Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Belated Blogging, Part II


The angle you were looking for is the part where it refers to "Michelle Malkin" as a "journalist" instead of a "clown".

Posted by supergp | April 11, 2008 5:44 PM

I'll tell you what's on MSNBC...a substantial endowment!!!

Posted by Christopher Frizzelle's Substantial Endowment | April 11, 2008 5:58 PM

The only reason to highlight the race or gender of someone in an article like that is because in print most white males would simply assume it was a white male unless the name were distinctive.

It has become customary when citing law review articles to write the entire name of the author instead of just the first name simply because people were assuming that all the authors were male.

Posted by vooodooo84 | April 11, 2008 6:13 PM

Great idea! From now on, all Slog posters have to identify their ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender on every post. Otherwise, how else would we know whether to take them seriously or not.

Posted by White Straight Male | April 11, 2008 6:29 PM

@4: and they have to confess they have...a substantial endowment!!!

Posted by Christopher Frizzelle's Substantial Endowment | April 11, 2008 6:31 PM

@1 - I think you meant "combat-avoiding unpatriotic Traitor who wants America to be in debt for one hundred years due to her own personal Greed and hatred of our shared American values of Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life".

Otherwise, spot on.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 11, 2008 8:20 PM

call off the PC police.

This season MSNBC is clearly making a special effort to not have only male white guys and is bringing on chicks and blacks, too. Even black chicks.

What we're too cool to give them a tiny ounce of credit, they are lame whatever they do, now they're trying tooooo hard.....ohmygod someone is writing about it.....ohmygood they labelled people!!!! call the PC police!! How can we be superior if a dumb channel like MSNBC is taking some small steps towards doing something...kinda good??

got it. it would be far, far better if they reverted to having 90% only white males.

Posted by unPC | April 11, 2008 9:54 PM

I prefer my salad pundit free because otherwise it gives me gas.

Posted by PopTart | April 11, 2008 10:18 PM

PC has nothing to do with this. Somebody sounds a tad paranoid. Is it really progress, if you constantly have to point out out someone's skin color or ethnicity? Don' think so.

Posted by KeeKee | April 11, 2008 10:37 PM

9, yes. it's a necessary step along the way. it will look silly and dated in twenty years, just like "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." but it actually is progress. always lots of quibbling on slog of this nature i've noticed.

Posted by ellarosa | April 12, 2008 12:04 PM

This is a pretty typical journalistic convention, that if it is an article about race in society or some aspect of such, they highlight the race of the speakers. I see it all the time. It isn't just done for no reason, just if relevant to the content of the story. Since it is an article about diversity in punditry, it is clearly relevant.

As a journalist, how does that not make sense to you?

Posted by Blacksheep | April 12, 2008 10:33 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).