Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
Jun 6, 2002 | [Read the story]
I enjoyed Jennifer Liberto's column about Media Whores Online, but she indulges herself a bit too much in the cloak-and-dagger suggestion that MWO is all anonymous. I contacted the editor and wrote a column for them -- a theater review of a D.C.-area production of "Much Ado About Nothing," which featured pundit Andrew Sullivan moonlighting as an actor. The article, as well as a letter to the editor, appeared above my own signature.
I have to add, however, that my review of Sullivan's performance (my assessment was generally positive) was altered by MWO. The editor changed the wording of a general observation into an ad hominem attack on Mr. Sullivan, one that made me wince when I read it.
-- Ken Schellenberg
The author of this "exposé" has misunderstood the premise of Media Whores Online, as well as acted as if the site is some anomaly. First of all, MWO acts under the following premise: The media's overarching culture is conservative, and there is a pattern of passing on conservative narratives in its editorials and reporting. The media tends to dwell on every pro-conservative story or investigation (can it be the author does not realize how utterly outraged a significant percentage of the country is over our last elected president being impeached for lying about an affair???) and allow to wither on the vine scandals against conservatives.
Second, since when is the Web supposed to hew to the standards or methods of print media? It's the Internet, stupid. Anonymity and over-the-top ranting is the *norm* in the world of the Net; to have one's monocle pop out over the anonymity and ranting of MWO is either a display of ignorance about the kind of stuff that happens on the Web, or is a cheap attempt at trying to slur the site.
MWO vicious? Yes. But I think those who love the site think they are merely giving as good as the Scaife-funded anti-Clinton forces gave during the Clinton years. To not point this cool, and rather simple, premise out, is to risk earning the title, yes, you guessed it, "media whore."
Tell the author to put her monocle back on, and calm down. It's the freakin' Web, get used to it.
-- Paul J. Canis
Funny, but the article replicates some of the very features that MWO has documented as trivializing the profession of reporting. The author attempts to focus on the "personality" behind the site rather than on the site's substance. This chosen focus permits the descent into psychologizing the motives of the site ("rabid"!) and also aids in dismissing the perspectives of its readers (on the basis of one or two excerpted e-mails received by CNN's Aaron Brown -- although not directly from MWO).
Personalize, psychologize, marginalize, trivialize -- sounds like a primer for political reporting in the '90s. Please do this premium subscriber a favor: In the future when running an article like this, be sure to correctly categorize it as "People" (gossip), not "Politics."
-- Tom Murphy
My favorite part of the article is when Tucker Carlson says he's sure he knows the founder of MWO. It's indicative of Carlson's smugness that he can't imagine someone outside the Beltway, using the rich resources of the Net, to know as much as he knows. Deep down, you know Carlson's threatened by the idea that, if MWO were run by someone outside D.C., it would mean that -- gasp! -- ANYONE could be a pundit!
-- Brian Nelson
Yes, Media Whores Online can be over the top, but I find it an invaluable link to articles (including many in Salon) that would never make it into mainstream corporate media. To me, what the anonymous editors of MWO have to say is much less important than the links they provide.
-- Paul Lomeo
So it looks like people on the right are feeling threatened by a little bit of grass-roots liberalism. Otherwise I see no other reason for the hostile tone of this article not to mention the mischaracterization of MWO readers as somehow strange or misguided. I actually found out about the site through Salon, of which I have been a loyal reader of for some time. It's very curious that there is no writing example or opinion quote from MWO, which are always articulate and persuasive (compared to the angry, racist and homophobic name-calling of right-wing sites). I also find it disquieting that you devote a few paragraphs to discussing the possibility of taking the site to court and/or shutting it down -- chilling!! Stalin would be proud.
-- Mike Blaxill
Are you going to investigate the "fair and balanced" Fox News next? Or Rush's continual lies? Please!
-- Nancy Yanney
