Shooting For 3 For 1... Is That Okay?

Annonymous Geek sends this.

Okay, I got it. At least 1/3 of you, if not 1/2, are sick to death of Greenwald.

Let me defend my coverage on this, though. There are only two or three people on this story, and I'm, well, not to be all immodest and stuff, but an emailer I know as "Acellson" says that I'm the lead blogger on it, despite the great coverage from Shawn and Patterico and Dan.

It's not the most important story in the world, I grant you. But Glenn Greenwald is taken very seriously by his cultish leftwing fanbase, so much so that pre-ordering on Amazon made his book a bestseller 24 hours after it was announced-- before it came out. And of course, in case you didn't know, Russ Feingold quotes him. Or reads him. Or something.

If I don't cover this, then it basically does not get covered. Or it gets covered a lot less. So, yes, I could do my normal thing and just post links to important or silly news with little jokes and occasionaly some analysis (most of it perfectly predictable), but that would mean that the story would be more or less abandoned. The entire universe of news would shrink by one story.

Now, if I don't cover the Israel/Lebanon War, it's not like there aren't a thousand other newsites, newsboards, and blogs that will cover it. (Actually, a lot of us seem to be avoiding it, because, while things are happening, in another way, nothing much is happening. "Nothing" in the sense that anything is ever going to change, whether this war actually happens or not, or whether the Israelis triumph or not. Little will change.)

If I don't cover that douche from UWM claiming Cheney arranged the 9/11 attacks, it's hardly as if you don't know about it. Everyone's writing about it. (Though I'm going to write about that next.)

But if I don't cover Greenwald, then pretty much that's the end of one story. One story goes away. One story, even one you're not interested in, is no longer much covered at all. (Yes, Dan and Shawn and others may continue the fight, but Patterico, for one, is laying off, figuring he's done enough damage and needs to move on.)

So yes, I could try for a complete moratorium on Greenwald. But that would be one less story being covered. Which isn't a big deal if you don't care about the story, but if you do, well, that's it. End of story. "Journalistic resources" reassigned to something else, the story gets spiked.

But I do know that I have been single-minded on this for the past three days.

So I will try: Three for one, or better. Three non-Greenwald stories for every one Greenwald thing. Again-- I may manage better; some days there will be no Greenwald stories, other days just one.

And obviously at some point there is no more digging that could possibly be done, and the story goes away completely. We may be pretty much there, though there are at least a few odds and ends to wrap up. (Being worked on in background... I'm, like, researching stuff when I'm not blogging.)

Of course, understand that the Greenwald thing is actual sluething and stuff. I hate to call it this, but it is "reportage," which means I'm on my emails talking with people trying to get things confirmed, and analyzing old posts, and following up and verifying tips, etc., so these take more of my time than just throwing up a bit about Clinton campaigning for Lieberman with some bare-bones commentary. So I don't know if I'll have time for long posts or comedy bits on days I'm actively on Greenwald.

But I will try to make this site less Sockpuppetocentric, and less Sockpuppetnormative. I will try to again do the pooter jokes and D&D references and name-checks of 1980's tv action shows which have gotten to me where I am today, right in the mediocre middle of an alternate media which is read by almost no one at all and gains one absolutely no respect or credibility.

Fair?

posted by Ace at 03:14 PM

| Access Comments