Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) Soils Self, Conservative Bloggers Everywhere With Intentional Misrepresentation of Credentials of Blogger Garrett Graff

By ADVOCATE STAFF

1, 2, 3, 4, we declare a blog war.

We did it once, now we're doing it again.

Not because we enjoy it, but because, at base, we at The Advocate have more integrity than the big-time bloggers at Power Line and InstaPundit, we're smarter than they are, and, as history and present circumstance have shown, we, unlike they, routinely get it right.

Can anyone explain why more than 100,000 Americans visit InstaPundit.com every day?

To be gleefully and unapologetically misinformed by a right-wing hack with only a casual acquaintance with the truth?

Surely that's the reason millions listen to Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity every day. But can it truly be the case that so many American conservatives are afraid of being leveled with by their political icons that they demand no accountability from these favored pundits? Is it that they fear a real, substantive debate on the issues (which they would undoubtedly lose) or is it simply that they get a rank, unnatural, and unsavory enjoyment from wallowing in their own ignorance? Or are they simply the zeroes of the world, with not a whiff of genuine intellectual curiosity beyond the contents of their own nose-clogs?

Witness this intentional misrepresentation on the part of Glenn Reynolds ("InstaPundit"), who, in calling Garrett M. Graff of Media Bistro "another Jeff Gannon," describes Graff's biography as follows (see here for Reynolds' assertion that this is "the bio" for Graff):

Garrett Graff is vice president of communications at EchoDitto, Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based technology consulting firm. A Vermont native, he served formerly as deputy national press secretary on Howard Dean's presidential campaign and, beginning in 1997, was then-Governor Dean's first webmaster.

Now read The Advocate's biography, taken from The New York Times, Editor & Publisher, and The Raw Story:

A 2002 graduate of Harvard University, where he was Executive Editor of The Harvard Crimson. Previously cleared by the Secret Service for access to the West Wing of the White House as well as the Oval Office itself. Father was a Correspondent for The Associated Press, mother wrote for The New York Herald-Tribune. Former intern for ABC News and The Atlantic Monthly. Worked on the presidential campaign of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Now a blogger who meets all three of the criteria for admission to the White House press room, as articulated by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. To wit, his blog publishes regularly, is independent and non-partisan, and is supported by subscribers and/or advertising.

See the problem? If someone lied to you like this at work, how angry would you be? Would you trust them again? Why should InstaPundit's voluminous readership be any less pissed at Reynolds' sloppy "journalism" than they are at people they do know who lie to them on matters of importance? Why give greater leeway to a total stranger than you would to a friend or a workplace colleague or an acquaintance?

Reynolds and the rest of the conservative blogging cabal have also argued that there is no distinction between Helen Thomas (Chief Washington Correspondent for UPI for more than four decades) and Jeff Gannon. As a reminder, here's Gannon's bona fides:

Gay hooker. Uses Alias. Denied credentials by U.S. Senate and U.S. House. Had worked for a G.O.P. activist site for six days at the time of his application for a White House press pass. Received his journalism "degree" during a two-day "course" which set him back $50. Has a website on which he talks about guns. Fondly. Does not claim to be unbiased or non-partisan. Had never done any professional writing at the time of his application for a White House press pass.

This is why The Nashua Advocate has laid the so-called Death of Distinction squarely at the feet of neo-conservatives like Reynolds.

So, is it because American conservatives have been so routinely lied to and betrayed by their chosen champion, President Bush, that, like long-time sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome, they cannot help but cling doggedly to their abusers?

But back to the question at hand: is InstaPundit puerile, an imbecile, lazy, or merely an asswipe?

Anyone?

[UPDATE: Reynolds has responded to The Advocate on his blog, terming the article you’ve just read an "explosion of bile." In fact, Reynolds' retort does less to prove the bias or surfeit of passion of Advocate staff, and more to explain, once and for all, why most conservative bloggers disallow comments on their blog entries. Consider, if you will, the Reynolds apologia, which begins with a self-justifying technique common to the schoolyards of America ("I was only kidding"), and contains not one, not two, but five misrepresentations of The Nashua Advocate article you just read (in one paragraph of InstaPundit text, no less). Don't believe us? Just re-read the article above.

First, we didn’t accuse Reynolds of "faking" the Graff bio.

We accused him of misrepresenting it via omissions, which he did. Willfully, as he had access to both Graff's Media Bistro profile as well as the Monday morning story in The New York Times which laid out Graff's bona fides in detail.

Which brings us to misrepresentation number two, Reynolds' assertion that Graff's own bio "emphasizes his political and PR skills." It doesn't, which is precisely why Reynolds selectively quoted it. Indeed, the full biography for Mr. Graff, both in itself and as supplemented by several news stories no more accessible to The Advocate than "InstaPundit.com," lays out the man's professional credentials in stark yet comprehensive detail. For example, from Media Bistro: "In college, [Graff] was a news writer and executive editor at the Harvard Crimson, Harvard University's daily newspaper, where he wrote more news articles than any other writer in half a century, and held internships at the ABC News Political Unit and at The Atlantic Monthly. He is also a frequent speaker on blogging and the intersection of politics and technology." The Advocate has added to this bio widely-available information from Editor & Publisher and The New York Times (we assume Mr. Reynolds does read other material besides his own from time to time).

Third, we didn't accuse Reynolds of calling Graff a "male prostitute," as he so ungenerously implies we did (which plays nicely into his fifth misrepresentation, below).

Fourth, he says he doesn't consider Graff a "dittohead," but his original blog entry stated unambiguously, even exuberantly, "[Graff's] even a 'dittohead'!" While the term "Dittohead" (capital "D") commonly refers to a brain-jacked devotee of Rush Limbaugh, in this instance Reynolds was manifestly implying that Graff was some sort of Howard Dean "dittohead," having formerly worked for the 2004 Dean presidential campaign. Yet now it seems that using the dual-use term "dittohead" has allowed Reynolds to steal a page from the Clinton playbook--(see "plausible deniability")--and return to his gratingly disingenuous claim that calling Garrett M. Graff "another Jeff Gannon" was all in good fun.

Fifth, there is absolutely nothing in The Advocate article above which proves, or posits, or suggests, or implies, or even vaguely alludes to the notion that, as Reynolds would have it, "the gay angle really was the big angle on Gannon [for the Left]."

No, Glenn, those are your Talking Points talking. Can't you tell the difference anymore?

Here at The Advocate we talk with our tongues, so please (speaking of conservative misrepresentations) read our lips on this one: the "gay hooker angle" made up two words out of our eighty-three-word biography of Gannon.

Again: 2 of 83.

Really makes it look like our "big angle," doesn't it?

Good Lord, are these guys debating with both brain cells tied behind their back or what? We demand a fair fight!].