Andrew Sullivan is a big svelte idiot: Webloggers love 'n' lionize any "real" journalist — i.e., anyone who's gotten published or even earned a living writing for print — who adopts or "gets" Weblogging instead of fearing and insulting it. And many conservatives like to see themselves as more learned or intellectual than crude right-wing shouters such as Rush Limbaugh. Those two tastes seem have joined in a fad for Oxford and Harvard (JFK School of Government) grad and former The New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan, links to whom I see sprouting like calla lilies.
Sullivan is an eloquent writer; like Tina Brown, he carries an aura of class and panache because he's British; and like Condoleezza Rice, he earns GOP tolerance-and-diversity tokens (he's gay). Trouble is, his Weblog admirers fail to admit that he's often sloppy, inaccurate, and factually wrong.
To his credit, Sullivan is more scrupulous than many right-wing ranters about linking to his sources (even when they prove he's misquoting), and more willing to post clarifications when he's shown to have put his foot in it — as he did, for example, when confessing he'd helped spread the Washington Times' myth that a Bill Clinton speech last November blamed slavery and America's treatment of Native Americans for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (Well, clarifications if rarely straightforward retractions; even while calling the story "appallingly slanted," Sullivan insisted, "It's clear that [Clinton] believes that America has been responsible for terrorism.")
But you needn't fully agree with (as much fun as it is to read) Eric Alterman's demolition of the "narcissistic egocentricity that makes Henry Kissinger look like St. Francis of Assisi" to find yourself swayed by Spinsanity's or The Daily Howler's scores of examples of Sullivan's simple lack of fact-checking — or, if you prefer the Howler's more direct assessment, "He likes to start off with some lying."
Did the New York Times' Frank Rich write, as Sullivan sputters, that the notion of liberal media bias (as argued by ex-CBS News staffer Bernard Goldberg in a book full of errors and demonstrable falsehoods) is ludicrous? Well, Rich actually wrote that Goldberg's "tale of self-martyrdom" over his CBS colleagues' reaction to his attack on them, not the whole concept of media bias, was ludicrous, but that's close enough for Sullivan.
What was the source of a damning revelation of liberal bias — mention of an obscure "conservative civil rights activist" clashing with the not-so-obscure Jesse Jackson, without identifying Jackson with the label "liberal" (no duh!) — that Sullivan cited as some kind of news wire service? Um, actually, a press release issued by the right-wing organization Judicial Watch.
Is a Paul Krugman column on the Bush administration's phony fiscal numbers debunked by Sullivan's stinging point, "But wait a minute. For this analogy to even begin to work, wouldn't the Congress, including many Democrats, have to have been complicit?" It might be, if Krugman hadn't written exactly that, calling Congress "an audit committee ... that failed to exercise due diligence."
Did Sullivan give a sound thrashing to a New York Times piece about critics of the administration's Middle East policy when he pointed out, "The Times cites one, [Democratic Sen.] Joseph Lieberman. So where's the rising tide of criticism?" He sure did, Spinsanity admits, as long as you overlook that the article also cited — in fact, quoted — Republican Sen. Arlen Specter.
Sullivan sees himself as a righteous avenger of truth, puncturer of lefty arguments, and destroyer of faulty liberal thinking. When CNN does what he considers a "puff piece" on left-winger Michael Moore, he sneers, "The prose is priceless: 'If some leaders had their way, Moore might be brought up on charges of treason for his critical remarks about the conservative agenda and the Bush administration,' CNN argues. Which leaders, exactly? ... Let's say there's a similar figure on the far right. How about Patrick Buchanan? Or even, say, Ann Coulter? Can you imagine in a million years a similar soft-lens approach being meted out to him or her?"
OK, Andrew. Denounce Coulter for beginning a column with, "Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." Oh, sorry, you're too busy (in Alterman's words) exposing "the pro-war Tom Daschle, the pro-war Hillary Clinton, the pro-war Janet Reno" and others as fifth-column "Anti-War Democrats," or (in your TNR colleague Jonathan Chait's words) continuing your "online obsession" with "distorting Krugman's views so wildly as to venture into pure fantasy."
9:23:32 AM 
|
|
