It’s Geraldo Rivera Versus Michelle Malkin
September 2nd, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Michelle Malkin has an item that is sure to be talked about on rage-loving talk radio shows and on many weblogs today (after all it is a “slow” holiday weekend and weblogs increasingly resemble a form of printed talk radio).
It’s now verbal war between Geraldo Rivera and Malkin — and Geraldo is spitting mad.
Literally.
She cites this quotes from this Boston Globe article:
Rivera, who as a fledgling lawyer in the ’70s counseled the Puerto Rican nationalist group the Young Lords, says he can’t stomach the politicians and pundits who are stoking “anti-immigrant hysteria,†and his antipathy extends to some of his colleagues at Fox.
“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life,†he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people.
“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,†Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.â€
Visit Malkin to see her reaction and you could (correctly) guess that conservative blogs are not happy.
Michelle Malkin is highly controversial, but there truly is a larger issue in Rivera’s comments, particularly since he is supposed to be a kind of journalist/columnist. They offer yet more proof that we’re living in the Lash Out Era of American politics. Yours truly is admittedly oh, so 19th and 20 th century, but our humble opinion is that Rivera would have been far more effective if he specified:
–What are the specific things Malkin said that anger him?
–Why does he feel she’s wrong on each of them? if he feels these are “dangerous” ideas, specifically why?
–What does he feel the correct response should be to the problems she is upset about?
–How have people handled it better in the past, why as that worked or not worked and how is there a way to make it work if it didn’t work?
–Specifically how does he differ in how he looks at and addresses the problem from Malkin, and why does he feel his way is better and/or more moral than hers?
–One or two of the specific statements she made so he could then point out specifically what he believes was alarming about them.
But this IS 2007 so name calling (”vile”) alone will be considered by some to be a major, laudable political statement. And then add that you’d even SPIT on someone whose views you hate. So what comes next (NO: we won’t use THAT word on this site) as people lower the bar and use a “narrow stance” to define the way we debate issues.
Hot talk is what gets radio ratings and TV ratings. Welcome to the Hot Talk Political nation.
Will John Edwards soon say he wants to spit on Hillary?
Will Fred Thompson soon call Rudy Giuliani a pooh-pooh head?
You heard it here first…
P.S.: Geraldo Rivera keeps evolving as a journalist/commentator but not in a positive way. When I was at the Medill School of Journalism, he was a young, up and coming investigative reporter. He eventually became a network advocacy journalism role model. He then moved closer to tabloid journalism, left the network and did specials. His sensational daytime talk show was the ancestor of the Jerry Springer Show. He started out at Fox News as an enterprising “star” journalist columnist but became controversial and increasingly eclipsed by others.
Saying you want to spit on someone doesn’t gain new listeners, viewers, win an argument or showcase journalistic credentials.
It just shows you forgot the importance of counter arguments and counter facts — and don’t have dry mouth.
MOST UNUSUAL COMMENT ON THIS FEUD comes from John Cole:
In the current deathmatch between Michelle Malkin and Geraldo Rivera, I can’t figure out who to support.
I think I will root for injuries.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 am and is filed under Media, Fox News, Journalism, Internet News Media, Cable Talk Shows, Entertainment, Immigration, Blogging. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
