Alterman, whose blog she reads every weekday. One of his pet peeves is the conceit of establishment journalists, a prime example being the one mentioned in her letter to Mr. Alterman, who himself entered enemy territory as she describes. By the way, Mr. Alterman published ash’s remarks, though only the first paragraph of the text:
I’m convinced Joe Klein came to blogging not on orders from the boss but to take that old adage “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and twist it into “If you can’t ignore them or ballyhoo them out of prominence, then trod on their turf to change the rules of the game.” He honestly believed he could, reluctantly and quite late, bully the blogosphere into conforming to his concept of how blogging should be conducted, which happens to be similar to how traditional punditry is played. Now, some months after he should have concluded otherwise, he is still befuddled that hordes of independent minds didn’t abruptly adhere to his journalistic standards simply because he proclaimed that it be so.
It’s his attitude, I suppose, developed after so many years of unquestioned expertise on matters of national import, that we once-huddled masses couldn’t possibly approach his level of wisdom nor are we entitled to ignore those linguistic frameworks in which any vile sentiment or faulty “opinion” is still superior to a couple of swear words added for flavor. Klein’s problem is that he’s addicted to his insider status and terrified of his inability to operate free from its constraints. In that sense, when he lashes out at someone like you, a relatively famous, credentialed, and published author, unlike a bunch of unknowns who may or may not display actual writing talent, he’s expressing his resentment for your comfort and fluency with the blogging domain while not being penalized by being relegated to a level of obscurity, more than he is his disdain for anything you’ve actually said – or not said. Thus his lectures are fundamentally about your perceived illegitimacy, not as much about the arguments themselves.
By the way, some time ago I posted a simplified version of this view on his blog, which apparently has had no impact.
As for Mr. Matthews, the subject of your latest Nation piece, my own focus is on the way he treats the female guests on Hardball. (Perhaps I could modestly propose that as a follow-up article for next week.) Since he is, after all, a heterosexual, more than his relationship with the male candidates, I’m struck by how he interacts with women, dividing them into two camps: attractive and unattractive. While he fawns over the former, so much so it hardly matters what they bring to the conversation, he couldn’t be more dismissive of the latter. I should disclose here that I’ve refused to watch either of his programs since his infamous “only lefty wackjobs don’t like Bush” remark well over a year ago, so maybe he’s started taking women more seriously since then. Somehow I doubt it.