Linda to Andrew: "So why did I not make the cut? Is writing for the times and the Post not good enough for TPM?"But look at how Hirshman was introduced to the TPM crowd on October 7, 2008:
Andrew: "It's not a matter of prestigious clippings, Linda. We're trying to both keep long-standing contributers [sic] around and flesh out the discussion by involving people who are covering things we're not yet addressing."
Linda: "And do you have a lot of contributors covering the female voters, who are likely to determine the outcome of the election of the President of the United States? I am assuming it's not that you don't want anyone who's not already in the tank for Obama. I am serious, here, Andrew. I think this is a real mistake; I have a point of view you don't have much of, I am getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine, and this is the moment you should capitalize on your relationship with me, not drop me."
Andrew: "I'm not sure the accusation of bias is particularly helpful. For now, like I said, we're focusing on getting our long-standing regulars and folks covering things we don't on the blog. I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things, we disagree." [emphasis mine]
Linda Hirshman joins the TPMCafe Coffee House, and kicks things off with the first of a three part series on liberal principles.A three part series. I don't get what the actual arrangement between Hirshman and TPM was, but she's exposing herself to some serious criticism if she's misstating the situation. And the email does speak for itself — albeit in the voice of someone who is not saying everything he thinks.
Let's see if Golis responds to her invitation to slam her on line. Pretty nervy of her to ask for it like this. But you can be nervy when you're getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine.
***
CORRECTION: I'm wrong about the date format. Sorry. I got confused by a combination of the incorrect date on their top post and my assumption that a post from October was really from March.
ADDED: I'm almost glad you got the chance to see the fury I would unleash against any American who would adopt the European-style date format. Not really. I'm terribly sorry. Mainly for the clutter. Whence this blog ethics that keeps me from deleting the error? It's a strange and powerful blog ethics that binds me.
AND: It's TNR that drives me crazy with the European date format, not TPM. See, for example, here.
पोस्ट्स
१० टिप्पण्या:
Let's see if Golis responds to her invitation to slam her on line. Pretty nervy of her to ask for it like this. But you can be nervy when you're getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine.
Substitute "blogosphere" for "university" in the following:
"University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."
-- Henry Kissinger
Sounds like a case of crying over spilled milk. If she thinks she is so popular or worse, she actually has something to say that people want to read she could always start her own blog.
I guess when you are getting prestigious offers, simple things do not occur to you.
"a three part series on liberal principles"
That's hilarious, given that there are no principles remaining under that modern misapplied label - unless, of course, you believe the Communist Manifesto is a statement of principle.
At TPM's home page, staff bios...
The Young, the Silly, & the Green.
Deputy Editor Paul Kiel is "a regular contributor to The L Magazine he also worked for Harper's Magazine, where he cut his teeth as an intern fact-checking the Index and chasing down items for the Readings section. He's also written for other publications, such as In These Times and The Washington Monthly."
("L" a biweekly events listings publication covering downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn. Its website is not working this morning.)
Managing Editor David Kurtz" is "an attorney and former alternative newspaper editor and reporter." The name of the newspaper is not given, nor does it say whether he practices law.
Associate Editor Rachel Weiner A former intern, "she was once featured on Fox local news, discussing Popeye's Chicken."
Associate Editor Ben Craw A 2006 intern, he "wrote the Midterm Roundup for a nascent Election Central during the lead-up to the '06 elections... attended NYU, interned for a season at Saturday Night Live, worked somewhat bemusedly on the trading floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange, and for a very brief period of time was paid to watch TV (not as cush as it sounds)."
I should have known she was faking it when she said she was discriminated against as an Obama supporter.
Any real liberal would have claimed to be discriminated against as a woman. There's a standard script to follow: blame the "boys club" at TPM, demand more output from vaginal sources, etc.
What is the rational for "women voters are going to determine the outcome of the election"? Is it just me, or does anyone else find these types of idiotic remarks demeaning to men and women?
Rush Limbaugh loves to say that white men determine the outcome of elections.
"first of a three part series on liberal principles."
Do they seriously think it takes three parts to lay out liberal principals. Man, who are these people kidding?
Ok, there's "tax" and there's "regulate", but I give up -- what's the third liberal principle?
Ok, there's "tax" and there's "regulate", but I give up -- what's the third liberal principle?
everybody forgets "holding hands and singing kum ba ya"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा