View current page
...more recent posts
Wednesday, Feb 04, 2004
whoopsy. salon has a ridiculous article about anonymous blogging in which their idiot reporter who is parody impaired mischaracterizes a post from eschaton and then excises the questionable statement without giving notice. i guess salon wanted to exemplify shoddy reporting so as to prove accountability is a boon.
also, brad delong has an exchange with a washington post reporter that one would think is less than professional. but he can call him a fuck to his (virtual) face so its ok.
personally i dont understand what the problem is. didnt the effete french theorists manage to dissociate authorial intent and textual meaning? (some help here, please.) ones words are only credible if the author is opened up to personal scrutiny?
i suppose if you are maliciously attacking people its seems only fair that you should face up to the accused and that your motives are rendered transparent. but, if that fails to materialize, there is always libel. take them to court if theyre lying. remember how well it worked for richard perle and donald luskin? otherwise, credibility is in the eye of the beholder.