UPDATED: National Review proves my point about "conservative journalism"
February 09, 2010 11:33 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Uh-oh, turns out Greg Pollowitz, the media blogger at National Review Online who criticizes the 'liberal' news media for a living, does not appreciate the fact that I've been highlighting his reckless and erroneous claim from last week that the Secret Service was involved in a "hit-and-run" when one of its agents allegedly hit a conservative blogger as he crossed a street in Washington, D.C..
In truth, the Secret Service was not involved in the incident, and there was no hit-and-run. But other than that, Pollowitz's blog post was dead-on.
I highlighted his blunder as a way to show that "conservative journalists" don't really play by the same rules as actual journalists. They rarely take responsibility for their factual errors, and often gravitate toward anti-government conspiracy theories. And yes, Pollowitz has helped proven my case.
Because here was Pollowitz's Monday response [emphasis added]:
Memo to Eric Boehlert: There will be no correction as there is nothing to correct. Rather than continuing your ridiculous commentary on my blogging about Jim Treacher's car accident, simply scroll down to see everything I've written on the matter.
Honestly. George Soros needs to ask for his money back if this is considered a top issue for Media Matters to cover.
Let me re-print what Pollowitz, without independently confirming a single fact or citing any news source, first wrote about the incident [emphasis added]:
Jim Treacher, a very funny blogger for Tucker Carlson's new Daily Caller website, was involved in a hit-and-run car accident yesterday -- involving the Secret Service.
Pollowitz now claims there is nothing to correct even though (I'll type this part slowly for him) the Secret Service was not involved in the accident and there was no "hit-and-run." But hey, at least Pollowitz got the name of Treacher's employer correct. (BTW, not even the Daily Caller claims that the Secret Service was involved in a Treacher "hit-and-run.")
Of course, Pollowitz's continued refusal to correct his plainly erroneous post only highlights my original point about "conservative journalism," and specifically the state of today's National Review. So for that, I thank him, although I doubt that members of the Secret Service, who are charged with protecting the President of the United States and who Pollowitz casually slandered when it fit his partisan interest, feel the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on, as always, Mr. Boehlert!
And then Pollowitz carefully avoids mentioning the points of dispute (i.e., what he got wrong). Then he drags in the canard about George Soros (yawn), and pulls out another logical fallacy by claiming that the item was "considered a top issue" by MMFA.
Pollowitz falls victim to the O'Keefe syndrome--doing something inexcusably stupid, then making himself look even more foolish by trying to defend what he did.
Hey Pollowitz, since I know you'll read this, how about explaining the Soros point? Even if he did fund Media Matters, what would the point be? Is there some constitutional amendment banning George Soros from contributing to certain organizations? The right's point about this seems to be (insert horror-movie violin music here): "George Soros funding bad. Point over."
Several times in tweets.
And the next morning, so did Tucker Carlson.
Tweets count.
Treacher later CLARIFIED that he didn't know who hit him - that he was simply repeated what others had told him. But that doesn't change the fact that he DID claim that he was hit by the Secret Service, and he passed on that misinformation to Tucker Carlson.
Of course they don't have any trouble admitting to any mistakes.
What you forget is that they DON'T MAKE MISTAKES!!!!
Just ask 'em, they will tell you.
Oh, he did none of these things, he drove off from the accident without leaving any contact information... which makes it... perfectly ok.
I'll remember in the future I can drive away from any accident I choose without staying for the police or leaving or exchanging any information; and it is NOT a hit and run... because mediamatters.org says so.
Is that going to be persuasive with the police, or should I look for a different reason for leaving the scene of an accident without exchanging information or waiting for the police?
It wasn't a hit-and-run. He stopped, called the people the pedestrian asked him to call, and stuck around until he was allowed to leave after giving his info to the proper authorities.
Why are you lying?
IF the guy had driven away without providing that info, you'd be right - it would be a hit-and-run. And it wouldn't be a good idea for YOU to do that.