Another Noah Smackdown:


From RUTHALICE ANDERSON: Timothy Noah's criticism of the Journal and other papers who neglected to tar Robert Rubin with the Citigroup-Enron scandal demonstrates most of the faults of today's blogging -- a suitably ugly word for that ugly imitation of real journalism. The real journalists at the Journal, etc. noticed that Rubin didn't join the board until six month's after this chicanery was completed and therefore, correctly, assumed that he was not part of the prepay agreement. Noah, in the best of blogging tradition, clearly just cruised a few sites, obviously including the Andrew Sullivan site (a popular blog, but not because it's got a reputation for accuracy). Sullivan, as he usually does, rushed out commentary attacking the papers for not going after Rubin. He later changed his text, though he did not acknowledge his previous error. Noah, like altogether too many bloggers, merely rehashed Sullivan's point. I notice that Noah has not corrected his error or acknowledged his mistake.

That this terrible excuse for journalism got referred to you is just more of the same. Folks are reading the erroneous attacks on the Journal, etc. and not reading the original articles to see that the magpies Sullivan and Noah haven't a leg to stand on. That's what's wrong with blogging, it's not self-correcting; it's self-perpetuating.

While I disagree that "blogging" is intrinsically any more or less reliable than what passes for "real journalism," the ability to have your ass fact-checked and face the consequences is diminished when, like Sully, you edit your 4 hour old posts without comment.