Following referrals backwards from CC HQ, we find -- oh frabjous day! -- a blog devoted solely to slapping around Michelle "Crazy Assed Bitch" Malkin. And, without reading any further than the opening paragraphs of this post, poor Michelle is apparently not happy about being held accountable for her irresponsible, pulled straight out of her ass, fear-mongering:
Last week, I received a media inquiry from Wall Street Journal media reporter Joe Hagan. He wanted to talk about blogs and the University of Oklahoma bomber story. Although I was dismayed to learn the only coverage of the incident from the august WSJ would be a story about the coverage, rather than an original investigative report, I thought it would be better than nothing.
I was wrong: Nothing would have been better.
And why would the WSJ want to write about only the coverage of that incident and not the incident ltself? Perhaps because it wasn't the incident itself that was so newsworthy, but the way the right-wing wankerhood blew it all so grotesquely out of proportion. And now poor Michelle is a bit bent that they're being called on it.
Poor baby. It's such a heavy burden, having to write sensationalist rubbish every day. And then to have someone actually call you on it every so often? That's just downright outrageous, isn't it?
IRONY IS OFFICIALLY DEAD: Follow the link to Michelle's whining to read her opening sentence:
File this under "How the MSM ignores facts, smears blogs, and publishes snit fits disguised as responsible journalism.
I think I just wet myself.
FUNNIER AND FUNNIER: I love the way the right-wing wankersphere gets in up to their elbows into salacious and sensationalistic rumour-mongering, then denies accountability by saying, "Hey, we never said X happened, we were just, like, asking the question, ya know?"
Witness Michelle pointing over to Little Green Dumbfucks, where serious dumbfuck Charles Johnson writes:
Here’s the LGF post cited by the Journal: Jihad at the University of Oklahoma? The question mark is, of course, intended to signify that the story is questionable.
Ah, so it's the question mark that makes the most outrageous rumour mongering and speculation acceptable. Which means I can, in good conscience, ask, Does Charles Johnson molest Catholic altar boys? I'm not saying he does, I'm just, you know, asking.
Or, perhaps, does Michelle Malkin occasionally like some serious horse cock? I mean, when dating within her species just won't satisfy her cravings, does she need a trip out to the farm to get herself a little something something from Secretariat and the boys?
I'm not saying it's true, of course. I have no evidence whatsoever for this but, hey, I'm just asking. That's all right, isn't it?