In the ESPN film about Bobby Knight, there was one scene where Knight just lit into one of his players in a way that only Bobby Knight could do. The player was dejected and then a teammate came over. He said, "don't worry about it, you only have to worry when he ignores you".
Yesterday, I wrote about some shoddy, in my opinion, reporting by Michelle Malkin regarding ACORN. Malkin didn't respond. That would have been interesting. Instead, Michael Gaynor responded. Gaynor was quoted by Malkin in the piece I criticized. In that piece, I had no problem specifically with Gaynor. Rather, my problem was that Malkin quoted Gaynor and didn't identify who he is. It's improper to quote someone without identifying who he is because the audience must know what credibility the person quoted has. Gaynor's quote in Malkin's article is very explosive and it attacks another person viciously, so it's vital to identify who he is.
I don't want to get into a blogging food fight, so the audience can simply read Gaynor's piece and decide for themselves. All I will say is this. I have no problem with either Gaynor or Anita Moncrief. I have done things much worse than steal. If you dug into my past, all sorts of skeletons would come up. I don't even have a problem with Malkin, but I did have a problem with her reporting in this story and others.
I will point out that when you quote someone you must identify them in whole each and every time. Gaynor says that Michelle Malkin talks about Moncrief's theft in her book, Culture of Corruption. That maybe so but not everyone has read that book. Not everyone reads Malkin regularly. A lot of people that read that piece I criticized had never read Malkin before. They don't know who Anita Moncrief is. It's entirely improper to identify her as a whistle blower and not identify her theft. That must be done each and every time because you don't know how much your audience knows. Unless you put each and every person into proper context in all your articles you do your audience a disservice. Malkin can't call Anita Moncrief a whistle blower, which she does each and every time, without mentioning that she stole. The audience must be told both.
Also, I didn't insinuate anything. I stated facts. Michael Gaynor does write for a site I've never heard of. I am not the authority on all things internet but I haven't heard of the site. He says he's an attorney and that's what I reported. My problem isn't with Gaynor but that Malkin didn't identify who he is when she quoted him. Beyond that, the piece is very long and so if you plan on reading it, make sure you have time. There's plenty more criticism of me in there.
Michael Gaynor is attacking Bill O'Reilly, my favorite broadcaster, today and so I believe I'm in good company.
Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"