My Comments
I have to wonder if you've actually read Hertzberg with any regularity. In point of fact, he's as partisan as one can be, and not above hysterical invective, to borrow your construction, especially when the subjects are political adversaries and differing viewpoints. One could argue that it's his job to be a partisan bomb thrower. Again, however, the fact remains that he's disinclined to give the other side a fair hearing. In this regard, he's no different than Robert Scheer, Alexander Coxburn, and perhaps a score of other liberal commentators. This is the core of my gripe. I can get the same old rapid liberal line on the op-ed page of just about any metro daily in the U.S., and England for that matter. I read the New Yorker for substance and panache, both of which are sorely lacking in Hertzberg's efforts, which are, generally speaking, predictable rants. Coxburn, to name one, is a better writer. The same can easily be said of a dozen others. Obviously, Hertzberg's world view is of a piece with your own, which accounts for your showing here. That, of course, is your affair. But you're only kidding yourself if you believe yours is the common-sense view. In closing I would add that we're all concerned about the state of the world, which is why we're contesting the way it's portrayed in the media.
Priceless! Wild Fish labels me a fascist, and in the next breath decries my supposed personal attacks on Hertzberg. Dear Fishy, THAT's what we call irony. Honestly, is there anything more amusing than a European leftist besotted with delusions of intellectual superiority?
What a laughably predictable pile of bunk. Hertzberg is nothing more than another little angry man of the left. An intellectual pygmy, he can be counted on to turn out blustery partisan screeds that are equal parts distortion and standard issue New Left cant, but little else. In short, he's the epitome of a myopic, knee-jerk liberal. Hertzberg's idiotic commentary is the principal reason I let my New Yorker subscription lapse. Running a close second: Remnick's brilliant decision to give crackpot yellow journalist Seymour Hersh a soapbox to spew nonsense. Great work, Davey!
|
|
When It Comes to Portraying the President, Hollywood Has a Mean Streak
Has the Family Guy backlash begun?
Linda Greenhouse, legendary New York Times reporter looks back on three decades chronicling the Supreme Court—including her run-ins with the journalism ethics police
Radar's guide to discussing Mad Men properly
Can you tell the difference between real upcoming movies and Radar's fakes?


|
|
 |
I have to wonder if you've actually read Hertzberg with any regularity. In point of fact, he's as partisan as one can be, and not above hysterical invective, to borrow your construction, especially when the subjects are political adversaries and differing viewpoints. One could argue that it's his job to be a partisan bomb thrower. Again, however, the fact remains that he's disinclined to give the other side a fair hearing. In this regard, he's no different than Robert Scheer, Alexander Coxburn, and perhaps a score of other liberal commentators. This is the core of my gripe. I can get the same old rapid liberal line on the op-ed page of just about any metro daily in the U.S., and England for that matter. I read the New Yorker for substance and panache, both of which are sorely lacking in Hertzberg's efforts, which are, generally speaking, predictable rants. Coxburn, to name one, is a better writer. The same can easily be said of a dozen others. Obviously, Hertzberg's world view is of a piece with your own, which accounts for your showing here. That, of course, is your affair. But you're only kidding yourself if you believe yours is the common-sense view. In closing I would add that we're all concerned about the state of the world, which is why we're contesting the way it's portrayed in the media.